FBI Director Comey: Hillary Should Have Known Better, But Not Criminal

What can I say? Never Doubt Me. On last Sunday’s edition of The Teri O’Brien Show, I told you that Hillary would not face criminal charges.

Hillary and Bill must be doing the Happy Dance right now. Talk about pulling the rug out from us. FBI Director Comey perfectly laid out the case for indicting Hillary, then said he would not because there was no “intent.”

I hope that all the media shills for Hillary who kept repeating ad nauseum that she never “intended” to do anything wrong, heard FBI Director Comey say that intent is not required. Prosecutors know that if they can show intent, it’s much easier to convict, which is what I think he meant when he said “no reasonable prosecutor would file charges.”

Still, clearly “gross negligence” was there. As I also told you last Sunday, when you put the timeline together, how can anyone deny that the fix is in?

October, 2015, Barack Obama tells “60 Minutes” Hillary made a mistake, but did nothing wrong.

June, 2016-Hillary says she did nothing wrong, and will not be charged. A couple of days later, Barack Obama endorses her.

Monday, June 27-FBI Director Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton has a “clandestine” (right) meeting on a Phoenix airport tarmac.

I asked Sunday: Did Bill Clinton know at the time what the FBI was going to recommend to the Department of Justice? Is that why he hung around waiting for Lynch to arrive so he could have this meeting about “golf (which he probably didn’t play in Phoenix) and grandchildren?”

Saturday, July 2-FBI Director Comey interviews Hillary for 3.5 hours, amazingly, on the Saturday morning of Independence Day weekend.

Tuesday, July 5, Hillary and Barack Obama plan to campaign together, a few c after the FBI Director announces that they will recommend no criminal case will be brought because there was no “intent,” even though the statute involved doesn’t require intent.

So, even though FBI Director Comey confirmed that Hillary lied about this whole mess, as we’ve all known. We know that she violated the applicable statute through “gross negligence.”  He said that she was “extremely careless,” which sounds like gross negligence to me, which is actually a felony. We know that she jeopardized national security because he email was likely hacked. He laid out the case for an indictment, and then said he would not recommend charges.

I take no pleasure in being right about this matter. I told you Sunday that knew that the fix was in as soon as Obama endorsed her. There is clearly a criminal case here, but for whatever reason, it will not be brought. The server itself was the smoking gun. If the FBI Director wanted to require something that the statute does not, “intent,” isn’t the setting up of the server itself perfect evidence of intent? She should have been indicted, but clearly Hillary, Obama and the rest of the cabal will use this decision to continue the narrative “I made a mistake, it wasn’t the best choice,” blah blah blah.

The evidence of many of her other crimes may as well be in the burn bag with her schedules.

Let me be clear: this is corruption with a capital C, and anyone of you who had done the same thing would be facing criminal charges. FBI Director Comey made clear that she compromised national security. End of story. Plus, the timing is shocking, and makes it clear that the system is completely unfair and rigged.

Will any of Hillary’s aides have to fall on the sword for her? Will anything come of the bribery allegations and related corruption of the Clinton Foundation? Time will tell.

What say you?

19 comments

  1. I find it interesting that “intent” is the standard being used as justification for not prosecuting Secretary Clinton. In my opinion her actions were laden with intent. Intent to flout the law and intent to avoid the scrutiny required by law of our government officials. If these actions were an example of the transparency she so often claims to be engaging in I can only imagine how she would act if she were intentionally breaking the law.

  2. Of course, or blame someone else. One of her mouthpieces was on a Sunday show yesterday trying to blame Hillary’s risible “it was the video” Benghazi lie on the military, as in “I don’t think it’s fair to blame our military for not having all the accurate information right after this terrible tragedy happened.” It was like that scene in “Animal House” when the Deltas marched out after Otter said “We’re not going to sit here and listen to you bad mouth the United States of America.”

  3. Who me, David? What am I missing?

  4. Yes, as I told you all on last Sunday’s edition of The Teri O’Brien Show, she would not be indicted, and as I told you last April, her apologists were relying on the idea that she never “intended” to violate 18 USC 793, even though the statute DOES NOT require intent, and even though, as I have pointed out several times today, the setting up of the outlaw server itself shows the intent to violate the statute. Comey appears to be trying to convince us that “no reasonable prosecutor” would decide to bring an indictment because he wouldn’t believe he could get a conviction. Obviously it’s much easier to get a conviction if prosecutors are able to show “intent,” but this statute does NOT require it. And yes, many others have been prosecuted on similar facts, and will continue to be, you know, the little people.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

The Teri O'Brien Show

book
%d bloggers like this: