...and does Hill have the balls to stick it back???

Nothing like a little gun running program with AQ to get some eyebrows raised....

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
So does O have the balls to try to stick it to Hill? If so, how does he go about it?

He doesn't have to do anything- that's what's beautiful about it. Let justice take its course.

If anyone asks obama he could say- ”no individual is too powerful to jail”.

Why risk his legacy buy protecting her or harming her in any way? Let the Justice Department do it.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I want any speculation about a "pardon" to cease.

I'm sorry. I did not realize I was transgressing.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
...and does Hill have the balls to stick it back???

Nothing like a little gun running program with AQ to get some eyebrows raised....

Or, what she might have on Barry regarding Benghazi, assuming the 2012 campaign motivations are what caused the whole mess.

^^^^^^

Thats exactly what Im referring to.

Drip, drip, drip.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
...and does Hill have the balls to stick it back???

Nothing like a little gun running program with AQ to get some eyebrows raised....

Or, what she might have on Barry regarding Benghazi, assuming the 2012 campaign motivations are what caused the whole mess.

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
^^^^^^

Thats exactly what Im referring to.

Drip, drip, drip.

Whatever she may have on Obama on Benghazi, it isn't criminal, as much as we'd all like it to be.

The classification stuff, however, is 100% criminal.

Obama is in a much better position.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
...and does Hill have the balls to stick it back???

Nothing like a little gun running program with AQ to get some eyebrows raised....

Or, what she might have on Barry regarding Benghazi, assuming the 2012 campaign motivations are what caused the whole mess.

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
^^^^^^

Thats exactly what Im referring to.

Drip, drip, drip.

Whatever she may have on Obama on Benghazi, it isn't criminal, as much as we'd all like it to be.

The classification stuff, however, is 100% criminal.

Obama is in a much better position.

I'm sure. But, it could certainly fuck up the narcissist-in-chief's "legacy".

So proof that he signed off on aiding a sworn enemy of this Nation is not a big deal?

I know some of this is a dream, but that doesnt change some facts.

I'm just focused on the likely reality part and not so much the dream. I'm betting he's pretty insulated legally on this deal. Who knows for certain, though.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
Whatever she may have on Obama on Benghazi, it isn't criminal, as much as we'd all like it to be.

We don't know that at all. The smart money is on the assumption that 'something' else was going on in Benghazi we still don't know about. Maybe arms running to the Syrian opposition? Who knows. The more important aspect here is that Hill's can't incriminate Barry without also incriminating herself. Soooooooooo....

quote:

Obama is in a much better position.

Yep.

But let's really cut to the chase here shall we. This whole thing is growing to a point where there is little Barry or Hillary can do about it. If the FBI recommends indictment, which I personally believe they will, that will be enough to kill Hillary's run for the White House. Que Biden's return to the race. If the DOJ tries to sweep a FBI recommendation for indictment on numerous national security (and maybe even pay-for-play dealings we aren't even discussing right now) under the rug, the blow back is likely to not only end Hillary's chances for the White House, but to also irreparably and permanently, damage Barry's phony legacy.

IMO, Hillary's toast. Its only a matter of time before everyone else reaches that conclusion.

quote:

We know O wants to the be the grand old man of the DNC, which would mean supplanting Bill Clinton. O obviously doesn't want to do any more damage to the Democratic Party than necessary, and never, ever wants to get caught doing so. On the other hand, ensuring that Hillary fails to become President would be eminently practical and, I'm sure, richly satisfying.

Obama has no allegiance to the DNC. His allegiance is with his muslim brothers. He has unequivocally said so.
The DNC is just the tool he used to destroy a great country while at the same time elevate his third world muslim brothers.
He wants to be head of the UN where he can even more vigorously push forward the muslim world view.

We all think Hillary is a evil nasty bitch and rightfully so but even she has nothing on the evil ambitions this traitor has.
Once Obama leaves the presidency we are not even close to being out from underneath his influence.

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
Why risk his legacy buy protecting her or harming her in any way? Let the Justice Department do it.

Somebody's feelings are bound to be hurt, and historically that's been anything from a millstone to the kiss of death among the Democrats. Still, though, there may just be enough antipathy to Hill that O could let nature take its course.

Come to think of it, the Dems dropped Hill for O pretty damned quickly when they ran against each other in the '08 primary.

good article:

http://www.nationalreview.com/...rtment-justice-obama

The FBI routinely conducts major investigations in collaboration with Justice Department prosecutors — usually from the U.S. attorney’s office in the district where potential crimes occurred.

That is because the FBI needs the assistance of a grand jury. The FBI does not have authority even to issue subpoenas, let alone to charge someone with a crime.

Only federal prosecutors may issue subpoenas, on the lawful authority of the grand jury. Only prosecutors are empowered to present evidence or propose charges to the grand jury.

And the Constitution vests only the grand jury with authority to indict — the formal accusation of a crime. In our system, the FBI can do none of these things.

So Obama is hedging his bets. He is letting the FBI investigate, but on its own, without Justice Department prosecutors and the grand jury. This frees the administration and the Clinton campaign to be, by turns, ambiguous and disingenuous about whether there really is a formal investigation going on.

As long as it is only the FBI doing the digging, everyone can play along with the farce: The investigation is very “preliminary,” it doesn’t even have “subjects,” and it may even be a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy sabotage (in which, somehow, the saboteurs are Obama appointees and non-political law-enforcement agents).

The FBI cannot convene a grand jury and present an indictment. But you’d best believe the FBI can make the Obama administration look very bad if it shrinks from doing so. Then it will be a matter of how far Barack Obama is willing to stick his neck out for Hillary Clinton.

quote:

I'm betting he's pretty insulated legally on this deal. Who knows for certain, though.

After, he rewrites the laws in this country.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:


Whatever she may have on Obama on Benghazi, it isn't criminal, as much as we'd all like it to be.

The classification stuff, however, is 100% criminal.

Obama is in a much better position.

I dunno. The stories about what happened seem straight forward enough, and you can never rule out incompetence in these things, but the explanations of what they were doing and their reaction don't make a lick of sense.

I still think there was some stuff going on that public revelation cannot be allowed under any circumstances. Staging a kidnapping, arms deals with/to bad people, politically ruinous manipulations that back fired, that sort of thing. If events had been straight forward, support would have been more or less automatic, and none was provided/allowed.

It might not be "criminal" but awfully revealing, and both are responsible for whatever it was. Neither can afford loose talk.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
Whatever she may have on Obama on Benghazi, it isn't criminal, as much as we'd all like it to be.

Numb-nuts' defense re: Benghazi can be summed up in two words:

PLAUSIBLE
DENIABILITY

Posted by jallen:

quote:

I still think there was some stuff going on that public revelation cannot be allowed under any circumstances. Staging a kidnapping, arms deals with/to bad people, politically ruinous manipulations that back fired, that sort of thing. If events had been straight forward, support would have been more or less automatic, and none was provided/allowed.It might not be "criminal" but awfully revealing, and both are responsible for whatever it was. Neither can afford loose talk.

^^I think this is probably true as well.
I also think that the emails have disclosed other very shady transactions between the Clintons and a host of bad actors.
While the Benghazi emails directly involve BHO, the other revelations indirectly involve him because it was his Administration and went on for four years without discovery.
All in all it is the sort of thing that can ruin a "legacy". This is obviously a major scandal which is not going away soon.

I seem to recall that subpoenas have been issued so the DoJ is at least that far on-board. Of course if the intention is to suppress evidence then the feds would want to gather it all in.

Regarding the State Dept request for a one mos delay in releasing more emails:

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus:

"It’s clear that the State Department’s delay is all about ensuring any further damaging developments in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal are revealed only after the votes are counted in the early nominating states,”

An extension, if granted, would push the complete publication of Clinton's emails past several of the earliest primary contests, including the key states of Iowa and New Hampshire. If they come out instead on Feb. 29, it would be a day before the critical Super Tuesday primaries.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...early-primaries.html

quote:

So Obama is hedging his bets. He is letting the FBI investigate, but on its own, without Justice Department prosecutors and the grand jury. This frees the administration and the Clinton campaign to be, by turns, ambiguous and disingenuous about whether there really is a formal investigation going on.

As long as it is only the FBI doing the digging, everyone can play along with the farce: The investigation is very “preliminary,” it doesn’t even have “subjects,” and it may even be a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy sabotage (in which, somehow, the saboteurs are Obama appointees and non-political law-enforcement agents).

The FBI cannot convene a grand jury and present an indictment. But you’d best believe the FBI can make the Obama administration look very bad if it shrinks from doing so. Then it will be a matter of how far Barack Obama is willing to stick his neck out for Hillary Clinton.

Yes... he's hedging his bets... trying to run out the clock.

However, there is another possibility:

One year from now:
President Trump will appoint Attorney General Ted Cruz who will see to it that Hillary is indicted.

There are a whole alphabet of compartmentalized and special access letter codes that are attached to TS/SCI materials. For each program, you are "read in" on the program by a security officer and you sign a document acknowledging that you must never reveal that information to unauthorized persons, and that you understand all the dire consequences, including prison time and fines, of not properly safeguarding the information.

There is absolutely no way you can escape personal responsibility, unless perhaps you can prove you were mentally incompetent. Or maybe they are looking around for some subordinate as a scapegoat. None of this surprises me, given her arrogance and past disdain for the military and intelligence community. I think the AG is up against the wall on this thing and at the very least it will have to be presented to the Grand Jury.