Citing indications of wrongdoing and bad faith, a federal judge has overruled government objections by declaring that a conservative group is entitled to more details about how Hillary Clinton's private email account was integrated into the State Department record keeping system and why it was not searched in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.Instapundit tried to give Ron Fournier the benefit of the doubt in his statement that there should be a high bar for indicting presidential candidates; but then he read the Justice Departments guidance to prosecutors, and asks where Ron was when Rick Perry was frivolously indicted.
. . .
"Where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases," Lamberth wrote in his three-page order. The judge noted that State argues it had no legal duty to search Clinton's emails when Judicial Watch's request arrived because her emails were not in the agency's possession and control at that time. It was not until December 2014 that Clinton turned over a portion of her email archive to State at the agency's request.
Here’s what the U.S. Attorney’s Manual says:Would the Obama Administration abuse its discretion? Gee, that's had to imagine. Ruth Marcus at the Post whines a bit about Why a no-indictment for Hillary Clinton would still be a problem for America.
The attorney for the government should commence or recommend Federal prosecution if he/she believes that the person’s conduct constitutes a Federal offense and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction ….But wait, there’s more:
In determining whether to commence or recommend prosecution or take other action against a person, the attorney for the government should not be influenced by: The person’s race, religion, sex, national origin, or political association, activities or beliefs ….So actually, declining to prosecute Hillary because she’s running for President would be an abuse of discretion. But follow the link to see the people who are trying to argue otherwise.
On the horse race, a Danish libertarian claims that Hillary cannot win, because the "social contract" — the agreement between the ruled and the rulers — is now broken. Which he also blames for the rise of Trump. The dark menace gaining on Hillary. Bernie dark? Communist, yes, crazy, yes, but dark? According to Chris Cilliza of the WaPo The idea that Bernie Sanders has been too negative to debate Hillary Clinton is ridiculous. I agree, he's been far too gentle, especially on the email issue.
In the lifestyle primary, Sally Miller, an ex-lover of Bills claims Hillary ‘had several abortions’, kept Chelsea for political appearances. I would think anything after one is just ignorance and refusal to bow to reality. What's worse, abortions, or keeping the kid for appearances? Kind of a toss up; but I guess Chelsea made out and married well in the end. Hillary Laughs About Bill's Infidelity:
It's almost like she never really cared in the first place except for how it hurt her political chances. And yes, she has lied to us all, repeatedly.
And, via Wombat-socho's "In The Mailbox: 03.29.2016" Hillary Clinton Waxes Biblical At Anti-Gun Forum, Pivots To Alleged Police Brutality. If for no other reason to vote Trump over Hillary.