Posted on 05/02/2016 6:31:31 AM PDT by xzins
The mainstream media has succeeded in covering up Hillary Clinton’s email scandal and it appears her supporters couldn’t care less about the corruption.
While it seems unlikely that Clinton will be hauled away in handcuffs anytime soon, a new filing by the Justice Department contains a phrase that suggests a criminal prosecution is being planned for the Democratic presidential frontrunner.
From The Federalist Papers:
In the ongoing battle to get access to the e-mails that Hillary sent, or received or tried to destroy, the Justice Department has been forced to respond or explain why certain emails must remain classified.
When a Vice News reporter formally protested the classification of an FBI decision explaining how sensitive information ended up on Hillary’s homebrew server, the Justice Department responded, explaining why:
“They responded in kind by saying they couldn’t make the document public because it would “adversely affect the ongoing investigation” into Clinton’s private email server.
Fair enough, but it is two words further into the DOJ memorandum that will be sure to raise some eyebrows. The department claims it can’t reveal the document because doing so could “reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”
It’s those two words – “enforcement proceedings”– that may be telling. As Rusty Weiss explains, the phrase “enforcement proceedings” is used in federal law when an “investigation or proceeding involves a possible violation of criminal law.”
The FBI needs to finish this before November for the sake of the nation.
The Clintons are above the law and live by different rules than the rest of us.
General Petraeus or any other State Department official would be on trial already.
“There’s also this sneaking conspiracy in my mind that says Obama has had a plan to elevate Biden all along WITHOUT Biden having to go through the primary process which he might not have won.
The create a crisis...the indictment of Hillary or the leaking FBI of a thousand cuts...the convention turns elsewhere and who is there and ready?”
Post of the day.
Obama holds all the cards in this play of palace intrigue, and you know good and darned well that he’ll play every one of them to his greatest advantage.
Let us not forget that he holds the ‘get out of jail free’ card, as well. Hillary WILL get her mind right about all this when the time comes. In fact, she may have already done so. After all, she’s only running to stay out of prison anyway.
Your theory is not only plausible, I think it’s probable.
Jerry Ford pardoned Nixon BEFORE there was any indictment or trial etc. I think Obama will use the same analogy, and say there was no criminal intent. That it is political issue that he feels gives unfair advantage to the republicans etc etc.
I think the media and public will scream. She might even refuse the pardon, but ask that it not be brought up during the campaign.
Bottom line, he will pardon her, or declare the matter off limits until after the election. The media will insulate her from this being an issue, and will not ask her during the debates or otherwise.
Either way, it will hurt her big time.
I'd settle for what the Rosenbergs got for the crime of espionage. That's what Hillary is guilty of.
I believe that under Martial Law, an election can be cancelled. (Just what I’ve read here on FR in the past.)
How is not having a democratic candidate tantamount to declaring Marshall law?
Hillary will have her "deal" by the convention and will resign (for health reasons) after the convention is over. You will know this if she picks a very strong VP.
“How is not having a democratic candidate tantamount to declaring Marshall (sic) law?”
I’m not sure I understand your question. What I posted wasn’t what you inferred, but I may not have been clear. I just think he’s not above manipulating any situation to hold on to the perks he has as President. An election with a candidate-less major party could throw the balance of things into a tizzy. It wouldn’t be “tantamount to”, declaring Martial Law, but more like “a reason to”.
This from Ben Carson:
http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/ben-carson-might-obama-cancel-the-2016-election-28523/
given that a charge could be filed, is there any way that a replacement ticket could get onto the general election ballots of all the 57 states? to my knowledge Biden has not filed anywhere. does he have time?
such as Joe Biden?
We haven’t cancelled an election in this country through Civil War, World Wars etc. Why would we cancel if it turns out one of the candidates turns out to be a crook?
The other side wins by default.
What if three days before the election a candidate is killed? Other side wins.
Si, exactly so. Can you imagine how pissed Sanders will be to discover that the Democrats nominated a confessed felon just to keep him out.
Nothing will happen to Hillary
>>Possibly a way to extend the Obama presidency based on one party’s incapacity to field a candidate for a yet undetermined period of time.
There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that there has to be a Republican and a Democrat on the ballot.
-—Indict. Convict. Imprison.
.
.
.
Let me correct that for you:
Indict, Pardon, end of story
Whatever. I give up. Sorry I ruined your day.
You can’t ruin my day. Did we have a failure to communicate here? :-)
Hillary’s indictment is safely on file, in the crate behind the Ark of the Covenant.
Perhaps. ;)
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.