JUDGE: FBI IS READY TO INDICT HILLARY OVER EMAILS

Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 2 months ago to Government
71 comments | Share | Flag

Will it be: What difference does it make or will it be: This makes it different?
SOURCE URL: http://constitutionalrightspac.com/articles/judge-fbi-is-ready-to-indict-hillary-over-emails


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 2 months ago
    I have a great deal of respect for Napolitano. He is a Constitutionalist and a Libertarian. If what he says is true, and still, (and it is) no one is indicted, then there no longer is a criminal justice system in the USA. Worse yet, if a scapegoat is indicted (although I can't see how that could be) we, as a nation may well be not worth saving. We shall see.
    As I have said before in these precincts, hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Which may well be our motto.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 years, 2 months ago
      Respect for Napolitano or not he gave no indication that he actually knows anything about what the FBI will do, only what he speculates based on immunity. Where is his confidence in Justice Department corruption?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by MinorLiberator 8 years, 2 months ago
        I have no delusions about DOJ corruption. But Napolitano knows his stuff, and if the facts are that immunity is not granted unless testimony is very valuable, and also implies that a grand jury is already sitting, this is important information. IMO, given his background, I would say that is several levels above speculation. But, as other skeptics in the group, absolutely no surprise if nothing comes of it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 2 months ago
        That is a good point, this may all be smoke and mirrors, OR it may be a signal by the FBI to their masters that they are not going to let this go by to suit their needs. Hope it is the former.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 8 years, 2 months ago
    She will be indicted when Obama wants her indicted.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by MinorLiberator 8 years, 2 months ago
      I've thought that way for awhile. We're not talking about Reason or Logic here, but Politics, ergo, feelings. I hate predicting emotions or politics, but we know there is no love lost between Obama and Hillary. My "emotional" reading of Obama is: he'll not indict if it's for the good of his party, and doesn't hurt his "legacy". If the evidence is overwhelming, and not indicting will, at some point, destroy (what he sees, not me, as) his "legacy", he will say go ahead, indict her.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 2 months ago
        If she offered him SCOTUS, he may well relent. Self serving slime that he is. Along with the rest of his nasty gang of thieves.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 8 years, 2 months ago
          If that happens then we know for sure they are all retarded...he's no lawyer, knows nothing of the constitution and is dumber than the rocks in my yard.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by MinorLiberator 8 years, 2 months ago
            I think the talk of Obama being nominated and approved for SCOTUS is more an emotional nightmare than a realistic fear.

            Several points:

            1. He may have graduated, but as far as I know his college transcripts (and maybe even high school) are still completely under wraps. I doubt if he were Magna Cum Laude that would be the case. There's smoke and fire there. And unlike the Presidency, where he could worm his way out of revealing them, that won't work for a judicial committee evaluating a SCOTUS nominee. No one could reasonably argue that his transcripts are not relevant in this case.

            2. He may not even want it. Especially if SCOTUS members can't make the big bucks that an ex-President can, while they serve. There were rumors in 2012 that he almost didn't run in order to get the money machine cranking sooner.

            3. As a complete narcissist and none too bright, really, I doubt he really has any passion, interest (or respect) for Constitutional Law. Another reason, beside #2, that he may not want it.

            4. Assuming the Senate stays R, and here is where I have to bite my cynical, not naive tongue, there is precedent for them simply not confirming him. I believe the applicable verb is "to Bork" him.

            Doesn't mean he won't pardon Hillary, or refuse to indict, of course, because I'm sure the Clinton money machine and contacts they can provide could provide many other incentives to him besides SCOTUS.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 1 month ago
              The biggest potential problem with the transcripts is that they divulge under what conditions he received student aid and scholarships. If he did accept any under the guise of a foreign national, it immediately makes a case for him being ineligible to serve as President. While this is most likely a pipe dream, it is the most damaging theory.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 2 months ago
            Unfortunately, he is:

            President Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991 and was admitted as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of Illinois on Dec. 17, 1991. Prior to being elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996, he worked as a civil rights lawyer at the firm formerly known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Four days after Obama announced that he would run for president in February 2007, he voluntarily elected to have his law license placed on “inactive” status, according to Grogan. Then, after becoming president, he elected to change his status to “retired” in February 2009.

            FactCheck.org.

            Now, if you meant "he's no lawyer despite having a law degree and having done a little bit of practice" yes indeed. He also does not know crap about the constitution, but my view of SCOTUS is they sold out 10-20 years ago and their rulings are so nebulous and based on all kinds of "precedent, rulings, and fantasy" that he would probably fit right in and be worth 500 million by the time he either died or quit. Yes, I do believe you can by a SCOTUS ruling now. I also believe your rocks are much smarter than you paint them as. Especially with the Obamanation yardstick.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 8 years, 2 months ago
              Second paragraph...That's exactly what I meant...the same goes for being a human being.

              Also a very low IQ and very compartmentalized.

              IQ only counts the amount of information one has assimilated, so his head is a bit hollow.

              It is the level of integration, regardless of IQ, that makes one smart...I call that [Inter]lectual.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ nickursis 8 years, 2 months ago
                I figured so Carl. I just started doubting if he ever was a "legal" lawyer. Your comment got me scared because one of the things little cute Miss Beastly giggled out a couple months ago, just after the death of Scalia, was when a new idiot (I can only guess he was a plant) blurted out the idea and she giggly said "what a great idea". Making me think the fix is in and done, or that she was publicly offering a deal. Either way, it was very crass. But not surprising from her. Shed sell Billy boy of she didn't need his teflon armor...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 2 months ago
    as one of their 2 resident judges (don't forget Jeanine!) .......
    both know that Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is on the verge
    of gaining an orange pantsuit. -- j
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 2 months ago
      And if that happens I would love to grab my chase lounge and an umbrella drink to watch her pick up garbage by the road side with ball and chain in that "orange pantsuit"!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LITTLERED1977 8 years, 2 months ago
    When thinking of the Clintons, I'm reminded of a long held belief. "Speak truth to power". Unfortunately, too many times I've had to deal with the disappointment of watching them slide right past any justice.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mec4cdlic 8 years, 2 months ago
    Olduglycarl - you posted the invalid material from Steve Watson. If you are going to post someone else's material, at least correct it. The FBI does not indict, it investigates. When it turns its findings over to the Dept of Justice (Loretta Lynch), then the DOJ decides if it wants to write up a bill of indictment to give to the sitting grand jury (GJ). If at least twelve of the grand jury members agree to indict, then it goes back to the DOJ. If at least twelve do not agree to indict, then it dies in the court. Now, if the DOJ gets the indictment from the GJ, then the DOJ still has the prerogative whether or not to either press those charges, bring lesser charges, or drop the case. But - Steve Watson blindly posted that the "FBI is ready to indict" and you just passed it along - like Trump re-tweeting stuff blindly, with no regard to the truth. You are better than that, Carl, I have faith in you.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 2 months ago
      The point was that because they granted a witness immunity meant procedurally that they had already convene a grand jury.
      Where it goes from here, in this platonian kakistocracy is anyone's guess.
      But I thought the statement by Judge Napolitano (whom I respect) was important enough to share.
      Don't care about the fbi...they no longer stand with America.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mec4cdlic 8 years, 2 months ago
        Your intentions were good and I share your respect for Judge Napolitano. I over-reacted. Wish there was more known - like what jurisdiction is handling this case? Where was her server sitting, physically? A Federal Grand Jury can only indict for offenses that occurred within their jurisdiction. Is it a regular or a special grand juey? These are a few of my questions that no reporter has answered. Meanwhile, keep up the good work.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 2 months ago
      mec4cdic is correct in all respects procedurally except the implication that a failure to indict means the end of the case. A "no bill," as it is called, does not trigger the protections of the double jeopardy clause. The prosectors can., if they wish, try again with supplemental evidence before the same or another Grand Jury. I don't think that is likely, but I wanted to point out that possibility.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mec4cdlic 8 years, 2 months ago
        jabuttrick presents a different option for the prosecutor and with that option, we might note yet two other options, one of which belongs to the prosecutor. First, not only could the prosecutor charge the accused again in a new grand jury, but he/she could also use a different charge, called an "information" with which to take the accused directly to trial for some misdemeanor stuff, that is, for an offense with a less than one year prison penalty. That bypasses the need for a grand jury entirely. The second option belongs to the grand jury itself. After its investigation, the grand jury can present a case against the accused directly, called a "presentment." Of course presentments are usually buried by the courts because the courts, the executive and the congress all have hated this power that is held by the people. It has been termed "obsolete" and is even not provided for in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. But, there it is, right in the first clause of the fifth amendment. Go figure. Real power to the people: take a glance at the grand jury's 1992 presentment in the case of Rocky Flats - it is on line. A third option, beyond the two others just mentioned, is the "report" of a special grand jury - but reports are always buried by the court as far as I can tell. Good catch, though, jabuttrick.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 2 months ago
          Not to go too far into the weeds (although I fear we have already passed that point), but the possible use of the information creates the option of the defendant exercising her right to request a preliminary hearing at which time the prosecution would have to lay out its case in an effort to get a judge to make a finding of probable cause. While this hearing is often waived, it might make for an entertaining diversion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mec4cdlic 8 years, 1 month ago
            Weeds is fun, though. Now, depending whether the jurisdiction is where the server was, or where Hillary was, or where she worked from, when using the server, each of which could be Chappaqua, NY, or Huntsville, AL, or Manhattan, NY, or Washington, DC, the District Court for the relevant grand jury, would have to be either the Eastern District of New York, or Northern District of Alabama, or the Southern District of New York, or the District of Columbia itself, respectively. I wonder how they decide which district has jurisdiction. What a mess.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 1 month ago
              I think the information must allege that a crime occurred within the District. Since the Defendant commits the crime where she is at the time the alleged illegal activity took place, her location creates jurisdiction. There may be multiple instances of criminal activity alleged. If so, as you suggest there may be concurrent jurisdiction in multiple Districts. To the more aggressive U.S. Attorney goes the spoils (or the blame).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fivedollargold 8 years, 2 months ago
    Because DOJ gave Grant of Immunity to the Hildeliar's computer geek, it is likely that Hussein will permit DOJ to indict. Biden will be disappointed because HRC will not turn over her delegates to him when she withdraws. Nor will she give her precious, hard-one delegates to the madman from Vermont. There is only one logical person to receive them. Imagine the debates between the Trumpster and future president...Chelsea Clinton.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 2 months ago
    The Slick Willie presidential sex predator's enabler is too privileged to fail.
    Decades of corruption and dead witnesses trail the purple cloak of a now very rich crime queen.
    I saw a dialog two balloon cartoon in my email yesterday.
    A person asks Hillary: "What is the first thing you'll do as president?"
    Hillary: "Pardon myself."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 8 years, 2 months ago
    That's not a sitting judge. That's Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, late of the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, in and for the Vicinage of Essex. And that's only his layman's opinion.

    I agree that Judge Nap is the nearest thing to Judge Narragansett. But can the FBI pursue an indictment on their own? I don't think so. They need a sympathetic United States Attorney (USA) or Assistant (AUSA).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 2 months ago
      It goes to the Justice Department and whats her face makes the final decision. That will depends on what her O'BOSS!Ma tells her to do. That will depend if he likes BurnMe or Trump as the next left wing socialist occupant of the WH. On the other hand who could resign just in time for Biden to take over......and then run as the sitting President. ObeyMe and his Attorney General leech aren't above any of that.
      Not like he has a legacy to defend....spite would be a good enough reason. Or a big pay off from the Clinton foundation.e

      One day I must learn to learn the difference between Napolitano and the other one from Arizona who said all veterans and active military were the countries biggest danger.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by livefree-NH 8 years, 2 months ago
    I wonder if anyone in Washington thought about nominating Judge Napolitano to replace Scalia.

    It would be a risky but brilliant move by Obama, since he would probably be Borked and not be confirmed, so he could claim that he tried to reach across the aisle... and Congress frustrated him yet again. And that would set him up for being nominated himself, by Hillary, to be Scalia's replacement.

    I really need to stop smoking this stuff. I almost believed that scenario could actually play out.....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 2 months ago
    To me the charges of accidentally disclosing classified material are minor, almost a technicality. What I want to know, however, is why she went to the trouble to set up her own e-mail system. Was she discussing things that were illegal or immoral that she didn't want to be part of the public record?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 2 months ago
      Seems to me, knowing her Alinskyite back ground, her criminal behavior at the Watergate investigations and subsequent firering, never mind Clearwater... it is reasonable and quite probable that there were nefarious reasons for her actions.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 2 months ago
    If it happens O will pardon her. O has to be nose deep in her conduct to the point where any examination of her actions would incriminate him and many others in his Oministration and other federal agencies.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by walkabout 8 years, 2 months ago
    My wife retired from University teaching a couple of years ago just to avoid this type of thing. Her fear was she would say something absolutely true and needed to be heard by the student (as a professor once called me a 'dunderhead'); as in "if you don't like to read and if your writing reflects your ability to think, then no, you are not graduate school material.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 8 years, 2 months ago
    I've read all the comments, and made a couple myself. The word pardon has come up.

    I got into a lengthy discussion earlier with some Canadians, God help me, about Trump. I'm not a Trump supporter by any means, but once into a discussion like that, it makes no difference. I'm American, Guilt by association.

    At the end, I posed a hypothetical question: What if Hillary is indicted, and then pardoned, before the election? Should she still keep running? Should she still be supported? In your opinion (to the Canadians), is she still the best choice? No answer.

    Obviously, that's not my question to this group. But, I have in fact, two:

    1. Legally, under that scenario (indicted and pardoned) could she still run?

    2. Would her "followers", remembering that this discussion started about Trump, even care, or vote for her anyway?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 2 months ago
      1) probably...I am not an expert...some here, seem to have a better lock on legalities.

      2) Many if not all...I say that because if they supported here in the first place, that probably means they, then as well as after...still have no mind to critically think with and it's still about emotion and gimme gimme cause everyone else has more than me.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 1 month ago
      1 is easy. A pardon legally nullifies the conviction in all respects. (Or prevents it, if it hasn't happened yet.)

      As for #2, I'd have to guess yes. They'd probably have to pin murder on her to prevent her base from voting for her.

      What interests me more is another possible scenario: She picks somebody outrageous (Biden, or even Obama) as running mate. Then she is put on trial, and after November, convicted. Result: Obama gets a third term. I don't think the 22nd Amendment prevents this.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 2 months ago
      "What if Hillary is indicted, and then pardoned, before the election?"
      I cannot speak for all Hillary supporters, but the indictment for mishandling classified docs would not bother me. What I would look for, though, is what unclassified things was she trying to hide? If a pardon or other maneuver were used to stop people from finding the answer to this question, I would have a hard time. If I thought it were going to be close and voting Libertarian would help a Republican be elected, I don't know. I hope that scenario doesn't happen.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 8 years, 2 months ago
    i really hope it comes to past, but...

    hillary wants to be president...

    obama wants to a supreme court justice...

    i think the "fix" is already been made...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo