Judge: Hillary Clinton’s Name Won’t Appear on Any Ballot
In much the same manner as we hoped would happen in 2012, concerning Barack Hussein Obama’s name not being on a ballot due to multiple court cases involving his fraudulent identification, now a judge has spoken out and says that the current political and legal issues that Hillary Rodham Clinton has been embroiled in will ultimately see her name not on the ballot in 2016.
I’ve always appreciate much of what Judge Andrew Napolitano has written and said with a few exceptions. Even in what I’m about to write, I agree with his legal opinion, but am skeptical that the people will even bat an eyebrow, considering they have not so yet knowing all they know about Hillary Clinton. Yet, I do find his observations worthy of print.
Napolitano pointed out in a recent column that Hillary’s political problem is one of “credibility.”
“We know from her emails that she informed her daughter Chelsea and the then-prime minister of Egypt within 12 hours of the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, that he had been killed in Benghazi by al-Qaida,” he wrote. “We know from the public record that the Obama administration’s narrative blamed the killings of the ambassador and his guards on an anonymous crowd’s spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muhammad video.”
Though her own embassy staff in Tripoli said the video was not an issue, Hillary marched right out, alongside Hussein Obama and Susan Rice to declare that the video was the reason for the Benghazi attacks. Her State Department even spent $70,000 of your tax dollars America to apologize for it!
Even after receiving the bodies of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others who died attempting to fight off Islamic jihadists, Clinton, along with Rice and Obama, continued to promote the lie that Benghazi was about a video.
However, Napolitano doesn’t point to that as the reason that Clinton’s name will not be on the ballot in 2016.
“That’s because each time she addresses these issues – her involvement in Benghazi and her emails – her legal problems get worse,” Napolitano continues. “We already know that the FBI has been investigating her for espionage (the failure to secure state secrets), destruction of government property and obstruction of justice (wiping her computer server clean of governmental emails that were and are the property of the federal government) and perjury (lying to a federal judge about whether she returned all governmental emails to the State Department).”
“Now, she has added new potential perjury and misleading Congress issues because of her deceptive testimony to the House Benghazi committee,” the Judge added. “In 2011, when President Obama persuaded NATO to enact and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, he sent American intelligence agents on the ground. Since they were not military and were not shooting at Libyan government forces, he could plausibly argue that he had not put “boots” on the ground. Clinton, however, decided that she could accelerate the departure of the Libyan strongman, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, by arming some of the Libyan rebel groups that were attempting to oppose him and thus helping them to shoot at government forces.”
He then concludes, “So, in violation of federal law and the U.N. arms embargo on Libya she authorized the shipment of American arms to Qatar, knowing they’d be passed off to Libyan rebels, some of whom were al-Qaida, a few of whom killed Ambassador Stevens using American-made weapons. When asked about this, she said she knew nothing of it. The emails underlying this are in the public domain. Clinton not only knew of the arms-to-Libyan-rebels deal, she authored and authorized it. She lied about this under oath.”
“After surveying the damage done to his regime and his family by NATO bombings, Col. Gadhafi made known his wish to negotiate a peaceful departure from Libya,” added the judge. “When his wish was presented to Clinton, a source in the room with Clinton has revealed that she silently made the “off with his head” hand motion by moving her hand quickly across her neck. She could do that because she knew the rebels were well equipped with American arms with which to kill him. She didn’t care that many of the rebels were al-Qaida or that arming them was a felony. She lied about this under oath.”
While many have come to the same conclusion, Napolitano adds that both Catherin Herridge and Pamela Browne scrutinized Clinton’s testimony and point out that Obama vetoed Sidney Blumentahl‘s hiring at the State Department, which she then had the Clinton Foundation pay him a larger salary to work at the State Department to be her, in the words of Napolitano, “silent de facto adviser.”
Though Clinton called Blumenthal just a “friend” during testimony, nothing could be further from the truth. Both engaged in emails back and forth over intelligence issues, some of which she acted on, including a Libyan no-fly zone.
Napolitano then concludes, “It is difficult to believe that the federal prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Clinton will not recommend that she be indicted. Inexplicably, she seems to have forgotten that they were monitoring what she said under oath to the Benghazi committee. By lying under oath, and by misleading Congress, she gave that team additional areas to investigate and on which to recommend indictments.”
While I agree with the judge’s assessments, I wonder if he has taken into consideration the amount of corruption in the government that has allowed a known usurper, Barack Hussein Obama, to stay in office for seven years.