This was posted in the Trump is Ass-clown thread:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/m...edin-laptop-n2238832

announcing that a warrant has now been obtained.

Townhall.com
Kevin McCullough
Posted: Oct 30, 2016 12:01 AM

On the day after the FBI announced that it was reopening the case of Hillary Clinton's emails, the former Secretary of State implied in a speech to supporters on the campaign trail that the FBI's actions were strange, unprecedented & deeply disturbing.

It may be the least self-aware statement a politician has ever made while running for office.

Ironically, "strange, unprecedented and deeply disturbing," where the identical emotions and thoughts that were quietly revealed to the media via the voice of one of the investigators of the original 100 agents that worked the case. In the stunning revelation the agent confessed that all 100 agents that worked the original email case believed Hillary Clinton had violated national security so badly that she should have her national security clearance revoked. Similarly all six of the department of justice attorneys that work the case believed that she should have been indicted.

These agents and attorneys believed the evidence in the original case was so strong that it was disheartening, dismaying, and literally sickening that the Justice Department nor the FBI moved forward with further inquiry. Prosecutors across America went on cable and print outlets to decry the actions & to proclaim that had they been given the same case that they not not only would have indicted, but would have argued a guilty verdict to a successful conclusion.

Fast forward to this last Thursday, in unrelated circumstances, as FBI agents poured over the sexting details of former congressman Anthony Weiner. Something profoundly disturbing and connected to the Hillary Clinton email case was discovered.

Enough of a something was found that it forced the FBI director's hand to take actions that he had specifically attempted to avoid for many weeks--the reopening of the FBI's efforts in Hillary Clinton's criminal email endeavors.

The very thing he had hoped to avoid--which was to take further action, close to the election--was now forced upon him, his investigators and now the voters of America.

Predictably, without missing a beat, Hillary Clinton rose to the occasion of defiant hubris, strong disdain and likely greater abuse of the American people.

As rumor swirls as to what the evidence may actually prove, armchair analysts have been proffering their thoughts throughout the weekend.

Mine are as follows:

1. Hillary's people are some of the least intelligent when it comes to using technology.

2. Such recklessness has not only opened up threats against our nation but now her very campaign.

3. With the knowledge that the device is retrieved from the Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner home, and that it is likely that both used said device for extended periods of time, it is likely that direct evidence that contradicts previous testimony has been discovered.

4. As Ms. Abedin was Hillary's closest and personal confidant, it is entirely possible that tens of thousands if not all thirty thousand email that the campaign attempted to bleach from the original servers had a second "carbon copy" home that most forgot about.

5. Given that in the leaked emails from John Podesta alone there appears to be systematic attempt to commit felonies such as suppression of evidence, destruction of evidence, collusion, and corruption, one can only guess at the gold mine of criminality tens of thousands previously undiscovered but believe to be destroyed emails might contain.

It is understandable that the Clinton campaign spent most of the last several days contacting lawyers, and publicly calling for the release of more information.

Being kept in the dark is not a position that anyone with the last name of Clinton is in any way familiar with. As each minute transpires, in which they do not know the actual facts of what the FBI now does, the gnawing in the pit of their stomach eats away at their deceptive souls. It also prevents them from formulating lies to counteract what has been uncovered.

The vast majority of observers also rightly point out that this kind of surprise--again through an unrelated investigation--was created by only one person--Hillary Clinton herself.

Had she but followed State Department protocols and used her assigned server for official State Department work this conversation would never be occurring.

Had she turned over her emails when so instructed by a federal judge and a Congressional subpoena, this would not have happened.

Had she instructed her aides to do the same... etc.

Every last ounce of this last minute panic that she feels in her heart tonight, is of her own doing, her own creation, and perhaps finally her own reaping.

Hillary Clinton claims that the FBI--merely doing its job--is strange, unprecedented, and deeply disturbing.

Given the fact that it is entirely possible that she is looking at actual prison time I understand her panic.

Link

Hillary's only prayer now is to win the election so that she can use her new power to bury all of this. If she loses, she's headed to prison.

She'll do whatever it takes...

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
Hillary's only prayer now is to win the election so that she can use her new power to bury all of this. If she loses, she's headed to prison.

She'll do whatever it takes...

If she loses, Obummer will pardon her. If she wins, Obummer will pardon her.

Harry Reid is utterly despicable. I seriously wish he would drop dead. Right now.

Oopsy daisy Hillary

FBI discovered Clinton-related emails weeks ago

Investigators believe it's likely the newly recovered trove will include emails that were deleted from the Clinton server before the FBI took possession of it as part of that earlier investigation.

if you ask me, the fuckers didn't delete emails from the server to cover their tracks, they copied and pasted and saved them.

Wow!

Doug Schoen, a Clinton insider for 25 years just said, "I am actively reassessing my support for her...As of today I am not a supporter of the Secretary of State".

Hillary only has herself to blame for the mess she’s in

NY Post
Michael Goodwin
October 29, 2016 | 10:15pm

We must forgive Mark Twain for his error when he declared that “history never repeats itself but it often rhymes.” After all, he’d never met the Clintons.

If Twain were alive now, he would be astonished at how the headlines over the e-mail scandal roiling the presidential race are virtual repeats of the family’s 1990s saga in power.

The headlines are also an omen. A restoration of the Clinton presidency would be a restoration of the national and moral chaos they invariably create.

They can’t help themselves. They are corrupt and corrupters, the ­Typhoid Mary of politics.

Whether by nature or nurture, they are programmed to ruin. Friends, allies, institutions — all are stained by their touch.

And always, the Clintons blame somebody else. Now it’s FBI Director James Comey’s turn to embody their all-purpose bogeyman, the vast right-wing conspiracy. Somebody, sometimes everybody, is out to get them, unfairly of course.

The victim card is a Clinton family heirloom, but there are major problems playing it over Comey’s sudden reopening of the e-mail probe.

Clinton created the mess with her incredibly stupid decision to use a private server as secretary of state. Virtually every major issue dogging her, including her reputation for chronic dishonesty, was started or exacerbated by that decision, including the current one.

Even as her top aides remain mystified about why she did it, the result fits the family pattern now that Huma Abedin, her most loyal “body” person, is on the hook. It was, by all accounts, the FBI’s criminal investigation into Abedin’s pervy husband, Anthony Weiner, that led to the new cache of suspect e-mails found on a computer the couple shared.

Still, Clinton is understandably panicked because the timing of Comey’s announcement could cost her the election. Her demand that he release everything immediately is also understandable, even as she knows it is impossible for him to release potential evidence before it is examined.

Clinton created the mess with her incredibly stupid decision to use a private server as secretary of state.

Her attacks on him play well to her base, and her media handmaidens are amplifying the complaint that he has gone rogue. But, as usual, there is less than meets the eye here, for Clinton could solve the problem herself without Comey doing anything to help.

She could simply order Abedin to hold a press conference and answer any and every question about the newest batch of e-mails. Let reporters ask Abedin directly: What’s in those e-mails? Did any contain classified material?

Why didn’t you turn that computer over to the FBI during its initial investigation? Did you lie to the FBI about having work-related e-mails on it?

Also, did Weiner have access to classified material? Was the computer ever hacked?

The potential upside is huge. If Abedin can answer “no” to all the key questions about classified material and her own conduct, Clinton could credibly declare Comey’s announcement much ado about nothing.

She could even hold her own press conference to answer questions and conclude by saying: We have been as transparent as we can be, and we are not afraid of a new investigation because we have nothing to hide.

Now, back to reality. Clinton reality.

Hillary won’t do any of that because the potential downside is also huge. My guess is she fears the worst, and may secretly subscribe to the idea that Comey wouldn’t have acted in such a bold and controversial way without some conviction that he had stumbled on a potential bombshell.

And Clinton, a former litigator used to playing defense, probably already knows what’s in the e-mails. Or perhaps she has concluded that, if indeed there are thousands of them, as is being reported, at least some are bound to re-fuel suspicions that she and her team are guilty of mishandling national secrets.

Then, instead of putting the issue to bed, any substantive discussion, including an Abedin press conference, would actually fan the fire just as voters are going to the polls.

Moreover, even if Abedin’s answers would help Clinton, taking her public would be effectively betting the presidency on her performance. Abedin’s always worked behind the scenes, and has little experience in front of a camera, not to mention a forest of them that would assemble for such an extraordinary event.

To top it off, this professional crisis is coming as Abedin’s personal world is in turmoil. Weiner is a certified creep, but he is still the father of their young child, and now faces the possibility of federal prison.

Against that backdrop, what if Abedin were to stumble or crack in public? What if she has a lawyer who advises her to say nothing because she might also be a federal target and risks incriminating herself by speaking publicly?

The stress for everybody involved must be enormous. The race with Donald Trump was tightening even before this, and now Comey’s wild card scrambles the prepared end game and closing arguments.

All of which points to Clinton’s most likely strategy: say nothing while trying to make the issue about Comey’s unorthodox move. A hint of it came Friday evening in her first public reaction.

After falsely accusing him of sending his congressional letter only to Republicans — congressional Democrats also got it — Clinton dodged a direct question about whether she had spoken to Abedin. Instead of saying yes or no, she avoided it entirely.

According to reporters, Abedin was on the campaign plane, but disappeared when it landed. And she hasn’t been seen since; hence the “Huma in Hiding” headlines.

We’re likely to see more of those headlines in coming days. It’s the Clinton way, where truth is always the enemy.

Link

quote:

Originally posted by italia:

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
Hillary's only prayer now is to win the election so that she can use her new power to bury all of this. If she loses, she's headed to prison.

She'll do whatever it takes...

If she loses, Obummer will pardon her. If she wins, Obummer will pardon her.

There will not be a pardon. Not going to happen with Obama in office. Not by a long shot. I wish people would stop with this "he's going to pardon her" shit.

To pardon someone requires, as the one absolute prequiste, that criminal charges be filed. Who exactly is going to file charges before Obama leaves the White House?

Charges also mean that the FBI completes it's work and given scope of what's involved, I doubt that will be done and even if the FBI recommends charges, it's up to Lynch to agree, impanel a grand jury and go from there. Simply won't happen.

Please stop with this pardon shit.

Doug Schoen just said on Fox that he cannot support Clinton. He has been a major Democratic consultant for 30 years. He's been critical of her a while but had previously said he was voting for her.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
Doug Schoen just said on Fox that he cannot support Clinton. He has been a major Democratic consultant for 30 years. He's been critical of her a while but had previously said he was voting for her.

It's about time, Doug! I've been disappointed in him because even though a Democrat, he always seemed to be fair, but he just never would pull his support for Hilldawg. I love this.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by italia:

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
Hillary's only prayer now is to win the election so that she can use her new power to bury all of this. If she loses, she's headed to prison.

She'll do whatever it takes...

If she loses, Obummer will pardon her. If she wins, Obummer will pardon her.

There will not be a pardon. Not going to happen with Obama in office. Not by a long shot. I wish people would stop with this "he's going to pardon her" shit.

To pardon someone requires, as the one absolute prequiste, that criminal charges be filed. Who exactly is going to file charges before Obama leaves the White House?

Charges also mean that the FBI completes it's work and given scope of what's involved, I doubt that will be done and even if the FBI recommends charges, it's up to Lynch to agree, impanel a grand jury and go from there. Simply won't happen.

Please stop with this pardon shit.

Wasn't Nixon pardoned, by Ford, before he was convicted?

Hillary is such a liar..she conveniently forgets what enabled Bill Clinton to get in the White House in the first place. Lying, stealing, communist assholes the whole bunch are and it wouldn't surprise me if Obama's doesn't have some emails on the device that he doesn't want to be seen....Huma is probably doing the smart thing by hiding and doesn't want Hillary to find her.

http://www.washingtonexaminer....tion/article/2606000

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

There will not be a pardon. Not going to happen with Obama in office. Not by a long shot. I wish people would stop with this "he's going to pardon her" shit.

To pardon someone requires, as the one absolute prequiste, that criminal charges be filed. Who exactly is going to file charges before Obama leaves the White House?

You're 1/2 correct. There won't be a pardon but not for the reason you gave.

There doesn't need to be charges (an indictment) before a presidential pardon occurs. Ford-Nixon is the best example.

What there does have to be, however, is desire on the part of the POTUS. It may not be obvious, given the current campaign trail love-fest, but Obama and Hillary HATE each other. Absolutely despise each other. If she loses on 11/8, Obama has no further use for her whatsoever.

There'll be no pardon coming from Obama.

quote:

Originally posted by Muddflap:

Wasn't Nixon pardoned, by Ford, before he was convicted?

Nixon was never convicted, or impeached.

I truly hope that the 'pit' of anxiety, despair and powerlessness that is churning away in the CROOKED One's stomach right now, is a million times worse than the one I have felt over these past eight years watching obama, the clinton cabal and the entire Washington 'establishment' purposefully, viciously and mischiefly destroy our country.

MAGA!!

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by italia:

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
Hillary's only prayer now is to win the election so that she can use her new power to bury all of this. If she loses, she's headed to prison.

She'll do whatever it takes...

If she loses, Obummer will pardon her. If she wins, Obummer will pardon her.

There will not be a pardon. Not going to happen with Obama in office. Not by a long shot. I wish people would stop with this "he's going to pardon her" shit.

To pardon someone requires, as the one absolute prequiste, that criminal charges be filed. Who exactly is going to file charges before Obama leaves the White House?

Charges also mean that the FBI completes it's work and given scope of what's involved, I doubt that will be done and even if the FBI recommends charges, it's up to Lynch to agree, impanel a grand jury and go from there. Simply won't happen.

Please stop with this pardon shit.

Pre-emptive pardons have occurred, so it's an arguable point.


Pre-emptive Presidential Pardons
Pardon Linky
With six months to go before President Bush leaves office, the White House is receiving a flurry of pardon applications. The New York Times reported that "several members of the conservative legal community" are pushing for the White House to grant pre-emptive pardons for officials involved in counterterrorism programs. Wait—can a president really pardon someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime?

Yep. In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that the pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment." (In that case, a former Confederate senator successfully petitioned the court to uphold a pardon that prevented him from being disbarred.) Generally speaking, once an act has been committed, the president can issue a pardon at any time—regardless of whether charges have even been filed.

As the Explainer has pointed out before, there aren't many limits to the president's pardon power, at least when it comes to criminal prosecutions under federal law. The president's clemency power has its origins in the practices of the English monarchy, and as a result, the Supreme Court has given the president wide leeway under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. There are some exceptions: The chief executive can't pardon someone for a violation of state law or nullify a civil ruling, and his power doesn't extend to convictions handed down in an impeachment proceeding. (It's also not clear whether the president can pardon himself for future convictions.)

While pre-emptive pardons remain very rare, there are a few notable exceptions. Perhaps the most famous presidential pardon of all time occurred before any charges were filed. Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon absolved the former president of "all offenses against the United States which he … has committed or may have committed or taken part in" between the date of his inauguration in 1969 and his resignation in August 1974. In other cases, presidents have pardoned individuals after criminal proceedings have begun but before a judgment has been handed down. In late 1992, less than a month before leaving office, President George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who had been indicted earlier that year on perjury charges surrounding the Iran-Contra affair. (A lawyer for Roger Clemens' former trainer Brian McNamee claimed the pitcher might receive a similar pardon from Bush if he were ever indicted.) In addition, broad presidential amnesties—like the one President Carter issued to those who had avoided the draft during the Vietnam War—are essentially pre-emptive pardons issued to a large group of individuals.

If someone hasn't yet been charged with a crime, how does the president know what to pardon them for? As in Nixon's case, President Bush could issue a pardon that applies generally to any crimes that may have been committed within a certain range of dates. More likely, a pardon could apply only to actions surrounding a single policy or place—say, the detention or interrogation of suspected al-Qaida members.

Constitution Allows Pardons Before Conviction
Pardon Linky
In ''Unthinkable Pardons'' (editorial, Nov. 25), you erroneously state that the President's pardoning power under the Constitution is ''designed to operate after conviction and all appeals are exhausted.'' At the Constitutional Convention of 1787 debate on this point was won by the delegates who urged that pardons be permitted before conviction (see Zimmet, ''The Law of Pardon,'' 1974-75 Annual Survey of American Law, page 179; ''The Nixon Pardon,'' Connecticut Law Review, 1974, Volume 7, page 56).

Accordingly, the Constitution simply provides that the President ''shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment'' (Article II, section 2).

The leading Supreme Court case is Ex parte Garland (1867). Justice Stephen J. Field, writing for the Court in a 5-4 decision, held that the President's pardoning power is ''unlimited,'' and ''It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.''

In Murphy v. Ford (1975), a Federal District Court in Michigan rejected a suit for a declaratory judgment that President Ford's unconditional pardon of Richard M. Nixon was unconstitutional. The court found that the President had the constitutional power to grant a pre-indictment pardon, citing Ex parte Garland in its support.

It should also be noted that the Constitution of the State of New York provides in Article IV, section 3, that ''The governor shall have the power to grant a reprieve, commutations and pardons after conviction for all offenses except treason and cases of impeachment . . .'' This provision was part of New York Constitution when the Federal Constitution was debated in 1787, and it was rejected by the delegates.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by Muddflap:

Wasn't Nixon pardoned, by Ford, before he was convicted?

Nixon was never convicted, or impeached.

Nixon WAS given a pardon by President Ford.

There were never any formal charges. He was pardoned and that ended the matter.

Obama's legacy (what little he has) would suffer greatly if he pardoned the HAG. Stranger things have happened.

quote:

Originally posted by italia:

Pre-emptive pardons have occurred, so it's an arguable point.

This may be true, but has been said, Hadji hates the Clintons...with a passion. The only reason he'd do it is to potentially save the Democrat party, and that is a lost cause at this point.