Posted on 03/05/2016 1:14:15 PM PST by Citizen Zed
Conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter laid out how she thinks the White House is planning to subvert Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, push Vice-President Joe Biden to the nomination and name Attorney General Loretta Lynch to the Supreme Court.
Coulter, during an interview with Chris Stigall on Talk Radio 1210 WPHT, said the process begins with charges emanating from the investigation into the former Secretary of State’s private email server.
“[James] Comey goes ahead, the FBI Director, because this egregious, indicts Hillary, but then this has to go to the Attorney General. Valerie Jarrett, who is very close to Obama, is chirping in his ear constantly, puts in a call to Lorretta Lynch, the Attorney General, and says disregard everything the President is about to say publicly. Obama comes out and says this is outrageous, Hillary did nothing wrong, there should be no indictment, but of course, the Attorney General is independent. Loretta Lynch goes ahead and indicts Hillary. It destroys Hillary’s campaign and gets Biden in and then it’s harder for the Republicans to say we refuse to put Loretta Lynch on the Supreme Court.”
(Excerpt) Read more at philadelphia.cbslocal.com ...
More like White House spokesperson.
I would tune in to every press conference I could.
That would be wonderful!
I hope Ann is wrong about Loretta Lynch. We sure as heck don’t want her on the Supreme Court.
Loretta Lynch = Femi-negro. Woman and black first, everyone else is meaningless.
Sounds plausible, does Obama really want to risk exposing the outright hypocrisy of his entire reign of terror by protecting Hillary? Maybe if he liked her enough? Does he?
Agreed, although it’s probably worse than that. Obama probably wouldn’t have nominated her as AG unless she was a closet Marxist.
I don’t follow her logic: “Biden [gets] in and then it’s harder for the Republicans to say we refuse to put Loretta Lynch on the Supreme Court.”
I guess “gets in” means Biden gets the nomination. How does that make it harder to for Republicans to refuse to put Lynch on SCOTUS?
Can’t a Supreme Court judge be impeached?
Yes
I’ve been saying this for months. The hate between Obama and the Clintons is still strong. They do NOT want to to run that hag and Bernie’s a non-starter, so who else have they got? Plus if it’s Biden, the #NeverTrump gang will go over to him, too.
I’m still not convinced an indictment would seal her fate. Bad things don’t happen to the Clintons.
It’s plausible, but what an opportunity for the Republicans to decline the overt bribe. To express gratitude for ridding us of Hilary the Harpy by rewarding Ms. Lynch would be the pinnacle of craven Republican behavior, which also wouldn’t suprise us.
Maybe Ann is figuring the left will brow-beat the Repubs with: “well, she did indict Hillary; what more do you want”.
“It destroys Hillary’s campaign and gets Biden in and then it’s harder for the Republicans to say we refuse to put Loretta Lynch on the Supreme Court.”
How so? I mean, if they want to sandbag Hillary and put Joe in as the nominee, I’m fine with that, but it strikes me that if anything, that would make it easier to say “no” to Loretta Lynch. Why would we agree to give her a lifetime seat when we could very easily wait a few months, beat the clown and get a nominee more on our own terms?
Based on the precedent set by the democrats in declaring Thurgood Marshall’s the “Black seat”, Scalia can only be replaced by an Italian.
Putting a female black in an Italian seat is racist and xenophobic.
That is my take on her meaning, but I don’t see that as being realistic.
Why don’t you think it’s realistic ..??
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.