Hillary dillary, dock..The FBI is going to clean your clock

[kevin kiernan]

[charles royer]

Partisan politics will prevail , IMHO

[jack ludwig]

always does Charles, most voters function on partisan politics.

[M]

This is why I cannot ever vote for Hillary. 

A Short Poem You Won't Forget   

 

Do you  recall the President referring to the Benghazi incident as "a bump in the  road"?

Today, I heard an ex-Navy Seal being interviewed on Fox News regarding a book he has written about how to handle crisis situations in our lives. 

 

At the end of the interview he asked if he could make a comment on Benghazi , and of course the anchor said "yes." 

 

He then thanked Fox News for keeping  the Benghazi story in the news, since other news organizations are not. 

 

He said the Seals who died deserve the public knowing the truth about the  whole affair. 

  

The poem was written by an anonymous Marine Corps officer: 

"THE BATTLING BOYS OF BENGHAZI"     We're the battling boys of Benghazi,    No fame, no glory, no paparazzi.    Just a fiery death in a blazing hell,    Defending our country we loved so well.    It wasn't our job, but we answered the call,    fought to the Consulate and scaled the wall.    We pulled twenty countrymen from the jaws of fate    Led them to safety and stood at the gate.    Just the two of us and foes by the score,    But we stood fast to bar the door.    Three calls for reinforcement, but all were denied,    So we fought and we fought and we fought 'til we died.    We gave our all for our Uncle Sam,    But Barack and Hillary didn't give a damn.    Just two dead Seals who carried the load    No thanks to us... we were just "Bumps In The Road."     So, will this reach every American with a computer?  Or do we act like the press  and give a pass to the people who literally sat there in the White House and watched the Seals' execution on live streaming video and did absolutely nothing?    The Obama Administration obviously won't be held accountable because  they apparently accept Hilary Clinton's assessment,   "What difference does it make?"    And she wants to be the next President.      Pray she is not!

[M]

Furthermore on the Clinton's ethics;

Here are some things we may be able to capitalize on in the campaign against Hillary Clinton. We need to ask her these questions publicly, and keep asking them publicly and demand answers, where ever she campaigns, until the election. 

HOW MANY ARE TRUE?? DONT KNOW---I THINK A BUNCH

 

Like these truths?
Only the willfully ignorant can support this profoundly corrupt woman!

The 25 things that are truly important about Hillary instead of this left wing fluff:

1. When did she know her husband was a serial abuser, and does she feel guilty for destroying his accusers?
2. Explain precisely the trades made in the Cattle Futures scandal where $1,000 was turned into $99,000 in a matter of weeks?
3. Why didn't she do anything to protect the Americans in Benghazi?
4. Who is Saul Alinsky and why was he her mentor?
5. When she was working on Watergate, why did her boss Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, call Hillary a “liar” and “an unethical, dishonest lawyer” and have her fired?
6. What really happened with Travelgate?
7. What really happened with the Rose Law Firm?
8. What really happened with WhiteWater?
9. What gave Hillary the right to see private FBI files of her political enemies in FileGate?
10. Why won't she turn over her illegal server with state department e-mails to congress?
11. Why does your foundation accept money from avowed terror states?
12. What is her take on the Vince Foster "Suicide"?
13. Why did she think she was entitled to steal the White House furniture when she left?
14. Why do you lie even about things that mean nothing: lying about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, lying about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary, or lying that your grandparents were immigrants.
15. Should America be concerned that in ChinaGate, the 22 people that were convicted of fraud or for funneling Asian funds into the DNC were associates of Bill Clinton?
16. Did selling stays at the Lincoln Bedroom to political donors make you feel like a wh)o(re?
17. Does Hillary think Juanita Broadrick lied when she said on national news that Bill Clinton raped her?
18. Is she still okay that Bill goes to pedophile island with Jeff Epstein?
19. Why are there so many murdered and suicided people in the Clinton's immediate circle?
20. Doesn't the fact that the Clinton Foundation has to amend 5 years of its tax returns for improper reporting imply that you were involved in an illegal RICO enterprise?
21. Doesn't approving the Russian-owned Uranium One deal as secretary of state--because of illegal contributions to your foundation--in fact make you a traitor to this country?
22. Was it wise to have at least four Clinton Foundation board of directors that have either been convicted or charged of the financial crimes of bribery and fraud?
23. Why, Hillary, did you pay your female senate staffers 72% of what you paid your male staffers?
24. When you represented an accused pedophile rapist, why did you laugh when you got him off even though you believed him to be guilty?
25. She said she had one e-mail address, it came out that she had two; She said she had one device, it came out that she had two: She said none of her e-mails on her private server was classified, but when the State Dept handed over 300 e-mails the FBI redacted large sections of one, proving again she was wrong. Thus, Ms. Clinton, are you incompetent or just a congenital liar?

Everyone should go on you tube and watch The Clinton Chronicles -- it will amaze you what a couple of psychopaths the Clintons really are!

[M]

Source; http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/04/hillary-clinton-em...

Law makes clear DOJ should prosecute Clinton for mishandling 'national defense information,' classified or not.

Since the beginning of the Clinton email scandal, the nation has been subjected to a political and criminal defense generated smokescreen. The Clinton campaign has attempted to make the public believe that she is not guilty of anything because the information on her very unprotected server was not “marked as classified” or “classified at the time.”

The applicable statute, 18 USC 793, however, does not even once mention the word “classified.” The focus is on “information respecting the national defense” that potentially “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any document ... or information relating to the national defense … through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.” A jury (not a Democrat or Republican political administration) is, of course, the best body to determine gross negligence on the facts of this case.

The courts have held repeatedly that “national defense information” includes closely held military, foreign policy and intelligence information and that evidence that the information is classified is not necessary for a prosecution. Evidence that the information was upon later review found to be classified, however, as is the case with approximately 2,000 Clinton messages, is of course one kind of proof that the information met the test of “national defense information” in the first place. (See U.S. v. Rosen and Weissman, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602 (E.D. Va. 2006) pertaining to a different provision but containing a good summary of law on national defense information and classified information.) The fact that the information does not have to be “marked classified” at the time only makes sense because sometimes, as in the case of the Clinton case and other 793 cases, the information is originated and distributed before any security officer can perform a review and put a classification mark on it.

So why has this not been discussed in the television and print media? Why has Clinton not been grilled by her interviewers as to whether her emails contained national defense information that could harm the U.S.? Why has everyone bought into the “marked classified” rabbit trail? One suspects that many reporters and commentators have not bothered to read the actual law or are hesitant to blow the central defense of the Clinton campaign out of the water.

Regardless, I am not confidant that the Justice Department will indict. It is true that part of the reason is that the political appointees who make the final decisions will at least unconsciously be searching for ways to evaluate the case in a way that would evade an obvious debacle for the Democratic Party.

But there is more to it. Spending 25 years as an attorney and supervisor in U.S. Attorney’s offices and working with Main Justice in Washington provides an understanding of the process. Main Justice has not always had a reputation for being strong and aggressive, especially in the face of an intimidating defense. What a DA will indict in a week, and a U.S. Attorney in a month, will take Justice more than a year if they ever pull the trigger at all. They tend to be hamstrung by endless memos, briefs, meetings and approvals from multiple levels and divisions. There sometimes appears to be an institutional fear of losing, however minimal the chance. This is an endemic characteristic of many bureaucracies. Unfortunately, it is likely that, at this very moment, many good lawyers at DOJ may be using all sorts of sophistry and rationalization to try to avoid applying the plain language of the law to Hilary Clinton. A jury, which should make the final decision, may never get the chance.

Ronald J. Sievert, a 25-year veteran of the Department of Justice, teaches national security and international law at the George H.W. Bush School of Government atTexas A&M University and the University of Texas School of Law.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the Opinion front page.

[charles royer]

April 4, 2016
Hillary’s Fingerprints on Selection of Aides’ lawyers

The news that Hillary Clinton’s closest aides have retained well-connected D.C. attorney Beth Wilkinson to represent them in their boss’ email scandal is bad news for those that held out some hope that justice would be done in the case. Instead, their joint hiring of Wilkinson, without objection from the Justice Department, strongly suggests that that Attorney General Loretta Lynch has no intention of pursuing charges against any of them, much less Hillary.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/hillarys_fingerprin...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[M]

Charles,

Massive and continuous public pressure for the DOJ to prosecute would have a twofold effect. First it might make the DOJ consider opening a case but not having it culminate until after the election. 

Secondly it would tend to rally the public against Hillary and her agendas.

Both scenarios would tend to alienate the public away from Hillary, and benefit the Conservative cause of keeping Hillary our of the Oval Office

[Rhodes]

Yeah and Vince blew his own brains out then walked to the park...

[Virginia Foulk]

Just reading about that again - along with many, many other murders that surround the Clintons. Part 3 of Victor Thorn's Hillary (and Bill) the Murder Volume - part 3 of the Clinton Trilogy.

I do remember several of the murders that appeared to be to the Clinton's advantage.  Vince Foster's was one.

[kevin kiernan]

[kevin kiernan]

It seems like the pundits are saying that the FBI must come up with something or have good explanation of why so much time and so many resources were used. The cost of this investigation can only point at charges being filed.

[jack ludwig]

Obama  knows full well where this investigation is going. He or Hillary are showing any concerns. I think republicans are waiting on a gift that just isn't coming.