Marcus: Why Hillary won’t be indicted

Posted by | March 9, 2016 13:17 | Filed under: Opinion Politics


Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

Show Article

10 responses to Marcus: Why Hillary won’t be indicted

  1. Dwendt44 March 9th, 2016 at 18:14

    I’m guessing she won’t be indicted because she has done nothing illegal.

    • IMHO March 9th, 2016 at 18:35

      Ah, that explains why her IT guy plead the fifth and has now been granted immunity by a federal prosecutor…

      • Foundryman March 9th, 2016 at 18:58

        Or, HE may have plead the fifth because HIS lawyer told HIM that HE may have done something illegal….just a guess

        • Dwendt44 March 9th, 2016 at 23:49

          Just a case of CYA.
          When was he indicted? You don’t ‘take the fifth’ unless you are in a court room and sworn in.

          • mistlesuede March 10th, 2016 at 10:58

            If he was going to be questioned beforehand to see if there was some there there, he would have been advised by his lawyer to remain silent until he was made to speak during a trial or whatever. I would think during a fishing expedition like this one, it makes total sense.

  2. DownriverDem March 9th, 2016 at 20:08

    Sounds like some folks didn’t read the article because they are propagandized by the RWNJ Clinton Hate Machine going back to the 1990s. All I hear are the RWNJ repub hate talking points.

  3. Glen March 9th, 2016 at 22:37

    The way I see it, if there’s any chance that she’ll be indicted, the DNC will determine it ahead of time and make sure that she withdraws from contention for the nomination prior to the convention. Indeed, I’d expect that, if there were anywhere near enough grounds to indict her, they’d probably have already told her to withdraw. The fact that she’s still in the race, that the party elite continue to back her so strongly, suggests that the DNC’s experts are absolutely confident that she won’t be indicted.

    I take no position on whether she should be (and I mean I literally don’t have a position on it), but all evidence says she won’t be.

  4. bloggo March 10th, 2016 at 03:05

    Boom.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-09/missing-clinton-e-mail-claims-saudis-financed-benghazi-attacks

    • mistlesuede March 10th, 2016 at 11:07

      We are familiar with that sound. It is right wing heads exploding when their fake website “news” stories are taken with a grain of salt by everyone except conspiracy theorists.

  5. mistlesuede March 10th, 2016 at 11:02

    Considering the fact that government websites are being hacked all the time, most recently it was the IRS, the server that the former POTUS used from his home is a hell of a lot more secure than the government ones which are a big target.
    The fact that the emails in question became classified after the fact seems to be lost on most everyone who is as the article states “salivating” over this. I guess they better get themselves a towel to wipe up their drool. I’m wondering where they were when all the former Bush administration officials were doing the same thing and a few admitted it.

Leave a Reply