Most Americans Want To See President Trump Indict Hillary Do You? Sign The Petition

On a Fox Business partition, Judge Andrew Napolitano fought that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has enough confirmation against Hillary Clinton to totally look for after and press charges against her for her hostile email shock.
VIDEO Most Americans Want To See President Trump Indict Hillary รข€” Do You?
Judge Napolitano, in clear talk, has communicated that it is finally time for Hillary to be indicted and that Jeff Sessions is the man for the action.
What do you think? Do you agree it's long past time to finally consider Hillary in charge of her exercises?

Hillary Clinton refused to tell the truth about the deadly Benghazi terrorist attack that took place on her watch as Secretary of State

She violated the law and avoided accountability by using secret email accounts as Secretary of State

She abused her public office to funnel money to personal accounts – much of which is now sloshing around her vanity “charity” that could be renamed “The Clinton Corruption Foundation.”

This is all unacceptable.

In this country our leaders are bound by the rule of law. She must be held accountable for her actions.

Sign the petition now to demand that Hillary Clinton answer for her corruption!

Right now, virtually any foreign or domestic individual can purchase personal access to the president of the United States by making a $200,000 annual payment to his golf resort in Palm Beach, Florida. And that access can produce changes in the president’s policy views: As one former White House official recently told the Washington Post, “At Mar-a-Lago, anyone who can get within eyesight changes the game.”

Several years ago, the Clinton family’s charitable foundation accepted donations from individuals and entities that had an interest in influencing U.S. policy, while Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of State. The donations did not pile up in the Clintons’ bank accounts, but rather, were spent on reducing rates of HIV, malaria, and childhood malnutrition, among other philanthropic causes. While the arrangement raised legitimate concerns about the appearance of — and potential for — corruption, years of scrutiny have produced no significant public evidence of Clinton’s reshaping public policy to her foundation donors’ whims. The most high-profile allegation of such behavior — the Uranium One “scandal” — is laughably hollow, and has long been debunked.

Now: If you were a federal law enforcement agency, with limited resources for investigating political corruption, which of these entities would you prioritize probing — the golf club that is currently allowing its wealthy patrons to “change the game” on White House policy, or the charitable foundation that may have provided its donors with special access to a former secretary of State (although your previous investigation of said foundation turned up no actionable evidence of criminal corruption)?

If you are the Trump-era Justice Department, the answer is the latter. As the Hill reports:

FBI agents from Little Rock, Ark., where the Foundation was started, have taken the lead in the investigation and have interviewed at least one witness in the last month, and law enforcement officials said additional activities are expected in coming weeks.

The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the probe is examining whether the Clintons promised or performed any policy favors in return for largesse to their charitable efforts or whether donors made commitments of donations in hopes of securing government outcomes.

The probe may also examine whether any tax-exempt assets were converted for personal or political use and whether the Foundation complied with applicable tax laws, the officials said.

Meanwhile, the Daily Beast reports that the Justice Department is taking a “fresh look” at Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State:

An ally of Attorney General Jeff Sessions who is familiar with the thinking at the Justice Department’s Washington headquarters described it as an effort to gather new details on how Clinton and her aides handled classified material. Officials’ questions include how much classified information was sent over Clinton’s server; who put that information into an unclassified environment, and how; and which investigators knew about these matters and when. The Sessions ally also said officials have questions about immunity agreements that Clinton aides may have made.

(Last September, the New York Times revealed that six top Trump administration officials — including senior adviser Jared Kushner — conducted official White House business over private email accounts.)

It is difficult to understand how it could possibly be in the national interest for federal law enforcement to prioritize reopening freshly closed probes into Hillary Clinton, as opposed to committing more resources to policing white-collar crime, or to any other form of malfeasance that they didn’t already, fruitlessly investigate within the last two years.

But it’s easy to see how doing so would be in Donald Trump’s interest. For the president’s core supporters, few (if any) of his campaign promises were more eagerly embraced than his pledge to “lock her up.” Further, in the eyes of Republican elected officials and voters, the existence of an investigation into the Trump campaign — but none into its rivals — was prima facie evidence of the deep state’s anti-democratic bias against the president.

Post a Comment


  1. Lock her up and that looney fake Obummer, they both need prison!

  2. Yes I support Mr President OF the USA Donald Trump. Truly His Holiness Christ Anderson now (Omer Shraim)