Image 01 Image 03

Hillary refuses to answer if will drop out if indicted

Hillary refuses to answer if will drop out if indicted

“That is not going to happen”

So this actually happened at the Democratic Debate tonight.

Pretty gutsy to ask the question.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Famous Last Words.

inspectorudy | March 9, 2016 at 10:50 pm

I watched some of the debate but got sick to my stomach and had to switch to another fiction show. It was obvious hillary had the questions before hand and didn’t even pause before she began her answer non answer. I believe it was a setting for her to get asked the tough questions and to give her a friendly venue to give her canned answers in. She lied so frequently that it was hard to keep up. And then she called the four families of the Benghazi victims liars! If this freak wins we are doomed.

    Exiliado in reply to inspectorudy. | March 10, 2016 at 8:21 am

    And that’s why on Election Day we cannot stay home, even if the Republican candidate is not the one we like.

    I do not like Donald Trump, but the trend indicates that he will likely be the Republican candidate. I will vote for him if that’s the case.
    We cannot afford Hillary Clinton.
    We cannot afford Bernie Sanders.
    We cannot afford to stay home on Election Day.

      Skookum in reply to Exiliado. | March 10, 2016 at 2:14 pm

      “And that’s why on Election Day we cannot stay home, even if the Republican candidate is not the one we like.”

      What if the Obamacons get their way and the Republicans put up an ineligible candidate?

It’s not going to happen? Fine. If the law doesn’t apply at the top, it doesn’t apply at the bottom either.

So when will the reporter “commit suicide”.

It’d be nice if those were her last words and she went silent forever.

Was that Romney in the front row, wearing his “I’m for Hillary” t-shirt?

JimMtnViewCaUSA | March 9, 2016 at 11:34 pm

In my dreams….
Reporter: Will you drop out if indicted?
Hillary: That won’t happen.
Reporter: What!?! The Obama Admin notified you they plan to let you slide? AG Lynch called you personally?

Given her trust and integrity numbers, she has no good choices in answering this question. Her current tactic of dismissal is the best of her worst options, and it does nothing to improve her trust numbers.

A guess is that she’s getting advice from David Kendall, because at this stage, complete dismissal is also legally sound strategy. While she’s not under oath during a debate, she also may not know precisely what deletions the FBI has recovered, and thus, doesn’t want to be publicly denying details that might subsequently haunt her defense.

Her answer isn’t politics, it’s legal advice from counsel.

    JPL17 in reply to Boogs. | March 10, 2016 at 7:36 am

    Yes, but the Feds nailed Martha Stewart for doing essentially the same thing — i.e., for issuing public statements proclaiming her confidence that she wouldn’t be indicted.

    Of course, Stewart’s statements were in the context of a publicly-traded corporation, which allowed the Feds to cook up a charge of fraudulent stock manipulation. But why couldn’t some creative U.S. Attorney ALSO cook up a charge that Hillary defrauded potential *campaign contributors*? If you supported Hillary (perish the thought), would YOU want to donate money to her campaign knowing that she was about to be indicted? Of course not. Though you MIGHT if Hillary kept reassuring the public, “Not gonna happen”.

    Wouldn’t it be great to watch the Feds hang Hillary on her own denials, like they did to poor Martha Stewart? Schadenfreudelicious!

      inspectorudy in reply to JPL17. | March 10, 2016 at 10:05 am

      You might not know it but there is an on going investigation of the clinton foundation and it’s workings. The FBI is looking into whether or not the “Contributions” were directly related to accessibility to the State dept by the contributors. That means that there at least two separate investigations going on now and maybe even more.

conservative tarheel | March 10, 2016 at 3:49 am

she will not be indicted … she has too much on
the Iwon ….

conservative tarheel | March 10, 2016 at 3:50 am

also the reporter better stay away from
Fort Marcy park ….

There seems to be a disconnect here.
First, ask yourself what possible answer could Hillary ever give to questions about her server and illegal behavior. She must continue to deny it, act as though it is nothing other than a witch hunt (with her being a witch…), and continue to not make a statement about her dropping out should she be indicted, because anything else she says dooms her campaign.
Now think about her relationship with the DOJ. Does anything Hillary has to say affect the DOJ decision? I think not even though she would love to influence their decision.
Ultimately, claiming that Hillary’s response in any way points to corruption in the DOJ using how Hillary’s statements as proof would be the same as saying that since global warming exists, toilet paper sales should increase. The two are not related. Granted, Obama has corrupted the DOJ like no president ever before, but people must remember that Hillary is not affecting the DOJ by her words. And for the record, I think she is as guilty as sin and would like to see her burn for those sins for the rest of her natural life – after that it is up to God.

Did anyone think she would say yes?

Follow-up questions that should have been asked:

‘Retroactive classification’? Well, how do you explain the contents of a previously classified message or document showing up verbatim on your personal server sans classification(s)?

‘Never sent or received email that was marked classified’? Please explain how word for word copies of classified material, normally kept on a separate network appear on your personal server without classifications?

‘My predecessors, and others in the Government have done this’? Sure, the Feds got GEN Petraeus so you’re pointing your finger at GEN Powell and Dr. Rice? How do their message contents compare with yours?

Do you actually believe the American Public is stupid enough to accept these specious un-answers?

    inspectorudy in reply to SeniorD. | March 10, 2016 at 10:12 am

    There were so many things that needed a follow up question but they never came. The federal security document that all top secret officials must read and sign directly mentions that the classification of any document is not based on any markings but on its content. hillary knows this as do all reporters but they let her get away with the lie about not being “Marked” when she sent or received them. She also repeats the lie that other SoS did the same thing. No they didn’t. Not one of the prior SoS used a private unsecured server. She also PERSONALLY went through her e-mails and “Decided” which ones were personal or public and then destroyed them. These e-mails were government property and it was not up to her to decide anything about their nature.

    userpen in reply to SeniorD. | March 10, 2016 at 1:51 pm

    ‘Never sent or received email that was marked classified’? Please explain how you were able to do your job as Secretary of State.

justicewarrior | March 10, 2016 at 10:18 am

Sorry, Hillary Clinton will not be indicted. She will be the 2016 Democratic Nominee for President of the United States.

She will meet Donald Trump on the battlefield and make sure Republican regulars stay home.

    forksdad in reply to justicewarrior. | March 10, 2016 at 10:31 am

    Now we were told we always had to vote for whomever the Rep nominee was whether he was a squishy rino or useless cuck.

    You would almost think that the GOPe was trying to throw the election and not just engaging in hissy fits and hyperbole. Of course, they might be serious about throwing the election. The GOPe doesn’t care about anyone but themselves and their evil buddies in the axis of stupid and evil.

      justicewarrior in reply to forksdad. | March 10, 2016 at 1:38 pm

      You can count on Karl Rove and Mitch McConnell to join team Hillary. Remember what Rove did to Christine O’Donnell?

I think the dem process has so many super delegates that they could throw another hat in the ring even really late. That said anyone who was a late entry would be in for an uphill struggle.

So, no indictment, no prosecution, the dems will not jeopardize this election for honesty or concern for the law. Never have, never will. They will not run Bernie. Even if he did get a majority of the popular vote they’d throw it to Hillary.

She’s too big to prosecute and knows too many details. She’ll never resign so she is 100% right in saying they won’t indict her.

The last member of congress that I can remember running for office while under indictment was Jim Traficant. But that was for the House; HC wants to be POTUS. Picture a defiant HC being dragged from the Oval office, leaving deep scratches in the floor as she clings to power with every ounce of strength she has. “I put up with a cheating husband and being cast aside for a junior senator. IT’S MY TURN! THIS IS MINE!”