Nailing Hillary Clinton for making false statements is like shooting fish in a barrel.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/12/fbi-expands-probe-clinton-emails-launches-independent-classification-review/?vgnextrefresh=1&intcmp=hpbt1
Let me break this down in simple terms. When a federal law enforcement agency is investigating a crime, it is a violation for someone to make false statements to the investigators irregardless of whether they are under oath.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Ahhhh, the plot sickens. Interesting that the FBI is not going to wait any longer on State, which is and has been dragging its feet shamelessly.
Clinton certainly, CERTAINLY, must have at least violated 1001 at least once, more likely on multiple occasions. Proof is fairly easy, the documentation, transcripts of testimony, videos of interviews/statements, etc., are already there. Obtaining the testimony of a couple or three underlings, who may have their own additional documentation, should be a bird's nest on the ground.
We all know abut opinions. In mine, Rudy Guliani is a pretty sharp dude. In his, based on past personal experiences with her, AG Lynch would go along with the FBI if it found that Clinton should be indicted.
Remains to be seen if we would have another Watergate/"Saturday Night Massacre" scenario to muddle through or if, since there is no love lost between the Obamas and Clintons, Obama would let it go ahead.
Post a Comment