"Lock Her Up!" Whatever happened to the Trump campaign pledge to see that justice was applied to Hillary Rodham Clinton's acts of espionage?
The facts are incontrovertible. Former FBI Director James Comey recited a litany of criminal acts of espionage committed by Hillary Rodham Clinton while she was Secretary of State during Barack Obama's first term. Yet Comey claimed she couldn't be prosecuted for those crimes. But that decision was not his to make, and, indeed, he had no power to usurp that decision from the Department of Justice. So why hasn't the Department of Justice under President Trump moved the evidence to a Grand Jury for indictment?
July 5, 2016: Former FBI Director James Comey made a public announcement during which he recited a litany of criminal acts of espionage committed by Hillary Rodham Clinton while she was Secretary of State during Barack Obama's first term. Comey, after listing criminal acts for which any Grand Jury would indict, concluded by saying he did not think the criminal acts of espionage (the worst of any cabinet member in the history of this nation), warranted prosecution. Some claim Mr. Comey "exonerated" Hillary Clinton. He did not.
James Comey had no more power to "exonerate" Hillary Clinton than does Clarabell the Clown.
Comey was Director of the FBI and, as such, he had neither the power to prosecute nor the power to exonerate. His proper function was to assemble the evidence and turn it over to the Department of Justice (DoJ) for their determination.
Any recommendation Comey might have made would not normally be pertinent to a conscientious prosecutor who, if unbiased, competent, and honorable, would make prosecution decisions based on the evidence and the evidence alone.
Given the nature of and volume of evidence amassed by the FBI, every good prosecutor would have presented it to a Grand Jury. Given the circumstances of an election year, the name of the subject of the investigation would have been kept anonymous. Grand Juries should act only on evidence and should never be influenced by either emotional attachment or animosity when arriving at a Grand Jury's decision.
The evidence is so overwhelming any Grand Jury, if acting on the evidence presented, would have indicted Hillary R. Clinton for well in excess of 100 counts of violations of at least 12 federal criminal codes relating to the espionage act, obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements. This evidence does not include any evidence relating to Clinton's selling favors as Secretary of State to foreign interests (including Russia's purchase of rights to critical US uranium ore deposits) in exchange for large monetary "donations" to the Clinton Foundation" (a money-laundering scheme through a Canadian non-profit whose sole purpose was to enrich the Clintons and their associates).
So why hasn't AG Sessions' DoJ dusted off the FBI's Hillary Clinton file, taken it to a Grand Jury (keeping the target's name undisclosed) and sought an indictment for the greatest acts of espionage ever committed against the United States by a Cabinet Level officer? She could always be indicted separately at a later date for violations of law with respect to selling influence while Secretary of State.
There is no justification for the DoJ's failure to move the evidence of criminal espionage against Clinton to a Grand Jury.
The time is long overdue for President Trump to deliver on his promise to see that justice is equally administered to all Americans.
Hillary Clinton is a criminal, a liar, and a national disgrace. Yet she is free of any consequences of her criminal activity, has enriched herself by those criminal activities, and still has a devoted following who appear to be oblivious to her criminal acts of espionage that are likely to have cost the lives of at least six people, including four Americans at Benghazi.
That roughly half of voters in the 2016 election voted for a criminal candidate who put this nation at risk is a symptom of a dysfunctional news media and highly partisan voters who appear unwilling to accept the unpleasant reality they hitched their political wagon to a dead horse.
It's time we helped Clinton voters by giving them a dose of reality in the hope it might wake some of them from their Leftist media-induced stupor.
Failure to prosecute these crimes will only embolden other criminal acts by slick politicians convinced they are immune to any consequences of their criminal activities.
Enough is enough! It's time to get the job done and bring Hillary R. Clinton to justice.
Bob Webster, a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s) is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.