Get back home, Loretta:
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch plans to announce on Friday that she will accept whatever recommendation career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director make about whether to bring charges related to Hillary Clinton’s personal email server, a Justice Department official said. Her decision removes the possibility that a political appointee will overrule investigators in the case.
The Justice Department had been moving toward such an arrangement for months — officials said in April that it was being considered — but a private meeting between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton this week set off a political furor and made the decision all but inevitable.
Meanwhile:
The Obama administration on Thursday asked a federal court to delay until October 2018 the release of 14,000 pages of emails from aides to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
In a court filing on Wednesday, administration lawyers said the State Department miscalculated the amount of material it would need to process the documents as part of a lawsuit with the conservative organization Citizens United.
As a result, the government asked for a 27-month delay to release the emails, which were originally due out on July 21.
I suspect if State gave Citizen United the whole cache, they'd find what they needed in a few days. And since we have assurances that Hillary Clinton
is fundamentally honest, there should be nothing to hide. Right?
11 comments:
What "process"??? Here are the emails, release them, and what is in them is in them. Done. And I suspect that the American people can sort through them FAR faster than 27 months. I would be surprised if it took 27 days, but of course that would be before Mrs. C could gain the throne and pardon herself.
More and more evidence that we need a special prosecutor. For that matter, it appears we need independent detectives to figure things out for the prosecutor. I remember Ken Starr's five vehicles of files to more or less accuse Bill Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice--nothing against Starr, really, but he had a serious difficulty getting to what mattered.
(and what did he miss in all those files?)
I'm guessing all the evidence was needed to legally prove what was otherwise blindingly obvious, against the monstrous wall of obfuscation and denial tossed up by the Clintons. Every week or so, it seems, Hillary has a new "explanation" for what some of us seems the simplest of realities.
I am not sure who thought the idea of them meeting was a good idea or maybe they thought no one would find out. Such a strange and idiotic idea to have a "secret" meeting. Bill, and possibly Hillary, show the leopard still has its spots.
Rush Limbaugh and others believe it was a deliberate plot to make us all feel defeated when these obvious shenanigans get completely overlooked. There will NOT be an indictment, and most likely not even a recommendation for one. Those who think Hillary is corrupt will be confirmed in their belief but so disheartened at the injustice they may not vote, while those who wanted to vote for Hillary will now feel "exonerated" if they do so. In other words, it was a "secret" meeting only so that it could be a Big Deal in the press.
I don't think it the meeting was meant to be seen. But it was. The question is whether the public is willing to eat the crap sandwich.
Maybe not, but reports are that some reporters were informed that it would take place. The question is what the public reaction will be when The Queen shows that she is above the law. Supposedly it would lead to her downfall as a candidate, but some folks are saying it would actually help her campaign. She will NOT be indicted or even charged, of that you can be certain.
Of course the public is willing to eat the crap sandwich. What else is there? The real question is when the public is going to get mad enough to attack the cook and the waitress?
Ever get tired of having the media tell you what you think?
Ever get tired of having the media tell you what you think?
It doesn't work on me. But it works on a lot of people. For the past 8 years, they've been in full gaslighting mode. And I suspect that's why we're seeing such a freakout over Brexit -- people weren't supposed to overturn the way of the world.
I notice it continues, with the media telling us Trump's speech was "dark." Then when CNN finds 75% of viewers thought it was good, and 74% agreed with it, they went into full spin mode.
Notice how they roundly condemned the mother of the soldier killed in Benghazi? Now we find out they will trot out SIX (6) relatives of black people killed by cops (risibly "innocent"), and ZERO (0) relatives of cops killed in brutal and hateful fashion. Want to bet on a media uproar?
Post a Comment