Posted on 11/07/2015 4:00:37 AM PST by HomerBohn
In much the same manner as we hoped would happen in 2012, concerning Barack Hussein Obama's name not being on a ballot due to multiple court cases involving his fraudulent identification, now a judge has spoken out and says that the current political and legal issues that Hillary Rodham Clinton has been embroiled in will ultimately see her name not on the ballot in 2016.
I've always appreciate much of what Judge Andrew Napolitano has written and said with a few exceptions. Even in what I'm about to write, I agree with his legal opinion, but am skeptical that the people will even bat an eyebrow, considering they have not so yet knowing all they know about Hillary Clinton. Yet, I do find his observations worthy of print.
Napolitano pointed out in a recent column that Hillary's political problem is one of "credibility."
"We know from her emails that she informed her daughter Chelsea and the then-prime minister of Egypt within 12 hours of the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, that he had been killed in Benghazi by al-Qaida," he wrote. "We know from the public record that the Obama administration's narrative blamed the killings of the ambassador and his guards on an anonymous crowd's spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muhammad video."
Though her own embassy staff in Tripoli said the video was not an issue, Hillary marched right out, alongside Hussein Obama and Susan Rice to declare that the video was the reason for the Benghazi attacks. Her State Department even spent $70,000 of your tax dollars America to apologize for it!
Even after receiving the bodies of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others who died attempting to fight off Islamic jihadists, Clinton, along with Rice and Obama, continued to promote the lie that Benghazi was about a video.
However, Napolitano doesn't point to that as the reason that Clinton's name will not be on the ballot in 2016.
"That's because each time she addresses these issues – her involvement in Benghazi and her emails – her legal problems get worse," Napolitano continues. "We already know that the FBI has been investigating her for espionage (the failure to secure state secrets), destruction of government property and obstruction of justice (wiping her computer server clean of governmental emails that were and are the property of the federal government) and perjury (lying to a federal judge about whether she returned all governmental emails to the State Department)."
"Now, she has added new potential perjury and misleading Congress issues because of her deceptive testimony to the House Benghazi committee," the Judge added. "In 2011, when President Obama persuaded NATO to enact and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, he sent American intelligence agents on the ground. Since they were not military and were not shooting at Libyan government forces, he could plausibly argue that he had not put "boots" on the ground. Clinton, however, decided that she could accelerate the departure of the Libyan strongman, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, by arming some of the Libyan rebel groups that were attempting to oppose him and thus helping them to shoot at government forces."
He then concludes, "So, in violation of federal law and the U.N. arms embargo on Libya she authorized the shipment of American arms to Qatar, knowing they'd be passed off to Libyan rebels, some of whom were al-Qaida, a few of whom killed Ambassador Stevens using American-made weapons. When asked about this, she said she knew nothing of it. The emails underlying this are in the public domain. Clinton not only knew of the arms-to-Libyan-rebels deal, she authored and authorized it. She lied about this under oath."
"After surveying the damage done to his regime and his family by NATO bombings, Col. Gadhafi made known his wish to negotiate a peaceful departure from Libya," added the judge. "When his wish was presented to Clinton, a source in the room with Clinton has revealed that she silently made the "off with his head" hand motion by moving her hand quickly across her neck. She could do that because she knew the rebels were well equipped with American arms with which to kill him. She didn't care that many of the rebels were al-Qaida or that arming them was a felony. She lied about this under oath."
While many have come to the same conclusion, Napolitano adds that both Catherin Herridge and Pamela Browne scrutinized Clinton's testimony and point out that Obama vetoed Sidney Blumentahl's hiring at the State Department, which she then had the Clinton Foundation pay him a larger salary to work at the State Department to be her, in the words of Napolitano, "silent de facto adviser."
Though Clinton called Blumenthal just a "friend" during testimony, nothing could be further from the truth. Both engaged in emails back and forth over intelligence issues, some of which she acted on, including a Libyan no-fly zone.
Napolitano then concludes, "It is difficult to believe that the federal prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Clinton will not recommend that she be indicted. Inexplicably, she seems to have forgotten that they were monitoring what she said under oath to the Benghazi committee. By lying under oath, and by misleading Congress, she gave that team additional areas to investigate and on which to recommend indictments."
While I agree with the judge's assessments, I wonder if he has taken into consideration the amount of corruption in the government that has allowed a known usurper, Barack Hussein Obama, to stay in office for seven years.
The DO”J” and al Qaeda’s Pentagon will NEVER again
be trusted by Americans in our lifetime. NEVER.
TOO BIG TO JAIL!!!
Hillary’s big felony problem....
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information...
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Petraeus is/was the benchmark of wrong doings. This has to be bothering Lynch. Does she understand due diligence?
And don’t forget all those Republicans in Congress that voted to confirm Lynch. Nothing is going to happen to Hillary. She will be our next Obama.
Fight it today, if possible. If not? Drag it out. Force it into the next administration.
It is years past the time when this woman should be in prison, along with her philandering spouse, and her three closest confidants.
If they couldn’t stop Obaba with a Republican controlled DOJ they will never stop Hillary with a Democrat controlled DOJ. I’ll never trust the DOJ again, (the ACLU is more powerful).
Judge Andrew Napolitano has a remarkable level of faith in the rule of law. A far more accurate description of today’s reality is that we are facing thugs with no interest in following rules, just wielding them as weapons. Obama is a petty tyrant, and his followers are evil - motivated by power over others. If electing a lying felon furthers their cause, Hillary will be on the ballot.
Our current government has no legitimacy at all. Our only reason for obeying their demands is a well-justified fear, not because they have a right to order us to:
- pay for abortions for our employees,
- participate in gay ceremonies that mock holy matrimony,
- pretend that boys who claim to be girls (or puppies) really are girls (or puppies),
- pay fines for not purchasing the medical insurance that their cronies want to sell to us,
- pretend they have a right not to be offended by Christianity or by our patriotism (a loyalty toward the Constitutional government we used to have, not to the thugocracy of today’s tyranny),
- disarm on their orders or even limit the capacity or capabilities of our firearms,
- welcome foreign invaders who entered our country illegally, and
- pay for welfare for those foreign invaders.
The fix was in long ago at the Department of “Just-Us”, there will be no prosecution of Herself, for any reason.
However, the THREAT of prosecution could still be used, if as it now appears, the pursuit of the candidacy for President by Herself is such a large negative, it will drag down the greater part of the liberal Democrat agenda, and as a sort of negative coat-tail effect, result in the resounding defeat of vast numbers of those aspiring to office and incumbent Democrats further down the ticket.
The Democrats would have a long and painful period of rebuilding. They may want to cut their losses now.
Doesn’t the Judge understand that Hillary has Democratic Immunity? She could murder a classroom full of children on live TV and not face charges.
Deceptive headline, as the “judge” has merely been a media analyst for years—he is in no position to block any ballot listings.
“...considering they have not so yet knowing all they know...”
Went into my 2nd mug of coffee to get thru that phrase.
I said months ago and see nothing to change my opinion: Warren/Castro 2016.
Hillary is a very bad candidate for the DNC.
Nevertheless, they are invested in their “First Presidents” meme.
First Black President, First Female President, First Hispanic President.
Female is next.
Biden stepping aside was the last hurdle for Warren.
Now, she just has to wait for the scandals around Clinton to loom large enough that the DNC breaks glass in case of emergency.
“The DOJ will do nothing!”
Spot on.
(A quiet coup has taken place.)
IMHO
for later
I don’t think Napolitano is correct on this, much as he should be.
Hard to believe the good judge thinks this will happen under the current DOJ...
If anything happens, it will be slow walked past the 2016 election...
Even then, IF and that a big IF, she is indicted after losing, she will be fined and then write a book on her ordeal...
I knew the law was completely dead when “the interests of justice” were served by letting Eliot Spitzer walk on multiple counts of structuring payments and violations of the Mann Act.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.