PDA

View Full Version : Things Could Get Grim for Hillary Over Email



jimnyc
06-07-2016, 02:15 PM
I know there are many threads on this issue, but this one made me smile, even if it doesn't pan out, so thought it deserved it's own thread. :)

So at the end, if she were indicted, and continued to run, and Obama pardoned her on his way out the door - how much would all of that change her numbers?

-----

Some believe that soon after Tuesday's final presidential primaries the FBI will interview Hillary Clinton about her handling of emails while she was secretary of state. What comes next is the subject of much speculation.

One of the better speculators is Bradley Blakeman, who served as a member of President George W. Bush's White House staff.

We spoke in the "green room" at Fox News before our separate interviews. The following is culled from our conversation.

Blakeman says the FBI has deliberately waited to interview Hillary Clinton until after the primaries because the bureau did not want to interfere with the nominating process. He thinks the FBI is "likely" to recommend to the Department of Justice whether or not she should be indicted for violating what she says are agency rules and what others call the law between now and the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, which begins July 25.

If she is indicted before the convention, Blakeman says, it will give the party an opportunity to make changes in the rules that could result in an alternate nominee.

Here is the intriguing part about Blakeman's scenario: "If a grand jury is empaneled, or if she were to be indicted before the convention, the Democrats would have to let her go."

If an indictment were to come after the convention, he says, it presents a different problem because each state needs to certify their ballots before November. If an indictment occurs after the states have certified their ballots, it would be nearly impossible to replace Hillary Clinton with another candidate.

Here's where things might get even more interesting. In states where ballots have been certified, the party would have to go to court to ask that Clinton's name be replaced. "They also have another problem," says Blakeman. "Once the convention ends, how do they reconvene to substitute Hillary? They have no rules for that."

What if a court denies a ballot change? Blakeman says the Supreme Court would almost certainly have to decide. That might look to many like a replay of the 2000 election in which the court certified Florida's vote count, awarding the state's electoral votes — and the election — to George W. Bush.

But what if the court — with its one vacancy — divides 4-4? In that case, the lower court ruling would prevail and if that court decided to strike Hillary Clinton's name from the ballot, a write-in would be the only option.

"Timing is not on Hillary's side," says Blakeman, who thinks "the silver lining for Hillary is that, if she were indicted, there is no doubt Obama would pardon her on January 19 as he walks out the door. She will never have to answer for her crimes."

What about any others who might be indicted, such as top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills? If they are indicted, but not pardoned by the president, will they go public? It's the stuff of big book contracts.

Should any of these scenarios prove true, as Blakeman thinks they might, President Obama, unlike President Ford and his pardon of Richard Nixon, will never have to face the voters and be held accountable for his action.

In this unpredictable election season, any one — or all — of these scenarios are possibilities, including the ultimate scenario: the delegates turning to Vice President Joe Biden to save them from Hillary and defeat in November.

http://www.newsmax.com/CalThomas/email-indicted/2016/06/07/id/732680/

Elessar
06-07-2016, 02:47 PM
It is a big freakin' mess.

She should be held accountable before the convention, I think.
Then a trial set for February. Obama cannot pardon someone who has not been convicted,
at least I do not think so. Some local legal-beagles might know.

Elessar
06-07-2016, 03:56 PM
Things are getting stickier for Teflon Hillary:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/06/06/napolitano-hillarys-email-use-violated-numerous-federal-statues

Gunny
06-07-2016, 08:39 PM
I know there are many threads on this issue, but this one made me smile, even if it doesn't pan out, so thought it deserved it's own thread. :)

So at the end, if she were indicted, and continued to run, and Obama pardoned her on his way out the door - how much would all of that change her numbers?

-----

Some believe that soon after Tuesday's final presidential primaries the FBI will interview Hillary Clinton about her handling of emails while she was secretary of state. What comes next is the subject of much speculation.

One of the better speculators is Bradley Blakeman, who served as a member of President George W. Bush's White House staff.

We spoke in the "green room" at Fox News before our separate interviews. The following is culled from our conversation.

Blakeman says the FBI has deliberately waited to interview Hillary Clinton until after the primaries because the bureau did not want to interfere with the nominating process. He thinks the FBI is "likely" to recommend to the Department of Justice whether or not she should be indicted for violating what she says are agency rules and what others call the law between now and the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, which begins July 25.

If she is indicted before the convention, Blakeman says, it will give the party an opportunity to make changes in the rules that could result in an alternate nominee.

Here is the intriguing part about Blakeman's scenario: "If a grand jury is empaneled, or if she were to be indicted before the convention, the Democrats would have to let her go."

If an indictment were to come after the convention, he says, it presents a different problem because each state needs to certify their ballots before November. If an indictment occurs after the states have certified their ballots, it would be nearly impossible to replace Hillary Clinton with another candidate.

Here's where things might get even more interesting. In states where ballots have been certified, the party would have to go to court to ask that Clinton's name be replaced. "They also have another problem," says Blakeman. "Once the convention ends, how do they reconvene to substitute Hillary? They have no rules for that."

What if a court denies a ballot change? Blakeman says the Supreme Court would almost certainly have to decide. That might look to many like a replay of the 2000 election in which the court certified Florida's vote count, awarding the state's electoral votes — and the election — to George W. Bush.

But what if the court — with its one vacancy — divides 4-4? In that case, the lower court ruling would prevail and if that court decided to strike Hillary Clinton's name from the ballot, a write-in would be the only option.

"Timing is not on Hillary's side," says Blakeman, who thinks "the silver lining for Hillary is that, if she were indicted, there is no doubt Obama would pardon her on January 19 as he walks out the door. She will never have to answer for her crimes."

What about any others who might be indicted, such as top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills? If they are indicted, but not pardoned by the president, will they go public? It's the stuff of big book contracts.

Should any of these scenarios prove true, as Blakeman thinks they might, President Obama, unlike President Ford and his pardon of Richard Nixon, will never have to face the voters and be held accountable for his action.

In this unpredictable election season, any one — or all — of these scenarios are possibilities, including the ultimate scenario: the delegates turning to Vice President Joe Biden to save them from Hillary and defeat in November.

http://www.newsmax.com/CalThomas/email-indicted/2016/06/07/id/732680/

There is no question here, Jimbob. She violated 3 Titles of the US Code. It's not agency rules. It's the law. I'll have to agree with Elessar whose comment follows yours. It's a big mess. The government can stick their noses into out gender, our marriages and our wallets but they can't standardize the rules for a Federal position.

John Walker, his Brother in Law and son are in prison for life for doing less. They only released Confidential material. That's two steps lower than Top Secret. The release of Top Secret material presents a grave danger to this nation ESPECIALLY during a time of war. If any of us did that we'd be in prison already.

Elessar
06-07-2016, 09:21 PM
There is no question here, Jimbob. She violated 3 Titles of the US Code. It's not agency rules. It's the law. I'll have to agree with Elessar whose comment follows yours. It's a big mess. The government can stick their noses into out gender, our marriages and our wallets but they can't standardize the rules for a Federal position.

John Walker, his Brother in Law and son are in prison for life for doing less. They only released Confidential material. That's two steps lower than Top Secret. The release of Top Secret material presents a grave danger to this nation ESPECIALLY during a time of war. If any of us did that we'd be in prison already.

And how many times have a few of us emphasized these FACTS on this Forum? It amazes me that non-serving
civilians will not pay attention to critical information. And I would add that Top Secret is defined as Seriously Grave Danger
if released or compromised. Secret is Grave Danger, Confidential is Serious Danger, FOUO is meant to not be transmitted by
anything other than OFFICIAL mediums - it has to be encrypted, use a Secure Phone (STE) or Secure encrypted radio frequencies.

Gunny
06-07-2016, 09:36 PM
And how many times have a few of us emphasized these FACTS on this Forum? It amazes me that non-serving
civilians will not pay attention to critical information. And I would add that Top Secret is defined as Seriously Grave Danger
if released or compromised. Secret is Grave Danger, Confidential is Serious Danger, FOUO is meant to not be transmitted by
anything other than OFFICIAL mediums - it has to be encrypted, use a Secure Phone (STE) or Secure encrypted radio frequencies.

Got to spread it around but you are spot on.

gabosaurus
06-07-2016, 10:35 PM
It's not going to happen. At this stage, any indictment of Clinton would be seen as a politically motivated attack. Do you think anyone wants to jeopardize their future with an attack on someone who could be the next president?
Republicans are stepping up pressure on this point because they are starting to realize that it is their only chance to keep Clinton out of the White House.

Of course, this story came from Newsmax and not a reputable source, so I realize they have an axe to grind. Besides, the more right-wing blogs write about Hillary, they less they have to write about becoming the Party of Trump.

Elessar
06-07-2016, 11:49 PM
It's not going to happen. At this stage, any indictment of Clinton would be seen as a politically motivated attack. Do you think anyone wants to jeopardize their future with an attack on someone who could be the next president?
Republicans are stepping up pressure on this point because they are starting to realize that it is their only chance to keep Clinton out of the White House.

Of course, this story came from Newsmax and not a reputable source, so I realize they have an axe to grind. Besides, the more right-wing blogs write about Hillary, they less they have to write about becoming the Party of Trump.

So do you think Huff-Po and MSNBC are reputable? CNN? ABC? <- all controlled by MSM Democrats.

You are whistling into the wind. This crap on her has been building up for at least two years,
not to mention her other lies and exaggerations. This is just the icing on the cake she baked herself.

Gunny
06-08-2016, 12:00 AM
It's not going to happen. At this stage, any indictment of Clinton would be seen as a politically motivated attack. Do you think anyone wants to jeopardize their future with an attack on someone who could be the next president?
Republicans are stepping up pressure on this point because they are starting to realize that it is their only chance to keep Clinton out of the White House.

Of course, this story came from Newsmax and not a reputable source, so I realize they have an axe to grind. Besides, the more right-wing blogs write about Hillary, they less they have to write about becoming the Party of Trump.

Which is BS. She should be held to the same legal standard as anyone else. You lefties are the one that think you're above the law. I'm frankly tired of the crap. You should be held to the same standard as anyone else. Nice game, but I can see right through it. Don't try playing word games with someone that knows what words mean.

At the same time, don't be so dumb as to listen to misused words.