Posted on 03/02/2020 6:07:31 PM PST by PROCON
She’s had about four decades of practice lying under oath.
She’ll plead ignorance, the MSM won’t report it and that will be it. In my opinion, this is being done to guarantee she is not within 5,000 miles of the election.
“If she can’t remember anything, then she is unsuitable to get the Democratic nominee at the convention.”
Neither could Biden, but he is still standing.
“I can’t remember, my brain’s in a blender, it’s jello.” God bless Rush Limbaugh.
Then bring out her memoir books sales, mention the number of books sold, and the printed date.
Her memory was good then ... when it meant income money $$$ !
Fixed.
The evidence is sufficient to convict her without her testimony.
An oldie but a goodie, still true after all these years.
“Try to Remember”
““Lock Her Up” - Not just a pretty campaign Slogan - WE MEANT IT.”
True that!
Claiming amnesia would certainly nix her riding in and claiming the prize in a contested convention. Not even enough goofy Dems would vote for her then.
She is practicing falling
I guess if a senile Biden can still be in it, having amnesia wouldn’t be a deterrent if Hilly decided to throw her gin bottle into the ring.
The wheels of justice grind slowly... but they do grind.
Charge her with a felony, arrest her, and throw her arse in solitary. Let’s see just how tuff she really is. That is what they did to Paul Manafort. He didn,t give them anything on Trump because he didn’t have anything to reveal. They were asking him to lie, and he refused. She is being asked to tell the truth, which she won’t because the truth isn’t in her. Most of her adult life has been a facade hidden behind lie after lie. When you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything. She can’t possibly remember all the lies she has told. So when she says she can’t remember she is probably, for once, telling the truth.
ping
I wouldn’t necessarily compare them to Gowdy, the King of One Liners.
They get the info and expose the crimes and corruption. Congress or the US Atty’s office has the option of taking that info and doing something with it.
Thus exposing deeper corruption in our government and “elected officials”, as they protect their own and themselves.
Sad that we’ve let them get away with all of it.
18 U.S.C. § 793(f): "Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information[my emphasis], relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—-Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
According to a 2016 DOJ Mid Year OIG Review Team report in advance of the 2016 election: "they [Comey? Strzok?] concluded that Section 793(f)(1) likely[my emphasis] required a state of mind that was 'so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention,' criminally reckless, or 'something that falls just short of being willful,' as well as evidence that the individuals who sent emails containing classified information 'knowingly' included or transferred such information onto unclassified systems."
"The Mid Year team concluded that such proof was lacking. We found that this interpretation of Section 793(f)(1) was consistent with the Department’s historical approach in prior cases under different leadership, including in the 2008 decision not to prosecute former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for mishandling classified documents."
The above was taken from the linked gov document. I apologize for the length of this post, but this sums up, IMO, the preferential treatment given to Clinton.
Gonzalez was not prosecuted because investigators found that "It is clear from the report that there is no evidence that the acknowledged shortcomings in [Gonzales'] handling of this material resulted in any unauthorized disclosure of classified information," ... I don't believe the same can be said for Clinton. Taking "handwritten notes" home and misplacing them in the work place is much different than placing classified info onto unsecured web servers.
I hope, but doubt, that things will go differently this time for Hillary.
Everyone involved was bought and paid for, and her investigation was nothing more than a charade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.