quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
Its is with great regret that HC will not be indicted. The reason she will not be indicted is because her first witness as a defendant in a criminal case is the President of the United States. Why? Because Hillary Clinton emailed President Barack Obama. He knew she had a private email server. So he is complicit. And they will not allow a constitutional crisis where the President of the United States knew about the risking of security of the United States,"

The President isn't above the law.

He didn't know she had a private server. I doubt he knows a bit from a byte.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. We saw Billy Blowjob hauled before a Grand Jury, albeit with due regard for Presidential dignitude such as it was. Moreover, he'll be an ex-President before any indictment would come to trial.

Come to think of it, what does the "first witness" have to do with anything? There were plenty of people involved, and it's not as if a President can somehow give "implied permission" to violate the law or the regs.

Fox just said there were 8 FBI/DOJ officials in the room, and 5 Clinton aides/attorneys.

quote:

I'm really curious to know what questions they asked her.

It's mainly scripted. Referring to the facts as they have been established. That does not mean that the interviewers rigidly stick to that script. Years of training and experience allows them the discretion to deviate.

What I would like to know is who was the rookie there. The one that kept mainly silent. Wonderful opportunity for him/her/it.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Come to think of it, what does the "first witness" have to do with anything? There were plenty of people involved, and it's not as if a President can somehow give "implied permission" to violate the law or the regs.

That's not the point. They point is that HRC and her team are using calling the president as the first witness as a threat to prosecutors. They will subpoena the president, who she reported to, and ask him if she did anything wrong. The DOJ does not want the president to get a subpoena in a criminal case.

The media is full of stories today that 'no charges will be filed' from 'inside sources'.

Sources: Hillary Clinton Not Expected to Face Charges in Federal Email Probe

Whatever happens, it should be known within a few weeks.

Of course not. They have to get out in front and steer the titanic.

Clinton telephone interview w Chuck Todd after the FBI interview

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...vestigation-timeline

same old Hillary horseshit

Hillary says she learned of Bill C's talk w Lynch through the news. That was 2 days after the Bill/Loretta secret mtg.

So she claims Bill didn't even mention to her that he met w Loretta Lynch.

This is like Alice in Wonderland

Limbaugh has a long piece up on his website talking about how the Clinton's are "playing us" and no charges will be brought. Stirewalt (I think that's his name) on Fox has a theory that the purpose of the meeting with Clinton-- which was intended to be outed- is to lead to demands for a special prosecutor, which will drag the proceedings on for years-- well after the election.

My conclusion: Nobody knows. After Roberts, I am done trusting anybody in the government, in any branch. Maybe Hillary will be indicted. Maybe she won't be.

We'll see.

Yep Joe... Nobody knows.
But if there's any justice she will go down. Down Hard.

quote:

Originally posted by David Lee:

quote:

Originally posted by 41:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkfE10g8xbc

Here is a Fox News piece on "How Evil Is Hillary and Bill Clinton?"

41

I dont see TV any more 41 so that was interesting to view. I saw Chuck Shumer in there too. Which means the Cuomo knows things as well. Include that little split tail who hillary groomed for her position in the Senate. The whole lot stink to high heaven.

I wonder to what proximity helping Haiti out this all was to them dragging our Marines, dead and naked through their streets?

Pay attention Chelsey Hubble, this is your future.

I was just thinking, perhaps it was Somalia.. Oh well, just my confusion.

Every which way the Babylonian loses.

If she is indicted, "we knew it!".

If she is not indicted, "the system is rigged!".

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/g600107907.webm

Double check.

Rush is right, we're being played. This is nothing more than Kabuki theater.

Rush might be right that no charges will be brought. But he sometimes gets too clever for himself. I don't see that the Clintons benefit in any way whatsoever from the disclosure of Bill's meeting with Lynch. I don't see how the FBI investigation of Hillary benefits her in any way, even if no charges are brought.

Whether she is indicted or not, what we in all this is more evidence of the Clintons as totally corrupt. Some Democrats, and most independents, will see the absence of charges as evidence that corruption extends to the DOJ and the FBI.

Corruption likes to hide. It is never blatant and in-your-face except in totalitarian dictatorships. And we are not there yet.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings.

quote:

They will subpoena the president, who she reported to, and ask him if she did anything wrong. The DOJ does not want the president to get a subpoena in a criminal case.

So they move on to the other witnesses. What's the problem?

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Come to think of it, what does the "first witness" have to do with anything? There were plenty of people involved, and it's not as if a President can somehow give "implied permission" to violate the law or the regs.

That's not the point. They point is that HRC and her team are using calling the president as the first witness as a threat to prosecutors. They will subpoena the president, who she reported to, and ask him if she did anything wrong. The DOJ does not want the president to get a subpoena in a criminal case.

How would he know?

He can be a percipient witness, testify what he saw, heard, experienced, as an expert witness and give an opinion, if he qualifies as an expert on sn issue the court requires expert opinion, or maybe a character witness, but he risks being cross examined about statements he made about her in the past.

I don't see any reason to drag him down there. He won't be President by then in any event.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
The DOJ does not want the president to get a subpoena in a criminal case.

The heck with the DoJ--I do want it!!!!

flashguy

Democrats = Lucy and the football
Republicans = Charlie Brown

This will be nothing more than another swing and a miss by the Republicans, just like Fast & Furious and Lois Lerner.

Methinks the fix is in.

I don't see the president putting himself out there this way if an indictment was coming down. The embarrassment from vouching for the honesty and integrity of an indicted criminal is not something Obama would be pleased about. Hope I'm wrong.

Link

Excerpt:

"From bitter rivals to then allies and colleagues, President Obama plans to tell the story of how he eventually warmed up to Clinton – to make the case that the country should too. Obama and Clinton will appear together for the first time this campaign cycle on Tuesday, where they will show of a new phase of their storied relationship: co-dependents. Clinton's chances of winning the White House hinge on rallying Obama's coalition to her cause. Obama's legacy depends on her success. Eight years after they spent millions tearing each other down in pursuit of the White House, they will now spend countless words and four months selling each other to the public."

Uh-huh. Somehow I think he'll find plenty of opportunities to build a new legacy when the Clintons are history and he's head of the new DNC. I'm going to wait and see how hard he throws himself into defending her. After all, he can always blame the Republicans, her staffers and, if all else fails, her for her troubles. If, OTOH, he spends a lot of time on House and Senate campaigns, you know he's not relying on her for jack.