Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Charade completed: AG Lynch rubber-stamps FBI recommendation not to prosecute Hillary

Charade completed: AG Lynch rubber-stamps FBI recommendation not to prosecute Hillary

Gift to Hillary signed, sealed and delivered on eve of FBI Director Comey testimony in Congress

Wow, when the FBI and DOJ want to move quickly, they sure can. The FBI announced on July 5 it’s decision not to recommend prosecution just three days after the Saturday, July 2, interview of Hillary.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch wasted not time, and just announced she has accepted FBI Director James Comey’s recommendation not to prosecute Hillary. She did it with Comey set to appear Thursday to testify before the House Oversight Committee.

She wanted to make sure the gift to Hillary was signed, sealed and delivered before Comey had a chance to backtrack on national TV.

“Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State. I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.”

Loretta Lynch Statement No Prosecution Hillary


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“Attorney General Loretta Lynch just announced she has accepted FBI Director James Comey’s recommendation not to prosecute Hillary.”
Absent a Presidential Pardon, couldn’t the next AG re-open the case?

    jhkrischel in reply to SHV. | July 6, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    Can you be pardoned for a crime you haven’t yet been convicted of?

      Milhouse in reply to jhkrischel. | July 6, 2016 at 7:05 pm


      tom swift in reply to jhkrischel. | July 6, 2016 at 7:38 pm

      According to President Ford, you don’t even have to be charged with a crime to be pardoned for it.

      It’s more a blanket “indulgence” than a pardon. But it has the same legal effect.

        Milhouse in reply to tom swift. | July 6, 2016 at 8:00 pm

        Not just Ford. Carter pardoned all draft dodgers.

        I don’t know what you mean by differentiating between a pardon and an indulgence. As I understand it an indulgence is a partial or full commutation of someone’s sentence for a sin that’s already been absolved. I’m not sure how a presidential pardon compares to that.

        DaveGinOly in reply to tom swift. | July 6, 2016 at 11:20 pm

        A “presidential pardon” is an executive function, not unlike an executive order. Presidents have revoked pardons granted by their predecessors. What one president can give, another can taketh away.

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 6, 2016 at 11:27 pm

          That is 100% wrong. Where did you come across such a ridiculous story? Name the president who revoked a pardon. You can’t, because it never happened. A pardon cannot ever be revoked, by anyone. Not by the president who granted it, and not by any subsequent president.

          Mannie in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 7, 2016 at 8:13 am

          I don’t believe that is correct. Pardons are specifically authorized in the Constitution, but their origins are in English Common Law. Can you cite an example of a pardon being revoked by a successor?

    Milhouse in reply to SHV. | July 6, 2016 at 7:04 pm


“Presidential pardons can be granted anytime after an offense has been committed including before, during, or after a conviction for the offense. If granted before a conviction is given, it prevents any penalties from attaching to the person. If granted after a conviction, it removes the penalties, and restores the person to all his or her civil rights. However, a pardon can never be granted before an offense has been committed – because the president does not have the power to waive the laws.”

Since the offense was already committed, even if she isn’t prosecuted or convicted, she can be pardoned.


    SHV in reply to jhkrischel. | July 6, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    Ford gave Nixon a full pardon for all offenses against the United States. If Obama gives Clinton a similar “full pardon”, I assume it would also cover her likely criminal behavior involving the Clinton Foundation, Russia/Uranium, etc.

      nomadic100 in reply to SHV. | July 6, 2016 at 6:51 pm

      Not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt that Obama will pardon Clinton. If he were to do so it would totally undermine the validity of the DOJ/FBI charade which has just concluded. He couldn’t have that as part of his “legacy.”

        nomadic100 in reply to nomadic100. | July 6, 2016 at 6:57 pm

        Addendum: so then, hypothetically, could President Trump’s AG charge her? Does anyone know the statute of limitations for Clinton’s violations of the government’s secure records laws?

        Ragspierre in reply to nomadic100. | July 6, 2016 at 7:13 pm

        That’s actually a very good legal question, and it depends on three legal issues…

        1. the statute itself

        2. when the cause “accrues” (meaning when the latest event in violation of the statute happens), and

        3. anything done to prevent the tolling of the statute, such as fraud

          DaveGinOly in reply to Ragspierre. | July 6, 2016 at 11:23 pm

          RE #3 on your list. Would that not include Hillary’s concealment of the crimes? Nobody realized what she had done until people started prying loose her emails, long after the offenses had been committed.

        Sian in reply to nomadic100. | July 6, 2016 at 10:49 pm

        What validity? The whole production was a farce to begin with. DOJ is a tool of Obama and the Clintons, and the FBI knows who signs their checks.

      Ragspierre in reply to SHV. | July 6, 2016 at 6:54 pm

      It ALLLLLLLLLL depends on who wins the general for POTUS. If T-rump, pardon. If Hellary, no need.

        great unknown in reply to Ragspierre. | July 6, 2016 at 10:21 pm

        There’s an alternative. She can be tried for contempt of Congress, which, by clear precedent, is not subject to Presidential pardon. She perjured herself enough in front of Congress to qualify for an orange jumpsuit with a number on the back, for several years.

        Unless, of course, Justice Roberts finds a way to redefine her perjury as a tax.

          TX-rifraph in reply to great unknown. | July 7, 2016 at 4:35 am

          “She can be tried for contempt of Congress…”

          As much as I want to entertain that idea, I see Congress as dominated by Democrats with zero integrity (and proud of it) and GOPe eunuchs. My hope rests in the voters (yea, I know) and the honest LE community (not sure what they can do or how yet).

This entire farce is now complete. The American People have just been told “You’re not the boss of me!” by the government our Constitution gives us power over.

An Article 5 Convention is not the answer simply because the elite power structure will be in charge. We fought a barbaric Civil War to keep this country together. How do we Thinking Adults re-capture our country?

    Paul in reply to SeniorD. | July 6, 2016 at 6:48 pm

    The State Legislatures would be in charge of an Article V Convention, with a popular vote for ratification. The elite scum in DC are obligated to call the convention, and that is the extent of the involvement.

      Milhouse in reply to Paul. | July 6, 2016 at 7:34 pm

      The state legislatures would not be in charge of a constitutional convention, any more than they were in charge of the one in Philadelphia. The delegates would be in charge, and they could do anything they want, including writing a whole new constitution packed with every lefty wet dream, and have it ratified by a referendum of all USA residents over 15, whether legally here or not. The states that sent them could protest from today till tomorrow, but it would make no difference. The convention would just cite the precedent of Philadelphia. So don’t invoke what you can’t banish.

        Ronbert in reply to Milhouse. | July 7, 2016 at 9:40 am

        Who selects the delegates to a state called convention?

          Milhouse in reply to Ronbert. | July 7, 2016 at 5:18 pm

          The constitution doesn’t say how delegates would be chosen, which I suppose leaves it up to Congress. But I assume Congress would decide that each state’s legislature would choose its delegates. The problem comes after that. Once they’ve been chosen and are at the convention they are free to do whatever they like. After all, that’s what happened in Philadelphia; the state legislatures sent delegates to draft some amendments to the Articles of Confederation and send them back for ratification, and the delegates decided instead to write a new constitution and convene state conventions to ratify it, completely bypassing the state legislatures that had sent them, let alone the amendment process specified in the Articles.

      Milhouse in reply to Paul. | July 6, 2016 at 7:46 pm

      By the way, where did you get the idea that a convention’s recommendations would be ratified by a popular vote? I mean, I think that’s what a lefty-dominated convention would choose to ratify its work, because it would know that the states would never ratify it, but that’s not what the constitution says. If the convention were not to run away, then its recommendations would have to be ratified in the usual manner, either by the state legislatures or by state ratifying conventions, whichever Congress chooses.

        Mannie in reply to Milhouse. | July 7, 2016 at 8:19 am

        Remember, the Articles of Confederation didn’t give the delegates in Philadelphia the authority to write a new Constitution. It was a rogue convention. Once it is done and ratified by the states it will be a done deal.

        Be careful of what you ask for.

          Milhouse in reply to Mannie. | July 7, 2016 at 5:21 pm

          It doesn’t have to be ratified by the states. The Philadelphia convention bypassed the state legislatures, and decided instead to convene ratifying conventions in every state. It also decided that only 9 state conventions needed to ratify it before it became law and superceded the Articles. A new convention would probably bypass the states altogether and call a national referendum, at which all residents — regardless of citizenship or legal status — would be able to vote.


Hey, I guess it’s as good as any other…

1) Doesn’t the DOJ always move fast? I am thinking about FOIA requests if not from DOJ but from other agencies. They step in and get it done! Oh, wait…

2) If a pardon is given, it will be late in the game. Obama has a long level on Hillary now. He will not let go of that until it helps him in some way. Almost a Sword of Damocles. Watch for Hillary to feed his narcissism.

Wearing my shocked face, what a disgrace.

DINORightMarie | July 6, 2016 at 10:06 pm

The disgust is palpable.

Richard Aubrey | July 6, 2016 at 10:31 pm

Anticipate increased juror null in, at least, Fed cases.

    TX-rifraph in reply to Richard Aubrey. | July 7, 2016 at 4:37 am

    I think this has always been feared by the elite as much as they fear the 2nd Amendment. They don’t fight it in the open.

buckeyeminuteman | July 7, 2016 at 7:52 am

The whole charade of this past week gives new meaning to the term “Fast and Furious”

This, I fear, is another overeach towards total control. With myriad laws, regulations, rules, etc, everyone can be found guilty of something. Vast amounts of “Procutorial discretion” then results in control of everyone.