After President Bill Clinton met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch in a secret meeting, Lynch’s Justice Department announced that it would not indict Hillary Clinton for her private email server and destruction of public documents, because she had no obvious intent to break the law, just extreme carelessness for it. Whatever happened to “ignorance of the law is no excuse”?
The Hillary Defense
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
9 Comments. Leave new
Hillary’s Exceptionalism proves she is qualified to carry forth program of American Exceptionalism.
Hillary, in Leona Helmsley mode says: “We don’t obey laws. Only the little people obey laws”
Yesterday’s New York Times delivered another, not so subtle, message to Attorney General Lynch, writing: “…Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nation’s first black woman to be attorney general…” Of course, that’s not likely to happen if Hillary Clinton is indicted by Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department.
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/07/media-gets-facts-wrong-on-loretta-lynchbill-clinton-tarmac-meeting/
“…Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nation’s first black woman to be attorney general…”
Under the current conditions . . .
Democrats close to the law could call this a bribe.
I definitely consider it a bribe.
The FBI’s announcement said something to the effect that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case”
But we’re not talking about a ‘reasonable prosecutor’ – we’re talking about the GOP. You remember – they brought the government to a screeching, grinding halt when over her hubby’s BJ. They spent far more time & money investigating Benghazi than they did 9/11.
Not that I wouldn’t love to see Hillary go down in flames, but those idjits waste so much of the taxpayer’s time and money that I don’t understand why they still have jobs.
ON TOPIC: How about ‘criminal negligence’ ?
The FBI is right,
“no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case”
. . . if they care for their life.
Keep in mind, all of this before the general election has even started.
My most-likely theory at this point is that Trump will do a deal with Putin or the Chinese, whichever one has Clinton’s e-mails from hacking her server. He’ll have either/both release those e-mails. And every single response he needs to give from that point will be the same one: “Her stupidity with her e-mail endangered American security. She isn’t qualified to run anything.”
But even if it’s just going to be a “plain old” general election, Trump is going to really hammer on her for the e-mail. I don’t think there was any way for HRC to get out of that unscathed. And her damage control about super-duper promising to get around to looking at reducing or maybe, eventually, kind of eliminating tuition at in-state colleges, is just that: obvious, transparent damage control. She’s trying to buy the young Sanders voters, but they all realize the same thing, this is just like the promises from the parents about going to DisneyWorld (TM) if your grades improve. Somehow, there will be an excuse at some point about how, gosh, jeepers, it just isn’t going to happen after all.
Back in ’92 and ’96, 48% of the voters loved Bill and, were it not for term limits, he’d still be president. The Clintonbots all say that Billary can do no wrong. Everything the Clintons have done, the Clintonbots hagiofy. And, since ’98, the US demographics have changed. Against almost anyone, Billary would have a majority. Against Trump, Billary will have at least 60% of the vote and control of the Senate. It’s ’64 all over again, with Billary running Johnson’s ads against Goldwater against Trump, and those ads are working every bit as well in ’16 as they did in ’64 (and the final result–an unwinnable war–will be identical).
Trump is NOT trying to win the presidency. He continues to alienate everyone who isn’t a WASP male with a relatively low educational attainment. Trump has said he’d make Muslims wear yellow crescents, which is an act of auto-Godwinism (or maybe sui-Godwin-cide). So it appears that Trump is just a Candidate from Northeast China.
If you want the e-mails, they’re available on Wikileaks, but those are the e-mails Hillary handed over, and which were then cleared for release by the US government under the Freedom of Information act. If there is anything incriminating, I couldn’t find it, and the Clintonbots all find everything in those e-mails exemplary.
If one Googles Guccifer 2.0, one finds that Secretary Clinton was paid LOTS of money to kill Qadhafi by those who profited from his death. The Clintonbots all say that removing Qadhafi was the best thing that ever happened to Libya, and Secretary Clinton did well by doing good (apologies to Tom Lehrer).
So war with Russia is inevitable. Putin considers his sole Med port a vital strategic interest. Billary has promised (and already taken the deposit) to evict Russia and hand Syria over to the US/UK/FrenchTurkish/Saudis who want it, and she’ll collect the balance when she boots Putin out of Syria and hands Syria over.
I note that a US marine corps officer, who was dismissed from the service due to (nota bene, self-reported carelessness with classified information, has invoked the «Clinton defence»….
Henri