Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

With Comey out of the way, will Hillary now be prosecuted?

With Comey out of the way, will Hillary now be prosecuted?

Comey laid out the case for a prosecution before his last minute July 5, 2016 press conference surprise.

If you remember the July 5, 2016 press conference by then FBI Director James Comey, you will recall how Comey laid out a credible case for prosecuting Hillary Clinton until the very last minute, when he announced that despite what he just said, he decided not to recommend prosecution.

I wrote at the time:

FBI Director James Comey gave an on-camera press statement today from FBI headquarters, and is taking questions from reporters off camera.

Despite finding serious problems and carelessness in handling classified information, rejecting claims that such information must be “marked” classified, and likelihood of foreign hacking, Comey says no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case because no bad intent.

Somewhere, David Petreaus and dozens of others prosecuted in the past are crying.

Because then Attorney General Loretta Lynch was tainted by her secretive meeting with Bill Clinton in an airplane on a tarmac, Comey effectively became the decision maker. While Lynch did not technically recuse herself, she deferred to Comey’s decision.

James Comey now is fired. Loretta Lynch no longer is Attorney General.

This seems to open up the possibility of a renewed investigation and potential prosecution.

That is, after all, what Trump promised during a debate:

I doubt Jeff Sessions will seek a prosecution, but if he did, he wouldn’t have to deal with James Comey anymore.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Yes!

Ragspierre | May 9, 2017 at 7:39 pm

“With Comey out of the way, will Hillary now be prosecuted?”

No, though she sure should be.

“Lock her up” was just more boob bait for the boobs.

Mr. Establishment isn’t about to prosecuted his daughter’s BFF’s mommy.

    practicalconservative in reply to Ragspierre. | May 9, 2017 at 7:58 pm

    Are you saying, the fix is in? Doesn’t Attorney General Sessions get a vote?

      I think it’ll be much easier and just as embarrassing to prosecute someone like Huma Abedin, for letting the Big Wiener have access to classified info. (Petraeus got prosecuted for much the same offense)

      Just as politically damaging to take down Huma as it would be to take down Hillary.

        VetHusbandFather in reply to Tom Servo. | May 9, 2017 at 11:52 pm

        Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

        Get Huma. Hillary is out of the game already. She’ll only participate through surrogates like Chelsea and Huma, and as Tim mentions Huma will be easy to prosecute. Now is the time to stomp out any political aspirations she has. Getting Huma will also help fully “legitimize” the scandal, thus damaging Chelsea’s reputation in the process.

          wendybar in reply to VetHusbandFather. | May 10, 2017 at 6:04 am

          I somewhat agree, but if they take down Huma, she will bring Hillary with her…who in turn will bring Barack kicking and screaming with her….Do you really think they will bring down the 1st black President? I believe they will skate.

          Tom Servo in reply to VetHusbandFather. | May 10, 2017 at 8:43 am

          They’ll throw Huma under the bus before it gets to that point, and it’ll be hilarious to watch.

          notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to VetHusbandFather. | May 10, 2017 at 12:17 pm

          Wendy, you say that as though all that is a bad thing.

          Besides, Obama isn’t “black.”

          If I were Huma, I would offer the prosecution what they needed to bring down Hillary and Cheryl Mills in exchange for leniency. I don’t know how deep those ties go, but you could put the “well, it’s 20 yrs before parole for all these felonies vs 5 years-out-in-2 if you testify” in front of her.

          creeper in reply to VetHusbandFather. | May 12, 2017 at 9:56 am

          “Get Huma.”

          No. START with Huma. Get them all.

      No, not if the president says otherwise. The executive power belongs to the president, not the AG, who is his employee and must do as he says.

    SDN in reply to Ragspierre. | May 9, 2017 at 9:11 pm

    And he’ll never be President…. oh, wait…

    Zachary in reply to Ragspierre. | May 9, 2017 at 11:02 pm

    Look at all those thumbs down. You have offended the boobs, sir.

      murkyv in reply to Zachary. | May 9, 2017 at 11:16 pm

      I can’t speak for others, but I just use the “Rags Rule” that he suggested last fall for another poster here that ruffled Ragsies feathers on a number of occasions.

      Just downvote without reading and move on.

        creeper in reply to murkyv. | May 12, 2017 at 10:00 am

        I’ve been waiting for six years to see Rags’ acknowledgment that the legal system doesn’t always work. He still clings to his catechism fiercely, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that he’s wrong.

What irritates me is that Hillary and Huma go around acting like they are innocent. If they are not going to prosecute, then someone should approach them and tell them to drop out of public life or they will be prosecuted. If not jail, then they should pay some price.

    murkyv in reply to rayc. | May 9, 2017 at 8:55 pm

    I think this goes back to the same reasons she wasn’t indicted for her numerous felonies in the Whitewater dealings.

    They know that they could never get a conviction in Washington DC with the possible jury pool of peers being Maxine Waters clones.

    Once found “not guilty” by an OJ jury, she and her fellow travelers would forever claim the title of “Innocent” of those mean-spirited Republican witch hunts.

      MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to murkyv. | May 10, 2017 at 8:27 am

      Good point. Trump got 4% of the vote in D.C. HRC got 90%. One reason why I think WaPo is so virulently anti-Trump is because they are catering to their customers, their subscriber base.

      But assuming they can get a change of venue, when does the statute of limitations start to run? We must be getting close. She resigned as SoS in 2013. She set up the secret server very early in BHO’s administration. Early 2009. I don’t know how long the statute of limitation is, or when the clock for measuring it starts ticking.

    DaveGinOly in reply to rayc. | May 9, 2017 at 9:58 pm

    What should happen is that Hillary should be impeached by the House and tried in the Senate. She can’t be removed from office because she doesn’t currently hold one, but a conviction would prevent her from ever again holding a federal office, barring her from the presidency for life.

Hillary and Huma both need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. No more of this “intent” bullshit. Those of us who have handled highly classified information know intent is irrelevant. It’s drilled into you that even a careless mistake can send you to prison and that’s why you treat it so seriously.

    JOHN B in reply to Sanddog. | May 9, 2017 at 9:09 pm

    Destroying thousands of emails, lying under oath about not having more than one computer and about other matters, sending emails out of the office to get printed to avoid federal law – all are intentional acts. And all are violations of federal law.

    So even if intent were essential, they would have no problem proving intent.

    Since intent was not needed, to paraphrase Comey: “No reasonable US attorney would NOT prosecute anyone who did this.” (double negative intended).

      DaveGinOly in reply to JOHN B. | May 9, 2017 at 11:13 pm

      Let’s not forget “destruction of evidence.”

      And Hillary did show intent. On at least one occasion she ordered an underling to send classified information in an unsecure manner, and he objected. She told him (essentially) to stuff his objection and send the data to her. She willfully evaded the requirements of the law from that point forward without question.

    murkyv in reply to Sanddog. | May 9, 2017 at 11:21 pm

    Wouldn’t the entire private server setup as SoS to avoid FOIA requests be “intent” in and of itself?

      VetHusbandFather in reply to murkyv. | May 9, 2017 at 11:58 pm

      You would think so. The server was set up to hide the criminal dealings of the Clinton Foundation. So the information was “mishandled” in the process of committing a crime.

        ConradCA in reply to VetHusbandFather. | May 10, 2017 at 8:27 am

        She can be prosecuted for selling the favors of her office for hundreds of millions in contributions to her slush fund/foundation.

great unknown | May 9, 2017 at 8:15 pm

The hysteria is already rampant about the need for a special prosecutor to investigate the “Trump-Russia Connection” [tm by DNC].

Let’s go to the Art of the Deal. Congress appoints two allegations about Trump, and one to reopen the Clinton e-mail investigation. I wonder how that will play with the Dem-rats.

Guiliani sounds like a good candidate for the second position.

    great unknown in reply to great unknown. | May 9, 2017 at 8:16 pm

    missing an edit function! Second sentence, para two should read, “Congress appoints two special prosecutors, one to investigate the allegations about Trump…”

    Semper Why in reply to great unknown. | May 10, 2017 at 12:27 pm

    I wouldn’t offer that deal. The Dems would take it in a hot second.

    With the media wind at their backs, they can use the special prosecutor to immediately undermine Trump’s administration whilst playing up the poor, persecuted woman who would be POTUS if not for the patriarchy.

    In the worst case scenario for the Dems, they sacrifice an old woman whom nobody likes to Lady Justice, prop up Obama’s legacy as one hounded by Republican’s legal witch hunt (heh) and neatly reinforce their narrative that the GOP is anti-woman.

    I’d pass.

And now all the TV media are saying Trump’s timing “proves” he was “colluding with the Russians” and that “this is the most serious constitutional crisis since Watergate”. The Democrat attack dog Chuck Schumer, who previously demanded that Comey be fired, gave an all-channel address saying an independent prosecutor must be appointed who will focus on Comey’s firing (not Hillary) and who’d be “far from the White House”(but presumably close to Chucky). Trump has done brave things before that infuriated the undeniably liberal media but which energized his base and ended up benefiting him. This might turn out to be one more such instance.

    Tom Servo in reply to Martin. | May 9, 2017 at 11:00 pm

    To give credit, only CNN, MSNBC, and the alphabet networks are saying that. Everyone at Fox is laughing at all of them.

Sam in Texas | May 9, 2017 at 9:50 pm

Comey went through his disgusting song and dance about Slick Clinton’s wife because there was no way in **** the 0bama DoJ was going to prosecute her. With or without Comey, the decision to empanel a serious grand jury to go after any crimes Slick Clinton’s wife et al. committed is up to Sessions…and Trump. Ain’t nothing going to happen.

    murkyv in reply to Sam in Texas. | May 9, 2017 at 11:30 pm

    Not defending Comey, but he did lay out the case and let the voters be the jury since pigs would be flying in frosted over Hades before a Clinton would ever be convicted in a DC courtroom.

    Especially when the orders had no doubt come down from the top that the DOJ would not prosecute regardless of the evidence.

    Whose decision was it that everybody and their brother that was involved got immunity deals? Wouldn’t the DOJ be the ones to make that call?

Perhaps not Clinton, but the network is on notice.

Pelosi Schmelosi | May 9, 2017 at 11:36 pm

Who cares?
I get to wake up tomorrow and that crook still isn’t POTUS.
Winning!

The FBI and DOJ probably can’t go after Clinton at this point for the emails because of Comey’s previous actions.

But they can go after Huma and everyone else involved.

And they can make Clinton testify in each and every case.

Plus let’s not forget the Clinton Foundation investigation is still going on. She could be caught up in that.

Actually, Sessions asked for a special prosecutor right after the Lynch-Clinton meeting, which in retrospect was absolutely the right call. He also said that she denied the FBI the opportunity to convene a grand jury. I think most Americans understand that the investigation was derailed by the previous administration and will understand that it needs to be reviewed at the very least.

tarheelkate | May 10, 2017 at 7:11 am

Maybe this is why Robbie Mook said the Comey firing “terrifies” him.

It is my understanding that the case against Hillary was garbaged up by Justice’s granting of immunity to everyone involved. But perhaps there is enough left to prosecute, since “intent” is NOT a requirement. More likely, the commenters above who pointed out that the Clinton Foundation is still under investigation may have hit the mark.

tarheelkate | May 10, 2017 at 7:59 am

The other thing which jumps out is that the Deputy AG’s memo cites both Republican and Democrat former prosecutors and AGs, including Holder. Comey made mistakes; Lynch’s performance as AG is inexcusable.

Interesting; most all here agree with me. T-rump won’t prosecuted that “wonder person”, Hellery.

Yet they (mostly) down-thumbed me. Maybe they know the boob bait thingy applies…

Uncomfortable…

    Old0311 in reply to Ragspierre. | May 10, 2017 at 9:43 am

    Dang it Rags! Please stop saying boobs. I’m old, but that word still makes me look around and say…where.

      Ragspierre in reply to Old0311. | May 10, 2017 at 10:23 am

      Oddly enough, it isn’t a term I use in that context.

      I have daughters. I also have sons. None of them use that term, either.

    tarheelkate in reply to Ragspierre. | May 10, 2017 at 10:43 am

    I don’t know if the DOJ will prosecute Hillary. It’s certainly more likely with good-quality prosecutors in charge rather than the Democrat hacks we’ve had for eight years. But I didn’t vote for Trump because I thought Hillary would go to jail. Nor did I think he was ideal. I wonder if Trump will ever do anything that will meet with your approval. Federal court picks, some outstanding cabinet members, and regulatory reforms apparently aren’t enough because you loathe the man. For myself, after supporting a succession of conservative candidates who didn’t win, I accepted reality and voted for the nominee who is at least NOT the most corrupt president we’ve ever had.

      Ragspierre in reply to tarheelkate. | May 10, 2017 at 11:18 am

      I’ve stated several areas where I thought Der Donald did a good thing. Judicial appointments being prime.

      I’ve stated that SOME of his cabinet picks were good. Others were terrible.

      SOME of his regulatory acts are swell. But he also PLANS on new regulations in areas I consider dangerous and tyrannical.

      You say I loath the man. I loath a liar and a fraud, and it’s my considered, objective opinion that he’s both.

      Sue me.

        VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | May 10, 2017 at 12:04 pm

        Does that mean that, overall, you think that voting for Trump was better than voting for Clinton? That a Trump win was better than the alternative?

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | May 10, 2017 at 12:18 pm

          You ask two different questions.

          My long-stated position is that I would not vote for either lying, pathological, Collectivist fraud. There was no “better” in that analysis. Both were unacceptable.

          Was T-rump a better alternative? I never had to reach that conclusion. Both were unacceptable for my vote.

          As you well know.

          BTW, you bald-faced lied about me the other day. I’ve NEVER cast aspersions on anyone who voted their conscience.

          Just T-rump sucking cultists like you.

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | May 10, 2017 at 12:37 pm

          rags,
          BTW, you just did it again. I voted for Trump and I voted my conscience when I did it.

          To your point:

          How does it help the cause of conservativism to allow the other team to score free points while waiting for a better candidate? It’s not like football where you get to keep your points when the other team gets the ball and you only have to block them from scoring. In politics, they can take away your points in addition to scoring their own. Why give them a cheap opportunity to do it? That attitude doesn’t make sense to me. By your own admission, Trump has done good things for the conservative side. If electing him keeps the other side from scoring and does some positive things for conservativism, why wasn’t it worth doing?

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | May 10, 2017 at 1:25 pm

          Yah, no, lying T-rump sucker.

          “Voting your conscience” does not entail calling me a “traitor” or “coward” just because I would not join your cult. Pigman From VA.

          Nothing I’ve ever said involved “waiting for a better candidate”.

          I would not vote for a lying, stinking, pathological Collectivist fraud.

          Barry in reply to VaGentleman. | May 10, 2017 at 1:55 pm

          “I would not vote for a lying, stinking, pathological Collectivist fraud.”

          Of course you would. You voted for McCain. You are, at a minimum, a hypocrite.

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | May 10, 2017 at 2:47 pm

          No. But you are a nutter with a broke-dick opinion who is always ready to slime a T-rumpian heretic.

          How many fingers am I holding up, troll?

          Barry in reply to VaGentleman. | May 10, 2017 at 8:12 pm

          “You voted for McCain. You are, at a minimum, a hypocrite.”

          How many fingers is that?

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | May 10, 2017 at 8:21 pm

          You don’t’ know the meaning of the word, troll.

          You are holding up no fingers. The universal sign for your IQ

          Barry in reply to VaGentleman. | May 10, 2017 at 10:08 pm

          You voted for McCain. And Romney, the father of Romneycare, model for Obamacare.

          Collectivists? You’ll not answer. You’re a hypocrite, among other things.

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | May 10, 2017 at 11:09 pm

          You don’t know the meaning of the word, troll.

          You are holding up no fingers. The universal sign for your IQ

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | May 12, 2017 at 4:44 am

          rags,
          Interesting.

          YOU decided that YOU couldn’t bring YOURSELF to vote for either candidate. After that, YOU never gave any thought to the effect of YOUR decision on conservativism.

          YOU never gave any thought to the possible damage to the conservativism YOU claim to champion. And, YOU still haven’t given any thought to the question and still can’t (won’t) say if Trump is a better choice than she would have been.

          It looks like all YOUR thoughts on the subject were centered around what YOU wanted without regard to what conservativism needed.

          Conservativism should be proud to have such a LOYAL and BRAVE follower.

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | May 13, 2017 at 8:21 am

          “YOU decided that YOU couldn’t bring YOURSELF to vote for either candidate. After that, YOU never gave any thought to the effect of YOUR decision on conservativism.

          YOU never gave any thought to the possible damage to the conservativism YOU claim to champion.”

          ANOTHER series of YOUR serial lies. I always think. I review. I consider. I contemplate.

          You LIE.

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | May 13, 2017 at 9:10 am

          rags,
          You wrote:
          My long-stated position is that I would not vote for either lying, pathological, Collectivist fraud. There was no “better” in that analysis. Both were unacceptable.

          Was T-rump a better alternative? I never had to reach that conclusion. Both were unacceptable for my vote.

          Those are your words and the meaning is clear: YOU decided YOU could’t vote for either and YOU never gave any thought to the effect of YOUR decision on conservativism. That is the clear meaning of what you wrote.

          Both may have been unacceptable, but one of them was going to be president. History proves that. The fact that you consider both unacceptable doesn’t mean that both were equally bad. But your analysis stopped when you met YOUR needs. YOU never thought beyond YOUR self interest.

          If YOU had given thought to the effect of YOUR actions on conservativism, you would be able to answer the question of which was better, since determining that is a necessary part of that analysis. If you really cared about conservativism, you would have wanted to know what the effect of YOUR actions would have been on conservativism. But YOU DON’T CARE. That’s why, even today, YOU can’t (won’t) answer. All YOU can do is attack, deflect and lie – just like Hillary. Just like her, it’s always about YOU. Just YOU! And your own words condemn you.

          Toldja!

      Ragspierre in reply to tarheelkate. | May 10, 2017 at 11:34 am

      Oh, and BTW, you are NOT in the populations to which I refer.

      I’m talking about the enthralled at T-rumpian mass events who aped his call to “Lock her up” in true cult-like fashion.

      He has a talent as a snake-oil salesman. Maybe better than Huey P. Long…

A failure to prosecute Clinton Inc. for the obvious crimes committed will greatly erode the respect for and belief in the “Rule of Law” that we always hear about when someone is tossed into prison or their reputation trashed for what is obviously an innocent mistake that also appears to not have had any international significance. It demonstrated that the ruling class is above the law.

I believe this was the root cause of the French revolution.

It would be a very serious mistake to not prosecute.

HRC will probably never be prosecuted. And, she will never be convicted. Politics will not allow it.

As Comey pointed out, in his initial press conference, there was more than sufficient probable cause to charge HRC with several federal felonies. But, the Obama administration did not want to prosecute her, as this would open up a monumental can of worms which the administration was desperate to keep hidden. The plan was to let this investigation ride until after the election. With HRC in the WH, the investigation would be over. However, WJC stuck his oar in the water and met with AG Lynch in her plane in Phoenix. When word of this meeting leaked out, the original plan was toast and the Obama administration had to be seen to be taking some action on the case. But, HRC could not be charged. Comey laid out the reason why he was picked to be the one to take the heat, for not prosecuting HRC, in his testimony before Congress this month. It was all designed to insulate and protect BHO.

But, Comey hedged his bets by laying out a prima facia case for charging HRC with several criminal violations. By doing this, he made the case for keeping him in his position. Being the Director of the FBI, he could slow walk and even block further action against HRC, while taking all the blame for the lack of prosecution. HRC was unlikely to take any action against him if she was elected. And, the same disclosure gained him points with a potential Republican administration, should Trump be elected.

In the short term, HRC will not be prosecuted because the political optics are horrible, for Trump. Prosecution of HRC would appear spiteful and vindictive. It would be spun as political payback. So, it is not likely to happen. In the long run, the further we get from the events, the less likely prosecution becomes, unless her actions create a real problem for the US, such as open warfare, or a scapegoat is needed for something. And, it must be remembered that the Establishment has a vested interest in protecting the reputation of the administration of the first black President. This includes GOPe politicians.

    “HRC will probably never be prosecuted. And, she will never be convicted. Politics will not allow it…”

    We are not dealing with ‘politics, but with The Donald.

    She’ll be prosecuted.

      The Donald is already playing the Washington Establishment political game. He abandoned his anti-Establishment position on healthcare and again when he signed the continuing resolution. He was elected to fight the Establishment, not get along with it. But, he is compromising more and and more each day.

      The Establishment does not want HRC prosecuted. It does not want the legacy of the first black President to be tarnished in any significant way. And, it is beginning to appear that The Donald is not going to do anything to tarnish the Obama administration’s legacy, except to defend himself from attack. Does anyone know what happened to the domestic spying scandal?

      I reiterate, the chances of HRC being prosecuted for servergate are extremely slim.

        The guy’s been president 100+ days – Give the guy a break!

        Given the ENTIRE washington establishment – in particular the scum of the GOP – is against him, he’s performed brilliantly.

        Hopefully, Trump will eventually dump the GOP and form a new party. The GOP will have less of a voter base than David Duke.

Start wil HRC’s hatchetmen & women and see if they Roll over. Susan Rice would be a great place to start.

And maybe we can finally get a John Corzine Prosecution already.

I dream of that moment.

And it would be a day to celebrate, with fireworks, beer and hot dogs.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend