Hillary Clinton

Why Didn't the FBI Give Hillary Clinton Immunity and Spare Us the Drama?

The DOJ seemed to hand immunity out like candy.

|

Rather than striking immunity deals with virtually every person who had intimate knowledge of Hillary Clinton's illegal private server and emails, the Justice Department would have saved everyone some time by offering Clinton protection instead.

FBI Director James Comey, who testified in front of two congressional committees this week, still maintains that he was unable to recommend that the DOJ charge Clinton with mishandling classified documents because of insufficient evidence proving "intent"—although the actions themselves are irrefutably illegal.

Well, how exactly did he anticipate gathering this proof, when the DOJ had proactively shielded the five people tasked with setting up the private system and then destroying it? Was he hoping to extract a confession directly from Clinton?

Why would, for instance, a Clinton functionary like Cheryl Mills help prosecutors once she'd already secured safeguards against any criminal prosecution? While testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee, Comey claimed that Mills was already "cooperative" and that the Justice Department had assured the FBI she had done nothing wrong.

If she were accommodating and completely innocent, why would she seek—and be given—immunity? A lawyer for Mills and Heather Samuelson, another one of the five, had already admitted the deal was struck to protect her clients from potential prosecution arising from "classification" on their laptops. Apparently, the DOJ was more convinced of their innocence than their lawyer was.

In the FBI's summary statement, Mills alleged that she didn't know about Clinton's email server until after the secretary of state's tenure was over. Emails since uncovered, however, show this to be untrue. Remember also that, President Obama claimed that he first learned about Clinton's illegal server through "news reports." If that's true, why did he email Clinton on her private server under a pseudonym?

Comey admitted Wednesday that one of Clinton's lawyers—"it might have been Cheryl Mills"—told Paul Combetta, Clinton's IT specialist, to delete email files from Clinton's secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved. And Comey assures us that none of this is obstruction of justice.

Then, at another point, he told the committee that the DOJ agreed to give immunity because the FBI didn't feel like wrangling with lawyers for years. "The FBI judgment was we need to get to that laptop. We need to see what it is," he explained. "This investigation's been going on for a year."

So I guess Mills was less than cooperative. Yes?

And why is Comey, who doesn't "give a hoot about politics," concerned about timetables, rather than making the best case? If the laptop was important enough to hasten a deal that protected a potential witness from prosecution, why wasn't it important enough for the FBI to subpoena? If Mills' lawyer is worried about potential criminality, why take a plea bargain off the table? Is this how it works for everyone?

It was rather amazing to hear Comey concede that the DOJ's immunity spree was "unusual." More unusual, perhaps, was that three of the people with those deals still ended up taking the Fifth, and another didn't even bother showing up when Congress called him. It's also unusual that a high-profile case featuring numerous immunity deals resulted in no charges.

To Comey, it was also "very unusual" that the FBI would conduct an interview with the target of an investigation—where wholly innocent Clinton was surrounded by nine lawyers—with two of the immunized witnesses in the case present. That's something Comey admitted had never happened in his career.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, who first defended the FBI's decision not to prosecute Clinton, put the decision in historical context: "Of all of the individuals who would warrant immunity, most would view Mills as the very last on any list. If one assumes that there may have been criminal conduct, it is equivalent to immunizing H.R. Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman in the investigation of Watergate."

Comey claimed that it was not his purview to decide who people use as their lawyers. That is true. What he failed to mention was that he determined the parameters of the interview. He could have pressured Clinton to leave Mills home, by impelling the target of the investigation to appear rather than allowing it to be voluntary interview. In a deposition about the email scandal, Mills claimed client-attorney privilege, though she was chief of staff, not Clinton's lawyer, during her tenure at the State Debarment.

Comey attempted to distance himself from the immunity deals by pointing out that he had not personally struck them. "It's a decision made by the Department of Justice, I don't know at what level inside," Comey said in the House panel. He continued, saying, "In our investigations, any kind of immunity comes from the prosecutors, not the investigators."

Surely, the DOJ doesn't offer witnesses protection from prosecution in high-profile cases without asking FBI investigators. If they did, then it would suggest a politicized process—something this case reeks of already.

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Libertarian Party Senate Candidate in Florida Might Meet the Stated Criteria to Get Into Televised October Candidate Debate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oh yay another Clinton email server article. Keep ’em coming, Reason!

    1. There’s new, more incriminating information being discovered through FOIA disclosures on a regular basis.

      Isn’t that worth covering?

      1. Nah, it’s just more right wing conspiracy shit.

    2. Yeah, Trump called a woman fat 20 years ago! We need to stay focused on the real scandals!

    3. Yes, yay. It’s helpful when Reason at least takes a break from who’s-getting-triggered-today stories and gives a nod to an open, criminal enterprise being run by a top government official who’s a few weeks away from the presidency.

    4. My last pay check was $9700 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 14k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. Go to this website and click tech tab to start your work… http://tinyurl.com/jtoj3r2

    5. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6570 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $98 per hour. Go to this website and go to tech tab to start your work… http://tinyurl.com/GoJob92

  2. I thought it was obvious: they did offer her immunity.

    They basically said they’d only prosecute her if she admitted she knew it was illegal and intentionally did it anyway.

    1. Apparently the FBI requires a hand-written and notarized letter from Hillary saying “I meant to break the law” in order to prosecute her for breaking the law.

      1. Ignorance of the law is a good enough excuse for me!

        1. At least our rightful overlords have mens rea. So the concept isn’t completely dead.

    2. Exactly. The immunity from prosecution has been obvious the whole time. The only thing that Comey had to offer was assistance with immunity from persecution. Basically, if HIllary would come in and make a decent show of things, Comey could offer that he would speak as positively as possible about her instead of simply not prosecuting.

      1. Who is a bigger cynic and power-worshiping sociopath? Elizabeth Warren or James Comey?

        1. FWIW, I think that Warren believes her own shit and is simply incapable of seeing the contradictions. I’m sure Comey is under no illusions and is just focused on securing his future. He understands that the ruling class has special privileges and he’s just trying to get his share.

          1. Warren knows exactly what she’s doing. It’s Sanders that’s completely deluded.

          2. I’m sure Comey is under no illusions and is just focused on securing his future.

            Based on his bio, he’s only been a .gov employee for 27 years. Makes you wonder if he’d have thumbed his nose at Lynch and put in for his retirement if he’d been over 30.

            1. Net worth over $6mil with 27 years in public service says it all…

        2. Warren by far. My cousin passed around that video of her excoriating the Wells Fargo CEO and saying he should be in prison. I gently pointed out that if she was serious about that, she’d be burning the phone lines to Loretta Lynch every single day demanding prosecution. The fact she hasn’t done so shows what a rabble-rousing phony she is.

        3. Warren would put people in ovens.

  3. What is outrageous is that the law about mishandling classified data does not require proof of intent.

    The guy who took a selfie on the nuclear sub and had sub’s controls in the background didn’t have bad intentions. He was convicted.

    How are we allowing Comey to get away with this?

    1. Don’t question the aristocracy, peasant!

    2. Aside from the fact that Clinton’s actions in setting up the server, destroying emails under subpoena, her IT guy calling the destruction “Clinton Coverup”, etc. etc. shows overwhelming evidence of intent.

      1. That reasoning only applies to the peons. Everything is evidence of intent if you’re not a politically connected insider. In line with Red Rocks’ joke above, if you have enough connections then only an explicit and unforced admission of guilt is evidence of intent.

        1. Therefore, Nixon was more honest than Clinton.

    3. That guy did more than take a selfie.

      1. It’s still in the same ballpark as what Clinton did. He’s now a felon facing jail time. She’s going to POTUS.

        Every security violation for the rest of time is going to cite Clinton’s free pass as justification. The DOJ will wind up needing to post a memo about how The Clinton Defense Doesn’t Count, similar to the IRS’ stance on the taxes of sovereign citizens.

    4. Most reckless behavior carries a criminal penalty even if there was no harm and no intent to harm. Driving at 60 mph through a children’s playground is a serious offense even if there were no children harmed and no intent to harm them.

      Apparently, Clintons can drive at any speed through any area because potential harm only applies to the little people.

      1. Because they didn’t have intent to speed.

    5. Agree. Intent isn’t pertinent in this case or Snowden could claim he just let some data out, didn’t know it was classified since “C” was just a paragraph header…

  4. In a deposition about the email scandal, Mills claimed client-attorney privilege, though she was chief of staff, not Clinton’s lawyer, during her tenure at the State Debarment.

    Harsanyi’s spellchecker has a sense of humor.

  5. Before this avalanche of obvious, in-the-public corruption, Comey had a real reputation of being a straight shooter who would not play sides or give political breaks to anyone who was guilty.

    He has totally shot his reputation with this oh-so-obvious genuflection and concessions-only-to-royalty, even when she was so blatantly guilty.
    The extremes he has had to bend over backwards, and with a straight face lie to Congress, with his plaintive “no-really” tone of voice in explaining the unexplainable.

    What shame, the one person we all looked up to, to be a-political, just went and did it, cashed in all his chips, in the biggest way possible.

    1. If Comey recommended indictment and Hilary won the presidency, Obama would pardon her for crimes she may have committed and Comey would be persona non grata in her administration.

      1. One of the few benefits of a Trump administration would be seeing Comey being rewarded for his “distinguished” service by being unceremoniously bounced out on his ass. He’d be promptly be replaced by another hack but still.

      2. I don’t see how she could have won while also being under indictment?

        1. Trump. That is how she could still win.

        2. She would have played the martyr.

      3. But that would have made her ineligible for office, or at the very least make impeachment proceedings easier.

        1. He would have been a marked man and destroyed if her replacement won too.

        2. She can still run.

          If Hilary is Indicted
          “There’s no legal reason why she’d have to drop out,” Mukasey said. “The Constitution lists the qualifications for the presidency. And if you add anything else, it would be unconstitutional.”

          As for impeachment, she surely would be impeached, but no Democrat in the Senate would vote to convict.

          1. SFed the link.

          2. The left has been thumping Trump as manifestly unqualified without reference to the actual Constitutional qualifications, so in that general sense Clinton most certainly would be disqualified.

      4. Are people not getting what really happened here, or are we just engaging in a speculative discussion?

        If they had indicted Hillary this process would have led straight to Obama himself, whom had exchanged emails with her under pseudonym because he knew her system was illegal, then lied about it. That is why Hillary was never going to be indicted. The WH told the DOJ and FBI to make sure the people that could get Hillary snagged got immunity so there would be zero chance of actually getting a case going. Then Comey fell on his sword as the final act, because anything else would have been suicidal.

        This process was a Kabuki show to prevent the masses from realizing how that fundamental change they were promised by Obama way back when now has given us a banana republic where among other things, democrats are above the very laws they want to use to squash dissent from the peasantry. Seriously, has the pattern of abuses and clear criminal activity that this WH and practically every agency under its direction in our government have engaged in been missed or forgotten already?

        Top men don’t commit crimes unless they are not democrats or big democrat donors. Get with the program.

    2. Heh, Comey didn’t bend over backwards, he bent over forwards. And I’ll bet he didn’t even get a reach-around.

      1. +1 goddamned common courtesy

    3. What shame, the one person we all looked up to, to be a-political, just went and did it, cashed in all his chips, in the biggest way possible.

      But what better way to whitewash a reputation than to have someone of previously-unimpeachable character vouch for you?

    4. When Comey made his announcement I detected a real “this is bullshit but I’m just following orders” undertone in what he said and how he said it.

      1. Me too. And, the investigation notes and his testimony sense has really convinced me. I personally think he’s releasing all the investigation notes to show the public just how much DOJ protected her and how much of a sham the whole investigation was from the beginning.

        1. That this was a dog and pony show was obvious from the get-go. Considering the crap this administration has done over the past 8 years, many of us suspected that despite his claim not to have known about it, Obama knew Hillary had set up the servers to hide the illegals shit she was doing, and had even participated or condoned it, which meant a Hillary investigation would bring Obama down as well. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that when Obama told Hillary she would be on her own, she told him that if she went down she was taking him with her.

    5. It sounding more and more likely to me that his hands where tied behind his back by the DOJ. I’m wondering if that’s why he’s released all the investigation info that he has. Remember, the FBI doesn’t normally release investigation notes. And, he said in his testimony this week that it was the DOJ that granted immunity, not the FBI. So, it really sound like the DOJ protected her, not the FBI. I’m just hoping that another Deep Throat will come forward. It’s painfully obvious to anyone who’s paying attention that this whole investigation was not normal.

      1. If his intention was to cover things up and help her out, he wouldn’t have give a long-ass speech detailing exactly how her actions were a technical violation of the law and dismantling every lie she told. You’re absolutely right. Either he knew it was a sham, or they got leverage on him somehow, maybe through a family member.

  6. Let’s not forget the FBI Friday evening document dump, after which Comey acted offended that he would be accused of plying political games. A couple weeks later? Another Friday evening document dump.

    1. And every email dump since has been on a Friday.

    2. If I was a reporter I think I would start my work week on a Friday. That’s when most of the interesting news is announced

  7. What a disgrace all around.

  8. Of all the people involved in this the one that I don’t understand is Comey decisions. If the reason he didn’t want to indict or resign in order to preserve people’s faith in the institution why did he even bother holding the press conference? Why would he do something that managed to piss of 100% of the country and make him persona nongrata no matter who wins in November? He pissed off the right by not indicting and he pissed off the left by holding the presser. It makes no sense and he looks like a complete asshat. His legacy is shot and his leadership is completely undermined because of his actions. I just don’t understand his actions from his perspective.

    1. Ad much as I loath Comey and the damage he has done to the country, I understand why he did what he did. Had he indicted her, he would have likely given the election to Trump. That is a big deal. As angry as the country is with him now, had he indicted her every Hillary supporter would have forever thought the FBI unfairly gave the election to Trump. When it came down to it, he didn’t have the courage to flip a Presidential election. And while I think he is a coward for that, I understand what he was thinking.

      The real villain in all of this is Hillary and her media enablers. Had Hillary not been the biggest crook to ever hold high office in this country or had the media been honest and gone after her over it like they should have, Comey would have never been placed in the position he was in. Hillary should have never been nominated. She wouldn’t have been nominated had the media not done everything in its power to lie and fix the election for her.

      1. Had he indicted her, he would have likely given the election to Trump.

        Comey, who doesn’t “give a hoot about politics,”

        does, however, bite his thumb.

      2. I don’t think Comey is anything but bureaucratic weasel who only cares about keeping his job. I honestly think he believes that what he did was give him the best chance to keep his job after November, I just think he’s wrong.

        1. I agree with you. Had it not been for the media and Hillary creating the situation in the first place, Comey being a typical weasel wouldn’t have mattered so much.

          1. No, this is who Comey really is. Remember, this is the same guy who wants back doors into anything with encryption.

            He is, and has publicly proven this, a politician’s lawman.

      3. If the FBI had been doing its job all along, Clinton could have been indicted well before the first 2016 primary ballot was cast. These crimes were committed years ago. Comey has been FBI director since 2013. This entire administration is full of people who apparently can only find out about important events in the newspaper.

        That having been said, I think you’re right. Comey was hoping to skate through his tenure as FBI director and fail upward like a good government employee. It never occurred to him that accepting an appointment from Obama was making a deal with the devil.

        1. The FBI did exactly what the DOJ told it to do. It gave immunity to the key witnesses needed to prosecute Clinton, basically killing any chance for a good case. And that was done on purpose.

          Had this become a criminal case, Hillary’s defense would have immediately brought up that Obama not only knew about the server, but had interacted with her on that account, under a pseudonym of all things to maintain his ability to play dumb, and he would have been in trouble too.

          The WH told the DOJ to make sure the FBI realized what would happen if this actually panned out as it should have. Everyone then went about playing out a show for the masses, but the outcome was all but decided from the get-go.

          Hillary was never in any danger…

      4. Had he indicted her, he would have likely given the election to Trump. That is a big deal.

        The consequences for a massive criminal conspiracy should be a big deal.

        1. For a peon like R C Dean they are. Not so much if you are going to win the next presidential election.

  9. Why Didn’t the FBI Give Hillary Clinton Immunity and Spare Us the Drama?

    Because there was never any intention of prosecuting Her Majesty no matter what the evidence, but they had to make it look like they were trying so as not to tarnish Her Majesty’s coronation.

  10. We have a government of men and not of laws. That’s been pretty clear for a while now. Everyone the Clintons touch, they tarnish. And Comey’s been touched, likely long before this.

  11. I’m having a hard time understanding the mental hoops people jump through in order to maintain their faith in the Clintons. This week has provided ample examples of things that just don’t make any sense at all.

    In the debate, they attacked Trump for calling a woman fat 20 years ago. Everyone got worked up, and NBC went out and secured interviews with the poor, fragile insulted woman and ran them round the clock. Oh, the horror. You can’t call a woman names!!

    Hillary Clinton, wife to serial sexual harrasser, sexual assaulter and accused rapist Bill, is just outraged that anyone would ever call a woman fat. Yet she personally directed the destruction of all of the victims of her husband, sending surrogates out to all of the media outlets to call them trailer trash and mentally ill and worse. But we are all in a twist over fat-shaming? And nobody in the national press stops for a moment and says WTF?

    They asked Trump a setup birther question and he answers by saying that it was the Clinton campaign that came up with the birther notion and put it out there in the press. To which Hillary responds: Only a racist who is pandering to racist voters would ever entertain such thoughts!

    And nobody stops and says, “What the fuck?!?”

    I just don’t understand the reaction. I mean, I get that we don’t want Trump, but how deep is the derangement?

    1. I think the public did stop and say what the fuck. The reason why I say that is if they hadn’t, the media wouldn’t be in full panic mode talking about fat beauty queens and such and talking every day about how big Hillary won the debate.

      Hillary didn’t win the debate for the reasons you point out. She looked to any fair observer ridiculous. I don’t care how unorganized Trump seemed or how he could have scored more style points had he said this or that. The public doesn’t care about that shit.

      1. But aside from winners and losers, I don’t understand the thoughts going through the heads of these folks.

        Pundits like Chris Mathews or news guys like Matt Lauer follow this stuff closely. So when Hillary stands up and says “what are you hiding in your tax returns?”, how do they not immediately thing “What the heck?”

        It is the living embodiment of the “plank in your own eye” parable. Starting with the Rose Law Firm billing records all the way through quarter million dollar speaking fees, hundred million dollar foundation pledges and landing on wiping email servers with cloths…. what are you trying to hide? Really?

        And none of them say, “Why in the world would she go there? Implying that he’s in the pocket of some outside rich force when you directly get paid off by big corporations and foreign governments?”

        I just don’t get it. I don’t think they are just flat lying either. I’m pretty sure they actually believe that Trump calling an employee who is paid to be a beauty queen “fat” because she put on 30 pounds is worse than Hillary destroying the reputation of rape victims.

        1. I think she went there because Trump wouldn’t take the bait and go after her. The Clintons have handed Republicans their asses for 25 years now using a very simple formula. They get up and tell a series of outrageous and shameless lies, let the Republicans completely lose their shit over it leaving the impression that the only reason the Republicans want to win is because they hate the Clintons and that the Clintons while dishonest at least care about the country and want to solve its problems.

          Trump didn’t go after her on the scandals. He talked about the economy and how shitty things are going and how he wants to fix it. It didn’t look like he just wanted to be President because he hated Hillary. So Hillary had to go after him. What else was she going to do? If she had just stuck to her message, she was done because no one is buying her bullshit about how good things are.

          And yes, it looked pathetic. And I think everyone who wasn’t a die hard Hillary supporter saw it that way. Hillary lecturing us on the dangers of Russian hacking? Really?

          1. Hillary lecturing us on the dangers of Russian hacking? Really?

            Exactly so. Everyone covering this knows that Clinton put classified communications at risk to Russian hackers, but when she says something that tone-deaf… crickets….

            I’d really be interested in a psychologist doing a study on how strongly influenced people are by motivated reasoning in elections. And not the usual “Republicans are stupid.. der…” study, but I’d like them to look at these very smart, well informed people who seem impervious to contravening evidence.

            I used to think they were just cynically lying to me. But now that I’m a little older, I just can’t buy that. I’ve seen it for too long. I think they really believe there are four lights.

    2. There is no case to make for Hillary. She’s not even trying to make a case for herself in her ads.

      Voting for Hillary only makes sense to people in contrast to Trump.

      Any one of six Republican candidates would be wiping the floor with Hillary right now.

      Trump fucked up in the debate. That was his best chance. He needed to make himself look more Presidential than Hillary for an hour and a half, and he failed.

      The question in voters’ minds isn’t whether they want Hillary. According to Gallup, Hillary hasn’t had a favorable rating over 50% since July of 2014 (Two-Thousand Fourteen). Hillary’s favorable rating has been stuck at around 40% since January of 2016, and her unfavorable rating has steadily risen over that time period–from 53% to an unfavorable high of 57% earlier this month.

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/161…..-news.aspx

      The voters don’t want Hillary Clinton. They just think she’s better than Trump.

      1. Notice, the more voters get to know Hillary, the less they like her.

      2. Look at the polls Ken. If you go to real clear Politics, every poll on there has a sample of Dem +10 or greater. And the average is Hillary +2.9. Understand both candidates are getting around 90% of their respective parties vote. In 2012 with Obama driving huge minority turnout, the electorate was Dem +6.

        Do you really think Hillary can even generate enough turnout to get it to Dem +6? Maybe but I doubt it. And she certainly isn’t getting it to Dem +10. I don’t see how she wins in a 2012 electorate at this point and she is doomed with anything less.

        1. The other hope is that national polls don’t tell the whole tale.

          It doesn’t matter if Hillary has 75% support in California, Massachusetts, and New York.

          It matters whether Hillary has 51% support in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

          I don’t like Trump. I don’t hope he wins as much as I hope Hillary loses.

          It’s about the corruption and treason to me. I don’t think people understand the consequences of the government losing so much legitimacy with so many Americans. If you can take money from foreign governments while the Secretary of State and then become President, . . .

          1. As far as states versus national goes in my lifetime the winner of the popular vote has only failed to win the electoral college once and that was a razor thin margin in the popular vote. So, if either candidate wins the popular vote by more than a point or two, they will almost certainly win the electoral college.

            1. This election is unusual.

              And people on the coasts have never been more out of touch with average people elsewhere.

              Besides, I’m grasping at straws here. Leave me some kind of hope!

              1. This is a weird election. Another interesting thing about the polls is that today at least if you go to the Real Clear Politics electoral college page, there isn’t a single state that leans Clinton. Clinton has like 160 EC votes from deep blue states like California or New York and every other state is either solid Trump, lean Trump, or a toss up.

                That is really remarkable. Everything outside of the deep blue states is either going for Trump or a dead heat. Time will tell but that doesn’t seem to bode well for Hillary.

      3. They just think she’s better than Trump.

        And what is really impressive about this is…. they are probably right.

        The argument I have for Trump being better than Hillary is surprisingly the same as the argument for Hillary over Trump…. competence.

        Hillary is clearly more competent at government than Trump is. That cannot be in doubt.

        Which makes me think Trump is too incompetent to do his maximum potential damage. This is not true for Clinton. She’s plenty competent enough to actually do serious damage to my personal vision of the country.

        Neither of them will be getting my vote, but I might just take an incompetent Giant Douche over a competent Turd Sandwich.

        1. Hillary is clearly more competent at government than Trump is. That cannot be in doubt.

          She has fucked up every job she has ever had. What makes a President competent? I would say the biggest thing is the ability to persuade people and move the country towards his way of thinking. Presidents who can do that, get things done. That is what has made Obama so incompetent. He can never persuade the country towards anything except to vote for him. The only think Obama has accomplished has been through brute force in Congress or via executive action. Clinton would be the same way. She would get nothing through Congress and accomplish nothing except running the same shakedown influence racket she has been running. She has never shown a single bit of competence at running the executive or at politics in her life.

          Trump in contrast, because he does have the ability to persuade and move the debate, might actually get a few things done. Whether you view that as a positive or not, I leave to you. But Presidency is the bully pulpit. Trump has shown a tremendous amount of media savvy and it is likely he would use that pulpit very effectively, whereas Clinton would not.

          1. I’m talking about competence at pulling the levers of government. I’ve no doubt she will competently pull the wrong lever every time, competently steer hundreds of billions to cronies who will richly reward her, competently drive up unemployment, competently drive more business overseas, competently gut the last of the constitution through Supreme Court appointments.

            She’ll drive the bus really well…. in the completely wrong direction.

            And no, she can’t bring the country together around anything. So all of the national divides will be worse. So hurrah for that.

            1. She would not be competent at pulling the levels of government. She has never shown a single bit of competence in doing that. Look how crude and pathetic her influence peddling scheme was at State. That is not something even a competent crook would do.

              The other thing is that her health is so bad, I don’t think she would function like a normal President anyway. Basically, the staff and the cabinet would be operating on auto pilot. Read the politico article in the AM links about her emails. They bought her an IPad when she was secretary of state because they thought it would get her to read the news. She never used it. She never did much of anything it appears. She was just old and sick and not that that bright or competent to begin with.

              1. I worked for a billionaire like that. He had a secretary print out his emails and bring them to him. He’d write his response on the paper and have her send it.

                So this would happen:

                Me: Would you like to join our kickoff meeting for the new line of business?

                secretary prints out email, walks it over to Mr. Bucks. Mr. Bucks reads email, grabs pen and writes “OK” on the paper. secretary walks back to her desk and types reply. I get email on my phone and reply – “Great, we will see you at 3:00 on Thursday”. Secretary prints….. etc.

                All the while his computer is sitting on his desk with Outlook open and the email sitting right there for the viewing.

                Even when urgent business was taking place, he would still follow this path.

                I have no explanation for this behavior, by the party in power or the enablers. I got impatient with this one day while sitting in his office and just took the keyboard and typed his reply for him, rather than sit through another 3 interruptions while the secretary walked back and forth. It didn’t manage to shame him into typing “yes” in an email, but it did show him that he could have her use a computer in his office. So we bought another computer and set it up next to his desk so she could communicate faster for him during important negotiations.

                Self. Made. Billionaire. No lie. KInda makes me want to cry when I think about it.

              2. If she isn’t competent in the most cynical view of the concept, how is she still around? How does she keep failing up?

                1. She knows where the bodies are buried. Possibly literally.

                  So many people in Washington have given money to the Clinton Foundation that we could be looking at the whole of our government collapsing if the Foundation where to be taken down.

        2. Yeah I’d rather see the competent turd sandwich win and then let people really feel the pain of their fuckups in electing these assholes.

          Not to mention the very real possibility that if Hillary loses we’re looking at candidate Chelsea Clinton in either 2020 or 2024

          1. I’m worried about what happens if the government loses its legitimacy.

            The best part of social contract theory is the part that says our obligation to obey the law is contingent on our government obeying the law.

            If the government loses its legitimacy, I’ll still be guided by my ethics, but not everyone has the same ethics I do. It won’t necessarily look like Oklahoma City all over again; it may just be tens of millions of people whose sense of patriotism is no longer invested in the government. Do people really understand what that means?

            My conscientious objector of an uncle died as a result of his service in Vietnam. He set himself up in a position to be drafted–he was a medic like Desmond Doss. He believed in the First Amendment, liberty and justice for all, and all the other good things he thought this country stood for. Do people not understand what will happen if patriotic Americans don’t associate those qualities with our government anymore?

            It isn’t just about having a harder time recruiting soldiers either. In extreme cases of the government losing its legitimacy with average people, it looks like the LA riots or the Boston Tea Party–but what about the smaller, more important, every day stuff?

          2. People who once felt compelled to abide by things like equal protection regardless of race, creed, color, sex, national origin, etc., may only abide by those things–out of a sense of patriotism. I may not like it, but, damn it, it’s part of the Constitution that brave Americans fought and died for, right? What happens when all that good will goes out the window?

            Hillary Clinton took money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State, and you’re going to criticize me for . . . what . . . some crime?! If President Hillary took money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State, then what does “crime” mean anymore, really? What sort of obligation do we have to obey the laws of criminals?

            1. In a Republic like ours, the simple and obvious answer is that states will start to peel away. Probably starting with Texas.

              Essentially, I think it will end up mirroring the Brexit. Certainly the Federal Government will try to stop it, perhaps even with Military force, but once you look at the state of origin for the Military it starts to become a question of ‘will the military follow orders to shoot their parents’ and I’m 100% confident that the answer is ‘no they will not’. At that point, the government is done. Period. Full stop. Maybe at one time in the past the military might have followed their orders come hell or high water, but I don’t think we’re there anymore.

              At least, that’s how I dream of it happening. I hope it doesn’t, in all honesty, but that’s my opinion of what it would look like.

              1. Oh, I did want to say one thing though. I find it probable that there will be riots no matter who is elected. I’m not going to go full tin foil hat and say this will be the last American election, but it’s going to be a bumpy one.

              2. I think we’re just in for a really hard time.

                I’d hope that our legitimacy will be restored either through impeachment or with another election in four years, but it’s going to be a rough ride if Hillary wins.

        3. Hillary is clearly more competent at government than Trump is.

          Assumes facts not in evidence. Hillary has experience in government like Typhoid Mary had experience in catering.

          1. What she does have is an impressive ability to get everyone around her to kowtow to her. From her time at State convincing dozens of people to aid and abet her blatant violation of the law, to having the entire DNC establishment in her pocket, to getting the media to carry more water than I even thought possible, the woman has everyone around her, or who could possibly be in her way, wrapped tightly around her finger.

            She’s not competent at governing. Not in the least. She’s supremely competent at holding people’s leashes.

          2. The most interesting thing to me is that the entire purpose of laws like the Pendleton Act, Civil Service Reform Act, Hatch Act, etc. was to untether the civil service from the political office-holders. Yet it is patently obvious that a consummate manipulator can still command the bureaucracy from the outside.

    3. whats also funny is every female news caster attacking Trump for Fat shaming has a weight clause, or appearance clause, in their contracts just Like Miss piggy did.

  12. “Why would, for instance, a Clinton functionary like Cheryl Mills help prosecutors once she’d already secured safeguards against any criminal prosecution? “

    Usually, granting people immunity makes them more likely to cooperate. They cooperate because they’re being compelled to testify, but Mills and company don’t seem to have any fear of being compelled to do anything.

    It has been reported elsewhere that Cheryl Mills was granted immunity in exchange for surrendering her laptop, specifically.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ji…..1475191703

    Granting witnesses immunity in exchange for evidence that can be obtained by other means is odd.

    Why not just get a subpoena for the laptop? Why grant immunity?

    1. Yeah, that makes no sense at all. In fact, it is indefensible.

      “Hey, Mr. Drug Dealer….. I’m gonna offer you immunity in exchange for showing me your grow operation!”

      Kinda hard to imagine, isn’t it?

    2. Usually, granting people immunity makes them more likely to cooperate.

      The way it normally works is the target makes a “proffer” of their testimony, something like “I’m not saying I would testify X, Y, and Z, but if I did, would you give me immunity?”

      If the prosecutor likes the proffer, he grants immunity, But here’s the kicker – its essentially conditional on the target actually testifying X, Y, and Z.

      And no, you don’t give immunity for any reason other than testimony, Nobody gives immunity for physical evidence.

      1. OMG, that is so true.
        This is not just unusual, or unprecedented.
        As you point it out it is virtually impossible.

        You don’t give immunity just for providing physical evidence, you have to provide a foundation in testimony as to what the physical evidence means.

        There is no legitimate prosecutorial strategy possible, or explainable for what they did, other than to provide a shield for Clinton.

        As time goes by, and we hear more about the individual details, the big picture emerges that there was no explanation for their “investigation” other than pure corruption, and favors given to politically powerful people.

  13. I suppose this is further complicated by the fact that Cheryl Mills is Hillary Clinton’s personal attorney.

    If Cheryl Mills is concerned about being the subject of a criminal investigation, then she can assert her Fifth Amendment rights–but she can also already assert attorney client privilege.

    As Hillary’s attorney, Cheryl Mills may not even have the right to testify against Hillary Clinton–the only way the FBI could properly get communications between Cheryl Mills and Hillary may be with a subpoena. As Hillary’s attorney, does Mills even have the right to enter into an immunity agreement and offer communications with her client? Again, why not just get a subpoena instead of granting immunity?

    Will a judge not grant a subpoena looking at the communications between an attorney and her client–even if the attorney is subject to a criminal investigation? Or are those communications simply inadmissible in criminal court proceedings against Hillary Clinton?

    1. That was an interesting and important complication. She was working in a capacity as an employee of the Department of State, not as an attorney for the office or for the secretary directly. It would be interesting to try to assert attorney client privilege on the basis of having passed the bar and having been an attorney for the object of the investigation in other circumstances.

      It would be a neat way to avoid RICO charges if you were in a criminal conspiracy. Just have all members of the conspiracy be attorneys who have represented one another.

      1. She was working in a capacity as an employee of the Department of State

        Which means she was working for the government. There is no attorney-client privilege between her and Clinton in that case.

        1. As I suspected, from Wikipedia:

          As an employee of the United States Department of State, Mills was Counselor to the Secretary of State; it is unclear under the Federal Rules of Evidence whether Attorney?client privilege applies to these communications.[20] Law Professor Patricia Salkin writes in The Urban Lawyer that government lawyers would be well advised to caution their government clients, particularly if the client is believed to be an individual public official, about the uncertainty of the privilege for what may be about to be disclosed [21] Mills’ attorney raised this protection in May 2016, under questioning by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in connection with the e-mail investigation.[22] In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reiterated that government lawyers may not exercise an attorney-client privilege in an effort to shield information from a grand jury.[23]

      2. What’s interesting to me is that the immunity agreement seems to plug the one hole that could make Mills talk.

        I don’t believe attorney client privilege protects an attorney from prosecution if they’re engaging in criminal conduct.

        Mills can’t even be made to turn’s state’s evidence anymore. You might agree to offer someone immunity for turning state’s evidence, but they can’t even pressure her into doing that anymore–because she already has immunity.

        That was the last doorway. It’s closed now. I don’t think there’s any way left to put any leverage on Mills.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFNbTdLfBwQ

        1. I don’t think government attorneys are allowed to have personal clients. Like any in-house attorney, their client is the organization, and any competent in-house attorney knows they cannot represent individual executives who are under a criminal investigation. its a fundamental, non-waivable conflict of interest. This is Lawyering 101.

          The privilege claim is pure bullshit. With immunity, there’s no 5th Amendment claim. Cheryl Mills should be in jail right now for contempt of court and obstruction of justice. Its not even close.

          1. I’m glad to hear that.

  14. Because a grant of immunity implies that you did something wrong. Duh.

  15. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH let’s all get really mad and worked up about it.

    Then slowly the anger subsides. Then Trump says something, then something else “racist” comes up. This massive crime will be completely forgotten.

    Nothing will ever come of this. No one will ever be punished. Not only that, but Clinton WILL be president, and all these felonious lackeys will get plum positions in the cabinet. Their crimes will continue.

    They will move from these positions into private business to sell their ill-gotten influence. They will be powerful and rich, making millions upon millions of dollars producing absolutely zero in the real world. They will have families, nice houses, nice cars and never ever want for anything in this world.

    They will live long happy lives and die with clear consciences because no one ever held them to any responsibility for lying cheating and stealing. In other words, they are our Gods, and we are their subjects.

    This is life, this is how it is. Nothing will ever change and those of us who haven’t been anointed by God to be Elite can continue to scratch our way around the gravel to eke out our meager existences and shake our tiny impotent fists at our betters.

    So let’s all move on.

    1. No one will ever be punished.

      Well, no one that you’ve heard of.

      1. True…. True…. Or maybe about of the dozens of guilty there will be one sacrificial lamb, like in 2008.

    2. Yeah I think you are underestimating the level of messed up the political process is here.

      The Republicans are dealing with a full scale revolt from their grassroots and looking at the very real possibility of the party splitting. The ONE thing they might be able to do to hold things together is to go after President Clinton good and hard.

      Now there is no guarantee they hold their base if they do but if they don’t they absolutely lose it and the party is gone so if Clinton wins expect congressional Republicans to start pushing for impeachment hearings by January 30th and if they lack sufficient control over the Senate to make the impeachment stiick they’re going to spend the entire 2 years between then and the mid terms campaigning on winning enough seats in the Senate to make it stick. Something that given Clinton’s unlikability and corruption should actually be pretty easy to do.

      1. You make some really good points. The thing with Clinton is that if she were to win, she would have no mandate. She would enter office being loathed by most of the country. Normally, the other party has to give some ground to a new President. They really can’t say no to everything and tell the majority that just elected him to fuck off. With Clinton they could.

        As you point out, if the GOP loses a close election, which if Hillary wins it would be, the Trump supporters will never forgive them. Their only hope would be to go after her on everything. She would basically be unable to function as President even if she wins. That would not be a good thing for the country and much worse than any of the downsides of Trump winning.

        I don’t think there is any way she serves four years. She is too tainted and will be too easy of a target for Republicans. Also, the Democrats are defending a ton of Senate seats in 2018. They run the real risk of falling below 40 seats if things go badly for them, which they almost certainly will if Hillary is President and they are stuck defending her. Hillary will end up resigning for health reasons. She will never be a Nixon and be forced to resign. She will resign for health reasons so the media and Democrats can still claim there was nothing to all of this.

        1. She would basically be unable to function as President even if she wins. That would not be a good thing for the country and much worse than any of the downsides of Trump winning.

          I respectfully disagree. Any progress and/or success that happens in this country happens in spite of the federal government, not in any way facilitated by it. That’s at all levels from the Chief Executive all the way down. We can do just fine with the Fed hamstrung — in fact we’d be better off I’d wager.

          1. No. We need a President who can act as commander in chief of the military and federal law enforcement. I am not talking about passing the next big top man project. I am talking about being able to do the basic and essential function of defending the country. Hillary couldn’t do that.

            1. On matters like that she would take the trail already blazed by Obama; i.e., act unilaterally, in blatant violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. With no censure or repercussion whatsoever. See above re: the Anointed.

  16. You don’t get to the level that Comey did unless those putting you there have something to use against you to keep you in line. I have no idea what that is in Comey’s case. It could be something as serious as sodomizing young boys or as innocent as a wife with a mental problem, but you can be sure that there is something that Comey fears being made public.

    No one coming from a place as corrupt as Chicago would ever allow an honest, “untouchable” individual to head the FBI. It would be much too dangerous.

  17. I’ve been watching a bunch of youtube videos of Comey and Lynch getting grilled by Congress (Trey Gowdy, etc.)

    The picture that is starting to develop is keystone cops/ 3 stooges embarrassing.

    1. Comey constantly refers to his “team” of investigators. He constantly doesn’t know any details of the case when asked. The impression he gives is that he put this crack squad on it and then stepped back and waited for their report. (Amazingly, after this massively long investigation, he makes his “decision” about a day after getting the team’s report.

    2. Comey doesn’t seem to know any details or reasons for anybody getting immunity. He keeps parroting that DOJ gives immunity, not the FBI, so what’s he gonna do? He gives the impression that no one in the FBI spoke with anyone in the DOJ for the last year or so. Comey’s latest testimony this week, he did a shocking version of the I don’t know/ don’t remember dance. Really sounded like Hitlerclit’s soulmate.

    1. 3. Lynch paints the exact same picture regarding DOJ: she has her team of prosecutors on it and she just waited for their recommendation, which she accepted immediately. She testified that at the end of the entire investigation, the team met with her on a certain afternoon. Probably about 3 hour meeting. That was it. That’s as much as she studied the case prior to deciding not to indict. She made her announcment the next day.

      4. Watch Lynch mumble and not answer for hours at Congress. WTF? She basically took the 5th without actually saying the words. Almost every question she answered: ‘I refer you to the FBI, they did the investigation and made a recommendation.’ Both Comey and Lynch flat out refused to do their job and held up detour signs pointing toward each other.

      5. Lynch implies that she basically recused herself without formally recusing herself due to that horribly unfortunate, accidental meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac. Therefore she felt compelled to step back and let her nameless/faceless team make the call.

      If these testimony appearances were actually true versions of the DOJ and FBI, all the prisons in America would be empty.

  18. For the legal scholars here:
    Nixon was president when Watergate happened.
    Hillary was not president when she may have committed perjury to Congress.
    Can she be impeached for that offense or are impeachable crimes only those that occur while president?

    1. No one really knows. The Constitution doesn’t say.

      1. I think that means yes, she can be impeached for crimes committed before taking office.

        1. Analogy:

          Hey mister, we’re going to prosecute for xyz.

          What are you talking about? there’s no law saying I can’t xyz

          Well, the books are kind of silent on that, so that’s good enough for us to prosecute.

          1. It’s not a great analogy, but using: “the Constitution doesn’t say”, to me, is a scary road to go down.

            1. Congress has the authority to impeach for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. Thats what it says.

              To say this authority is limited to crimes committed while in office would require some language limiting this authority. There is none. Hence, Congress can impeach regardless of when the offenses occurred.

              1. Hard to debate this one intensely due to the lack of verbiage and precedence.

                Just seems implied that Congress impeachment authority over the President would apply to his/her behavior as President.

                As someone else pointed out in this thread, with sufficient will and political power, Congress can pretty much write the rules the way the want.

                I’d still be concerned a President might be impeached because once upon a time he fixed some traffic tickets for his friends when he was a State Trooper.

    2. She cannot be impeached as President for illegal actions she took previously.

      However, she can be determined to be unfit/unqualified to hold any level of security clearance.

      1. She cannot be impeached as President for illegal actions she took previously.

        According to what?

        1. “According to what?”

          According to my particular Logic.

          Congress fires the President because of something bad they did as President.
          Otherwise, the “high crimes and misdemeanors’ criteria would/could be applied much too broadly.

          Some here have argued that Clinton could be impeached because the Constitution isn’t clear on the subject, but I think it is much more legally sound to say that the ambiguity is why she can’t be impeached.

          1. Since the President cannot be prosecuted while in office, the timeliness of the crime is irrelevant. The purpose of impeachment is to remove that immunity.

            There is nothing overbroad about it. It is exactly as broad as it should be.

            1. “Since the President cannot be prosecuted while in office”

              citation?

              In my readings, the only serious barrier to prosecuting a President is the difficulty in arresting him (shielded by secret service)

              I haven’t seen any explicit immunity for a sitting President regarding normal criminal prosecution.

              1. Well, I’ll be damned. For some reason, I thought the President enjoyed immunity from criminal prosecution while in office. The Supreme Court said the President has absolute immunity to civil suits for official acts in Nixon v. Fitzgerald but otherwise does not enjoy immunity.

                So, if Congress appointed a special prosecutor, and the President were convicted of a serious crime that occurred before entering office, how would that not be sufficient grounds for impeachment? Or would imprisonment be a form of impairment sufficient for the Vice President to assume the office?

      2. This is the method I can see of getting to Hitlerclit if she wins the election:

        Congress demands that DOJ indict her for her “obvious” crimes while SoS.

        Option 1: AG obeys congress; indicts and prosecutes. Hitlerclit goes to jail. Loses job as Pres.

        Option 2: AG refuses. Congress impeaches AG.

        repeat with next AG.

      3. And where does it say that she can’t?

        The Constitution is silent on the issue and there is no law anywhere else specifying. Further there is at least some precident for impeachments on the grounds of actions which occurred prior to holding Federal Office, see page 15 here…

        https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf

    3. The Constitution just says “for high crimes and misdemeanors”

      It does not go into time periods or specify what exactly qualifies as one. That said it is rather a moot issue because if there is sufficient political will in the Congress to move forward with the process then there is sufficient will to force the definition to match the charges.

      Also while there has never been a President removed from office via impeachment several lower level officials have been and in at least a few of those cases it was for events which happened prior to their entering office so there is certainly precedent for it.

  19. I’ve watched some of the actual questioning that Comey faced this week, and when you hear the conversations, it’s even more ridiculous. And people like Reps. Jason Chaffetz, John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan, and Trey Gowdy are utterly gobsmacked at the way things went down. You can just see the “WTF” all over their faces when they’re trying to figure out why Comey did what he did in light of the evidence.

    1. Their confusion would go away when they realized that Comey felt like recommending indictment might be so traumatic for him that he might just have to commit suicide under mysterious circumstances.

      1. Ah, true. I’ve heard opposing the Clintons is extremely depressing.

      2. I would pay money if he testified to that effect.

      3. I’ve heard that Gremlins are attracted to the planes of people who oppose the Clintons.

    2. That’s because they are motivated by naked partisanship instead of facts and justice.

      1. That’s because they are motivated by naked partisanship instead of facts and justice.

        The only naked partisans are those insisting that Clinton should not be treated like any other person. At this point, anyone else would wearing an orange jumpsuit for the same actions.

        1. For sending work emails from a personal email address?

      2. Blah blah blah. I know ye of old.

    3. A good compilation of the grilling of Comey:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwVs2nHsflE

  20. I don’t see how intent cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not reasonable to think that Clinton was unaware that this was not allowed. Even if she initially was, there’s no way that none of her advisers, IT people, etc. knew the law.

    1. If Hitlerclit woke up one morning and was told to by someone in State to use that Clinton server, she might have a case (although she should still be expected to question it repeatedly).

      Under any other scenario, her intent is baked into the pudding.

      1. Under the circumstances of this case, Clinton only avoidance of “intent” is to claim to be (literally) retarded.

    2. Usually, engaging in a coverup is all the evidence you need of criminal intent. Its a slam dunk in this case.

    3. If Colin fucking Powell was telling her to find ways to push back hard against and get around restrictions, how on earth could anyone not think that the intent to circumvent federal record systems wasn’t there? Especially when she didn’t even bother to set up an email account on either nipr or the classified systems the whole time she was Secretary.

      And then you have that goddamned idiot IT guy from PRN asking Reddit how to get rid of her emails after the subpoena dropped. And Comey can’t find any evidence of intent or law-breaking there? Forget Hillary–if the Republicans do manage to hold on to both houses of Congress, they need to devote their entire energies to impeaching Comey for gross malfeseance.

      1. The IT guy on Redit is a smoking gun if there ever was one. It is funny how the media and Democrats have redefined the meaning of “smoking gun” from undeniable circumstantial evidence” into “a signed confession by Hillary”.

  21. Really Nice Post. Thanks for sharing with us.

  22. Man the more I learn about this cover up the more pissed I get. But I’m sure the next debate mod will be all over birther gate and what a private citizens opinion on the Iraq war was when he was on the Howard Stern show.

    I didn’t know about Obama emailing hillary under a fake name. If that’s true then I know why the fbi and doj colluded in this cover up.

    1. The thing that should piss you off the most is the FBI and DOJ’s well earned reputation for being utterly ruthless and unreasonable assholes in every other criminal case they have ever handled. The same people who used the forfeiture laws to deprive Conrad Black of the ability to hire competent counsel and then charged him with an indictment so complex even the best federal PD had no chance of defending it, and who outright fabricated evidence against Ted Stevens and who achieve a conviction in 96% of their cases and who routinely charge and send people to jail for strict liability crimes and for the crime of “lying to the FBI” even though it wasn’t under oath and they can’t prove the underlying crime they were investigating, suddenly in this case were all about being reasonable and only bringing charges if there was overwhelming evidence not just guilt but intent.

      It makes me want to vomit.

  23. Man the more I learn about this cover up the more pissed I get. But I’m sure the next debate mod will be all over birther gate and what a private citizens opinion on the Iraq war was when he was on the Howard Stern show.

    I didn’t know about Obama emailing hillary under a fake name. If that’s true then I know why the fbi and doj colluded in this cover up.

    1. Oops

  24. You know it’s funny, but given what we’re left with, I’m realizing (and feel free to criticize me for not paying attention earlier) that Carly Fiorina was probably the most qualified candidate to be president.

    1. Rand, but I prefer him in the Senate.

      1. Yeah, jeez, I forgot about Rand. I guess I was thinking about Hillary’s “historic candidacy” being the only woman ever to be run for president and stuff.

    2. She was. I always like Carly. She was Trump without all the tackiness. I don’t care that she wasn’t a great CEO. She got the job and you don’t get a job like that without doing a lot right. Moreover, she made more sense than any of the GOP candidates by a long shot. Carly was who I supported from the beginning. She would have made a very good President.

      If the GOPe had had its head out of its ass and realized what a hopeless loser Jeb was and how compromised Rubio was with his vote on immigration and rallied around Fiorina, Trump likely wouldn’t have won the nomination. Trump won the nomination more than anything because he was an outsider and the and his competition were out of touch Washington politicians. Fiorina was an outsider herself. But the GOP is a good old boys club full of idiot sons and half witted hack journalists who did not have the imagination or understanding of the mood of the country to rally around someone like Fiorina.

  25. although the actions themselves are irrefutably illegal

    The FBI disagrees you ignorant jackass. Emails! Oh my god the emails! The most famous woman in the world used her established server and email account for interoffice memos. It’s practically the holocaust.

    More unusual, perhaps, was that three of the people with those deals still ended up taking the Fifth

    The 5th pleas are intimately entangled with the immunity granting. The people in question, being the subject of a Republican witch hunt, took the 5th to avoid being hauled before Congress every time Trey Gowdy got a whim in his Q-tip shaped head. But by taking the 5th they couldn’t talk to the FBI, which at that point was tying up ends on the investigation. Hence, immunity.

    Does it sound sleazy to your average cousinfucking Bubba? Yeah, but that’s the whole point isn’t it? What’s your excuse? We ever going to get around to talking about the scandal of Republicans using their taxpayer-funded salaries to do absolutely fuck-all except investigate Benghazi? Yeah, they got an email server. Just like they got a presidential BJ in the 90s. Both of those witch hunts cost a lot of our money.

    1. The only job requirement for a legislator is to be elected. They are not under any obligation to do anything else.

      And Clinton didn’t just run a server. She actively evaded reporting requirements and exposed sensitive and classified information. The former is a serious offense; the latter is a major felony. People have gone to jail for decades for doing less.

      1. Karl Rove destroyed 20+ million emails doing government business on private accounts containing god knows what. Should he go to prison?

        1. Was it illegal?

          1. As illegal as Clinton’s email use, apparently.

        2. Why not? The more the merrier.

  26. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,
    ——————>>> http://www.4cyberworks.com

  27. RE: Why Didn’t the FBI Give Hillary Clinton Immunity and Spare Us the Drama?

    Why would anyone give the next Premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Slave States of Amerika immunity?

  28. Comey is clinton’s stay out of jail card. The email thing is not the first time comey covered for clinton they go back decades. Comey is complicit with the obvious racket

  29. Clinton is a bigger rat than Nixon. Yet she slithers free.

  30. what Jacob answered I didnt know that any one can make $8719 in a few weeks on the computer
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  31. I’ve made 64,000USD so far this year w0rking 0nline and I’m a full time student. I’m using an 0nline business model. I heard about my friend and I’ve made such great m0ney. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.
    Here’s what I’ve been doing ===> http://www.Today40.com

  32. I looked at the bank draft which had said $7437 , I be certain ?that?my friend could realie earning money in their spare time on-line. . there neighbor has done this for less than twelve months and resentlly paid the morgage on their mini mansion and got a great new Lancia . have a peek here?.

    ?????????? http://www.ReportMax90.com

  33. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  34. my friend’s mom makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $20360 just working on the internet for a few hours. view….
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax20.com

  35. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.