Why Hillary Clinton Was Never Indicted

Published 9-27-16 by Paul Albaugh at the Patriot Post:

 

Because Obama was guilty of the same crimes.

h-and-o-in-prisonMove along, nothing to see here. That is what Hillary Clinton hoped would happen regarding her gross mishandling of classified information and her illegal use of a private email server. In July, FBI Director James Comey declared the FBI investigation complete and announced that there would be no charges. Let’s just move along with the election process, shall we?

As baffling as this fiasco is to most Americans, there didn’t appear to be any logical reason why the FBI didn’t recommend charges against Clinton. But on Friday, following 189 additional pages of reports from the FBI’s yearlong incursion into the scandal, the reason has been uncovered. And it should not bode well for the sitting U.S. president or for Clinton.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy reports that Clinton’s closest aide and confidante Huma Abedin was shown an email exchange between then-Secretary Clinton and a second person whose name she did not recognize. Abedin exclaimed, “How is this not marked classified?” Then the FBI agents did something that they should not do during an interview with an individual who is part of an investigation: They revealed the name of the pseudonymous person — the president of the United States, Barack Obama.

McCarthy reasons that this “obviously suggests that his recklessness may have been more widespread.” Further, he notes, “Still, the difference in scale is not a difference in kind. In terms of the federal laws that criminalize mishandling of classified information, Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton. It would not have been possible for the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton for her offense without its becoming painfully apparent that 1) Obama, too, had done everything necessary to commit a violation of federal law, and 2) the communications between Obama and Clinton were highly relevant evidence.”

But because the president of the United States was involved, there had to be a massive cover-up. Some might even call it the “Hillary Coverup Operation.” If Clinton were to have been charged for mishandling classified information then her defense lawyers surely would have pointed out that the president must be charged likewise. All they would have needed to look to was the case Nixon vs. the United States and they would have won the argument.

McCarthy notes that the FBI violated protocols by disclosing to Abedin the name of the person using the pseudonym. “The point of an FBI interview is for the interviewee to provide information to the investigators, not the other way around. If agents give information to potential witnesses, the government gets accused of trumping up the case.”

But, as McCarthy point out, this only becomes a problem if there is going to be a case. We now know why there never going to be a case. Because if there was, then there would have been public embarrassment and discredit brought upon Obama himself, as well as the Justice Department and the FBI. It might be a little late to be worried about that.

We now have a better understanding as to why back in April, Obama sought to influence the FBI “investigation” and the potential security threat that Clinton posed, all while insisting that’s not what he was doing: “I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI — not just in this case, but in any case.” He then had the audacity to lecture, “Nobody is above the law, how many times do I have to say it?”

And yet, he declared, “I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America’s national security. Now what I’ve also said is that — and she has acknowledged — that there’s a carelessness, in terms of managing emails, that she has owned, and she recognizes.”

There you have it. Her carelessness was not a threat to national security, so it’s no big deal. Except that Obama was involved in the same “carelessness.”

So with the latest revelations, we can conclude that we have a sitting president who not only broke the law, but also has once again jeopardized our national security. And we have a presidential candidate who also broke the law and jeopardized national security. If this information is not enough to derail her bid to succeed Obama then nothing else will be.

~~~~~~~~~

She should be serving 15-20 with no parole.

Sure, it’s baffling to some folks because they’ve never connected the dots. They continue to think Hillary can do no wrong and that O is the best thing to come along since sliced bread. You’ll hear them say things like ‘the Republicans are trying to cheat her out of the presidency’, or maybe they’ll use that old time-tested phrase and accuse us of racism because we think the first black president is a traitor to our country who thinks the rules & laws don’t apply to him, so he does what he damn well pleases.

A few decades ago, Richard Nixon was shamed out of office for much less, but now we have a president and an SOS who continually break the law and nobody lifts a finger.  To say that they couldn’t take Hillary down because it would take down our president is the very reason we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights.  Those laws are in effect for this very reason – to take down a lawless tyrannical government that is not following those laws and who are not serving their country with the loyalty and respect we deserve.

How can anyone, in particular foreign countries, have any respect for our laws when our government chooses to cover up the crimes committed by those in high offices, rather than use the system our founders put in place to remove them from those positions?

When do we as a nation, and the government of that nation, stop with the attitude of ‘cover it up and let’s just get through this the best we can’ and start to actually follow the laws we have in place? Probably about the same time hell freezes over.

~Kathy



Categories: Political

Tags: ,

4 replies

  1. An excellent and informative post, Kathy!

    Silly me – I never connected the president using a pseudonym in his email communications with Hillary with that linkage tying him inextricably to her – a honest-to-goodness partner in crime. So, if she goes down, so does he. It all makes sense now.

    The disturbing thing is, as CW says in her comment, the country is bleeding patriots, that is, more and more people don’t care about the country, all they care about is themselves. Their response to the exposure of Obama and Hillary’s partnership in all things evil is, “so what?” Unless that mindset changes, we are doomed.

    Like

    • Exactly, Garnet, and it’s that ‘so what’ attitude that’s so aggravating. The criminal element that’s consumed our government is all too easily acceptable to so many people. What’s going on in our government doesn’t matter to them so long as they don’t have to get involved or pay attention.

      Like

  2. Paul Albaugh said: “If this information is not enough to derail her bid to succeed Obama then nothing else will be.”

    IMO Mr. Albaugh’s conclusion demonstrates a failure to come to terms with the reality of our situation.

    The purpose of our government has been changed, and with it has changed what motivates the electorate. The Founders envisioned and sought to construct a government that’s purpose was to protect the fundamental rights of the people and to advance or safeguard our interests as a nation – and that’s all. Over the past century, however, the Left has succeeded in converting the government into a vehicle for theft and power. The way one votes when electing leaders to uphold the Founders’ vision is naturally quite different than the way one votes when electing leaders who will plunder and steal on your behalf. It’s all in how you see the role of the government, and you cannot possibly expect people with such divergent motivations to value the same qualities in political candidates. That is why so many voters are not interested in the crimes of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Either they’re rooting for plunder and power or they’re trained, as so many have been, to treat politics like a team sport. My team, right or wrong.

    You mentioned Richard Nixon, saying he “was shamed out of office for much less;” but this only proves my point. Both Nixon and Bill Clinton were charged with articles of impeachment. Nixon resigned probably because he knew that Republicans who respect the law would not be inclined to put aside their principles and have his back, and also because a president who loves his country might want to spare the nation the spectacle of the trial. In contrast to that a selfish liberal like Bill Clinton would always put his own interests first and would furthermore feel assured that Democrats lacked the principles that would have prevented them from honoring the evidence of his guilt. He was right.

    So in answer to your question about when Americans will start holding people like Clinton and Obama accountable to the law, that will happen only IF and when we restore the federal government to the limited powers envisioned by our Founding Fathers and not a moment before, because only then will voters be acting upon shared motivations.

    Like

    • Great answer, CW. The difference between Nixon’s crimes and those of the Clintons is that Nixon at least felt the shame & at that time we had a government who would pursue it. In Bill’s case, he wasn’t ashamed and the government didn’t push it. Hillary’s crimes are far worse and I don’t think she’s ever felt shame so long as the end result was achieved. The trail of dead bodies behind her goes back so many years that she long ago stopped feeling remorse, if she ever did. The government we have now won’t touch it, let alone push it. Instead they spend millions going through investigations and hearings that they know are phony and will produce nothing. It’s all just for show, although there are libs out there that buy into and really think she did nothing wrong.

      Government has morphed into such a huge blimp of uselessness, that those limited powers envisioned by our Founders are a thing of the past. I doubt we’d ever be able to reel them in enough to achieve that.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: