Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Hillary got swagger: Scoffs at FBI investigation, again

Hillary got swagger: Scoffs at FBI investigation, again

Pretty much taunting the FBI, at this point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AtuS2ugGLk

There have been multiple news reports over the past weeks about the intensity and seriousness of the FBI investigation into Hillary’s use of a private server.

The possibly unlawful mishandling of classified information is one issue. But it goes beyond that. Hillary set up a shadow electronic government exclusively under her control in what was an apparent conspiracy to evade not only the Freedom of Information Act but also various national security precautions.

If Hillary wasn’t a Clinton, and if she wasn’t the leading Democratic candidate, an indictment would be close to a certainty.

As I’ve argued many times, though, an indictment is not necessary to spell Hillary’s political death. An FBI criminal referral to the Department of Justice would be enough. Are Democrats really going to run a candidate as to whom the FBI has found sufficient evidence of criminal conduct so as to refer the matter for possible prosecution? Or alternatively, if DOJ refused to prosecute, would Democrats run a candidate with a deep stench of political protection?

Yet Hillary has been taunting the FBI at every opportunity with proclamations that she will not be indicted and isn’t worried about it.

On Face the Nation on March 7, 2016, Hillary rejected the suggestion that she might be indicted:

John Dickerson, host of CBS’s “Face the Nation,” told Clinton he has “talked to Democrats and they worry that somebody is going to get indicted.”

“Well, there is no basis for that,” Clinton responded.

Worse still, Clinton blamed the State Department for the classification problem, making light of the situation.

At the March 9, 2016, Democratic Debate, Hillary scoffed at the idea that she would be indicted:

Hillary reiterated the lack of concern on Meet the Press today, saying she’s “not at all worried about it”:

The FBI has not reached out to Hillary Clinton to schedule an interview over her private email server, the Democratic front-runner said in an interview Sunday.

“No. No, they haven’t,” Clinton told NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” when asked whether federal investigators had been in contact with her. “But you know, back in August, we made clear that I’m happy to answer any questions that anybody might have. And I stand by that.”

Pressed on whether the FBI probe could interfere with her path to the nomination, Clinton said she was not “concerned” about it.

“I don’t think anything inappropriate was done,” she said. “And so I have to let them decide how to resolve their security inquiry. But I’m not at all worried about it.”

What to make of Hillary’s swagger?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Henry Hawkins | April 3, 2016 at 9:34 pm

Not to defend her, God forbid, but what else can she say?

    legacyrepublican in reply to Henry Hawkins. | April 3, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    How about “I am not a crook.”

    Hmmm, come to think of it, that would make an interesting side by side video comparison. Nixon and Hillary.

      Would’t it be a weird irony that the Hildabeast is being haunted by the ghost of Richard Nixon? The man she tried to help impeach before she was fired from the Watergate Committee for criminal malfeacence. If she is arrested and convicted, ole Tricky Dick would lay peacefully in his grave.

    Estragon in reply to Henry Hawkins. | April 4, 2016 at 6:52 am

    Absolutely right, HH. At this point, any wavering in her position that’s it all much ado about nothing would be huge news, reported even by the major networks & papers that have been carrying water for her so far. That is the last thing she needs with Sanders showing continued strength (unexpectedly!).

    There is simply no alternative to keeping up a brave and dismissive front. She’s still likely toast even with a referral – and maybe even without one if her closest aides are also referred for prosecution – but that is beyond her control now.

      maxmillion in reply to Estragon. | April 5, 2016 at 12:26 pm

      And besides, stonewalling has always worked exceedingly well for the Clintons in their various scandals.

      Arminius in reply to Estragon. | April 5, 2016 at 4:36 pm

      Actually, Estragon, I think it would be even worse for her if her aides were referred for prosecution. Or anybody at State. Because their crimes could not be possible without the red queen forcing those crimes upon them because she insisted on living outside the law.

      If any of her underlings are referred for prosecution it will be for setting up, maintaining, and/or interacting with Hillary Clinton on a private email server that should not have existed in the first place.

      She might be able to claim, plausibly to her true believers, that a criminal referral or indictment pertaining to her royal self is just the “politics of personal destruction” the VRWC always engages in against her.

      But there’s no way anyone (well, ok, anyone outside her hardest of hardcore supporters who think with their ovaries) will believe she did nothing wrong if people are on trial or plea bargaining for the crime of having had something to do with her server. While she’s not. I can’t imagine anything more infuriating than rubbing it in America’s face that the peons are taking the fall for She Who Is Above The Law.

With her sense of entitlement, should she be indicted, she might well snap. I am not all that sure of her stability now.

Sounds like she knows the fix is in.

Still sticking with that “security inquiry” schtick? The FBI doesn’t conduct security inquiries, they conduct CRIMINAL investigations. She pretends she doesn’t know that.

    The State Department, however, was running a security inquiry.

    State has just suspended that inquiry to not interfere with the FBI’s criminal investigation, according to various reports.

    Humphrey's Executor in reply to mishka. | April 4, 2016 at 9:31 am

    And an employee making an immunity deal with investigators is “cooperating.” You have to admire her chutzpah.

Speaking of Meet the Press, it would be nice to see a post about David Brooks’s disgusting remarks today, which is greater in significance than which candidate one supports.

legacyrepublican | April 3, 2016 at 10:30 pm

Notice how she is lit up. Makes her look evil and sinister.

Paul In Sweden | April 3, 2016 at 10:34 pm

I am just expecting that after whatever statute of limitations run out that a pile of documents will once again, as we have seen in the past — magically turn up on a table just outside of Hillary Clinton’s office.

“What to make of Hillary’s swagger?”

She’s nuts…???

She’s been delusional forever. That’s how you BE a Collectivist.

    Estragon in reply to Ragspierre. | April 4, 2016 at 7:05 am

    Under leftist delusions, without doubt, but the woman must be considered an adept criminal. From $100K in futures profits on a $1000 investment to pay-for-play in Arkansas to the whole Whitewater scheme, and now to the Clinton Foundation and pay-for-play at State, she’s walked away from a life of serious felonies.

    Probably she engineered some labyrinthine process at State to give her plausible deniability on the 30+ foreign companies whose applications before State suddenly won approval after a donation to the CF. She never even considered her disregard of security to be a problem – don’t they know who I am? – and is in serious denial it may bring her down at last.

“What to make of Hillary’s swagger?”

Easy. She’s a sociopath.

Sociopaths don’t worry.

    Ragspierre in reply to Oregon Mike. | April 4, 2016 at 11:59 am

    Actually, they do worry.

    They don’t regret having hurt others, but they DO worry sometimes that they screwed up.

We all know the FBI is part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, just she does.

I’m wondering if the Democrats are imposing a VP on her?

inspectorudy | April 4, 2016 at 1:00 am

I will be shocked by two events that I think will never take place. One, hillary is indicted.
Two, the FBI Director Comey and all of the other agents walk out if she isn’t indicted.
It ain’t going to happen folks. They are all lifetime employees with pensions and kids in college etc. They aren’t walking anywhere unless it is for a lunch break. The world that we conservatives believe in no longer exists. obama’s election proved that. We need to get on with our lives and enjoy the time we have with our loved ones and pets because the only thing that will right this sinking ship is a bloody revolution! I pray that I’m wrong but I don’t see how I am. If some center-left weenie like Paul Ryan becomes our nominee then it is truly over. It is the final declaration that our votes do not count.

    If Comey walked over Clinton, he’d either (1) immediately be hired at five times his salary in the private sector, (2) get a multimillion dollar publishing deal, (3) get a radio or tv show, or (4) all of the above.

    You might be right about the revolution, though more likely the union will just split-up like an amicable divorce. Imagine the glee of liberals (and conservatives) knowing they are free to govern the way they want. Soon, you’d see rich refugees (lead by the likes of Norman Lear) fleeing from the failed leftists utopia, and trying to get into the highly functioning conservative states. Don’t let him in.

      healthguyfsu in reply to TheFineReport.com. | April 4, 2016 at 11:37 am

      You are absolutely dreaming if you think there would ever be an amicable split. It would be a bitter, messy divorce and likely lead to future wars when neither side got the things they wanted resource or policy wise.

        redc1c4 in reply to healthguyfsu. | April 4, 2016 at 2:31 pm

        “and likely lead to future wars when neither side got the things they wanted resource or policy wise.”

        who would lead the military forces of the liberal states?

        even more importantly, who would serve in them? these days, most major military facilities, with a few exceptions, are in blue states. and where do you think the volunteer members of the combat arms predominately come from? hint: it’s not Detroit, 5hitcloggedhole, New Yak 5hitty, Frisco or any other leftard paradise.

        DaveGinOly in reply to healthguyfsu. | April 4, 2016 at 11:32 pm

        It won’t be an “us against them,” Civil War-style scenario. It will be a quiet dissolution of the Union as one State, then another, and then another, simply stops playing ball with the federal government, ignores it, and continues to march as a sovereign State. What are the feds going to do, force it back into the Union? Remember that the Confederacy handed the Union a war on a plate when it attacked a federal installation. Had it not been for that provocation, citizens in the North were not well-disposed to using force to bring break-away States to heel. It didn’t have to turn violent then, it doesn’t have to turn violent this time.

Like Baghdad Bob, during the Iraq war.

An Oscar for best performance by a criminal without a conviction. How can she say that with a straight face? Botox paralysis?

“Are Democrats really going to run a candidate as to whom the FBI has found sufficient evidence of criminal conduct so as to refer the matter for possible prosecution?”

Really? Are you talking about some other Democratic Party with which I am not familiar?

    DaveGinOly in reply to aslannn. | April 4, 2016 at 11:34 pm

    Truly.

    “…would Democrats run a candidate with a deep stench of political protection?”

    The Democrats suffer from serious olfactory impairment. They are not capable of smelling the stench, and are therefore quite serous when they claim that the stench does not exist.

It is all bravado. She scared sh*tless that her lies and deceptions are finally being dealt with. This time around, even her most loyal lackey, Sydney Blumenthal, to pull her chestnuts out of the fire, she running away.

tarheelkate | April 4, 2016 at 9:49 am

I’d be interested in hearing from the lawyers here about the single counsel representing four Clinton aides. Some commentators think this means they’re pretty sure no charges will be filed. Does it mean that? Does it mean anything?

    Ragspierre in reply to tarheelkate. | April 4, 2016 at 11:08 am

    It means…or suggests…many things.

    First, it means that the subjects of this investigation have essentially waived potential conflicts of interest. No attorney could represent this diverse group of potentially VERY conflicted interests without that waiver, IMNHO.

    Second, it appears a transparent way to avoid the “prisoners’ dilemma”, where game-theory strongly augers in favor of one “prisoner” being the first to make a deal. Here, all “prisoners” join in a united front. At least until it breaks down…

    Third, it provides the subjects the most economical possible representation, at least from what we know.

    Fourth, this provides a very “rationalized” front of testimony, since the one lawyer or firm has ALL the stories in hand, and can help shape the testimony of each subject to conform.

    Finally, there are LOTS of ways this arrangement could break down, and break down UGLY.

    Time will tell.

      tarheelkate in reply to Ragspierre. | April 4, 2016 at 11:12 am

      Thanks. Are the parties entitled to have this attorney present when they talk to the FBI? How active can the attorney be, if so? If I recall correctly from the Libby debacle, they cannot have their attorneys with them during Grand Jury testimony, if it gets that far.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to Ragspierre. | April 4, 2016 at 12:08 pm

      I don’t see the agreement breaking down, or at least not with the main parties. Clintons have long been able to instill pretty good loyalty. Part of this may be a fear of what happened to Vince Foster. And, part now may be that they control hundreds of millions of dollars in their foundation that can be used to take care of their people for life. Heck, at least Huma has worked for it before (while she was also apparently receiving a State Department paycheck – maybe to help when her husband lost his job for sexting). Not sure which of them are employed by it now. I think that this loyalty is maybe part of why the term “Clintonista” was coined.

Henry Hawkins | April 4, 2016 at 9:51 am

In the event the DOJ declines an FBI call for prosecution, I think Hillary’s political viability will hinge on whether the media continue to stick with her. This is primary season and the news cycle is cyclonic. If the FBI recs indictment and the DOJ declines in April, it will be forgotten by June, assuming the media doesn’t turn on her in favor of Warren, Sanders, etc.

Bruce Hayden | April 4, 2016 at 12:17 pm

My theory right now is that the DoJ would likely just run out the clock on a criminal referral, neither indicting nor not indicting. They can potentially just study it until after the election, and then maybe all take pardons as Obama leaves office. Unless Hillary wins, and if she does, she can just pardon everyone, herself included. As I understand it, thee is no legal requirement for the DoJ to indict upon any given criminal referral. They really don’t have to do anything, and, here, that is what would seem to be most expedient.

One thing to remember here is that Loretta Lynch first became US Attorney from the Eastern District of NY under President Clinton, then was reappointed by President Obama. And, that position may have been important in her being nominated for Attorney General. In other words, it would be completely unsurprising if she had some loyalty to the Clintons. And, there have been rumors that she is being offered the AG position under a first Hillary Clinton Administration. That kills a couple birds with one stone – makes nice with the critical African American community, and biases her against indictment.

“If Hillary’s weren’t a Clinton, and if she wasn’t the leading Democratic candidate, a conviction would already be in the records, and the perpetrator in federal prison for years.”

Fixed that for ya!

Possibly the reason Hillary is so confident is that she already has a signed pardon from Obama in her pocket. If she does not, she may expect one. My guess is that before Obama leaves office he will issue a general pardon to himself and all members of his administration, including Hillary. They may very well need those pardons if Ted Cruz becomes president. The only flaw in this is that a president cannot pardon any violations of state law and perhaps there will be grounds for a state prosecution.

So….
The FBI is conducting a security review.
Will they also offer pointers on possible improvements/security protocols /encryption…
Maybe they might suggest a fully encrypted DOD level system such as that of the Department of State.
Gosh, it is like having McKaffee just roll in and do a complementary evaluation.
Good of them at the fBI..

Tomorrow, Hillary will be 25,000 days old. Happy 25k

Send her a special gift .. an indictment

Author posts
Are Democrats really going to run a candidate as to whom the FBI has found sufficient evidence of criminal conduct so as to refer the matter for possible prosecution? Or alternatively, if DOJ refused to prosecute, would Democrats run a candidate with a deep stench of political protection?

Of course they will ! It is the next middle finger to America

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend