Washington Examiner – by Kelly Cohen
Attorney General Loretta Lynch indicated Wednesday that the law doesn’t require the Justice Department to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email system, even if the FBI recommends criminal charges.
Lynch was asked in a hearing by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, what her department would do if the FBI were to recommend that step. “If the FBI were to make a referral to the Department of Justice to pursue a case by way of indictment and to convene a grand jury for that purpose, the Department of Justice is not required by law to do so, are they — are you?” Cornyn asked.
Lynch didn’t answer directly, but seemed to indicate the department has some wiggle room, and can consult with officials before deciding what to do.
“It would not be an operation of law, it would be an operation of procedures,” Lynch said in reply. She added that the decision to pursue a criminal case would be “done in conjunction with the agents” involved in the investigation. “It’s not something that we would want to cut them out of the process.”
Republicans have been pushing for charges against Clinton, but at the same time, many have predicted that the Obama administration would never allow the Justice Department to bring charges against Clinton for including classified and top secret information on her personal emails. Some Republican presidential candidates, including Donald Trump, have said Clinton is desperately hoping to win the White House in order to avoid the criminal charges that could be brought under a Republican administration.
Lynch also dodged questions about the decision to grant immunity to a former staffer of Hillary Clinton at the State Department who helped her set up her own private email system at home.
Cornyn pressed Lynch on the Justice Department’s role in reportedly granting immunity to Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton staffer involved in the set-up of her “homebrew” email server.
“If in fact this was immunity granted by a court, that had to be done under the auspices and with the approval of the Department of Justice, which you head,” Cornyn said to Lynch.
But Lynch declined to talk about that part of the case.
“We don’t discuss the specifics of any ongoing investigation,” Lynch said. “With respect to the procedure relating to any specific witness, I would not be able to comment.”
“With respect to Mr. Pagliano or anyone who has been identified as a potential witness in any case, I’m not able to comment on the specifics,” Lynch added.
Later on in response to a question from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Lynch said she has never discussed the Clinton email investigation with Present Obama, spokesman Josh Earnest or anyone else at the White House. Graham asked that question in order to ask how Earnest would have any information about the case that he would use to downplay its importance.
“It’s my hope, when it comes to ongoing investigations, that we all would stay silent,” she said.
“It’s my hope, when it comes to ongoing investigations, that we all would stay silent,” she said.”
That would accomplish the same results as your lies would.
It’s called ‘Prosecutorial discretion’ which means that YES, you admitted to cutting the dog’s throat or shooting a fleeing suspect in the back 38 times as he ran from you (so you can’t claim that you ‘feared for your life’) but still THE STATE elects not to prosecute our Favorite Few (as long as you keep doing our Dirty Work and keep your mouth shut) !
Prosecutorial discretion.
Heinemann v. Satterberg, No. 12-35404 (9th Cir. 09/24/2013) (Summary judgment for defendant in an action brought by plaintiff, an airline passenger, against defendant, the Prosecuting Attorney for King County, who had filed a criminal complaint against plaintiff for an altercation that occurred on a flight between plaintiff and two flight attendants, is affirmed, where: 1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, in its current form, prohibits a district court from granting a motion for summary judgment by default based upon a local court rule when an opposing party fails to respond; however, 2) on the merits, defendant was entitled to prosecutorial immunity for his decision to initiate the prosecution against plaintiff.); http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/09/24/12-35404.pdf
Goldstein v. City of Long Beach, No. 10-56787 (9th Cir. 05/08/2013) (Judgment for defendant-county on plaintiff’s 1983 action arising from plaintiff’s murder conviction that was later found to be based on the perjured testimony of an unreliable jailhouse informant, is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the district attorney represents defendant-county when establishing administrative policies and training related to the general operation of the district attorney’s office, including the establishment of an index containing information regarding the use of jailhouse informants; and therefore, 2) a cause of action may lie against defendant-county under section 1983.); http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/05/08/10-56787.pdf
Miller, Et al. v. Mitchell, No. 09-2144 (3rd Cir. 03/17/2010) accord U.S. v. Troescher, No. 95-55609 (9th Cir. 11/07/1996) (In sum, absent an injunction, the Does would have to choose either to assert their constitutional rights and face a prosecution of Nancy Doe based not on probable cause but as punishment for exercising their constitutional rights, or forgo those rights and avoid prosecution. On the facts before us, this Hobson’s Choice is unconstitutional. While “the Government retains broad discretion as to whom to prosecute,” “the decision to prosecute may not be deliberately based on arbitrary classification, including the exercise of protected statutory and constitutional rights.” Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607–08, 105 S.Ct. 1524, 84 L.Ed.2d 547 (1985) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 372, 102 S.Ct. 2485, 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982) (“For while an individual certainly may be penalized for violating the law, he just as certainly may not be punished for exercising a protected statutory or constitutional right.”). http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1593595.html …
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/031710sextingopinion.pdf
Newman v. County of Orange, No. 04-56103 (9th Cir. 08/07/2006) (In the context of a civil rights case alleging malicious prosecution, the fact that a plaintiff’s version of an incident conflicts with that of the law enforcement officers involved is not enough to defeat the presumption that a prosecutor exercises independent judgment in choosing to file charges. A plaintiff who presents only such evidence cannot survive summary judgment on a malicious prosecution claim.); http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0456103p.pdf
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978) (“Although a prosecutor may in the course of plea negotiations offer a defendant concessions relating to prosecution under an existing indictment . . . he may not threaten a defendant with the consequence that more severe charges may be brought if he insists on going to trial. When a prosecutor obtains an indictment less severe than the facts known to him at the time might permit, he makes a discretionary determination that the interests of the state are served by not seeking more serious charges. . . . Accordingly, if after plea negotiations fail, he then procures an indictment charging a more serious crime, a strong inference is created that the only reason for the more serious charges is vindictiveness. Under these circumstances, the prosecutor should be required to justify his action.” 547 F.2d, at 44-45.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/434/357.html
She may as well have said, “If we want to let her skate, she’ll skate.” How corrupt are things when a murdering, absolutely corrupt, wretch of filth can just fling things aside and be appointed “Queen”! She could molest a boy on camera and they’d let her skate.
What is even surprising to me is the amount of support this hideous harridan is getting all across the country. Anybody supporting this see you next Tuesday is a brain dead moron.
one thing though that they are forgetting
we the people dont have to accept this ..I guess we will see
I am 99% sure that Hillary will be President of the U. S. Corporation.
If by some miracle Trump becomes the Republican nominee, the Republican party will not fund Trumps run and throw their support behind Hillary.
I agree
Roll the red carpet out, Madam President is about to enter! We can’t let her feet touch the floor unless you want dung all over. A Broadway show all the way, with some shallow patriotism thrown in for good measure.
Wreaking from years of crawling in the sewer with Bill, the stench is the same, “nosehair curling”, eye watering stench from the bowels of hell, imagine just trying to tolerate the odor for 1 second! It would be “stomach churning” for sure.
I am pretty sure Hitlery was promised to get to be the next pres by the Bilderberg scum even before Obama had his turn. Remember when the two of them secretly went to the big B meeting before Obama was appointed?
Well of course! The Commie bitch is taking orders from Barry and Hitlery. What do you expect? She wouldn’t be in the position she is in if she didn’t. Duh!