This, gentle readers, is the Louis Renault award of the month (to refresh your memory about the good Captain Renault, go here). I am shocked, shocked(!), to hear this from the Attorney General of the United States of America, Loretta Lynch. Via The Washington Examiner:
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.
“It would be an operation of procedures”?! In terms of the English language, to say nothing of criminal justice procedure, that means precisely nothing. I suspect what Lynch was trying to avoid saying was that she wouldn’t do anything without President Obama’s express approval. Of course the DOJ can refuse to file charges. That’s the way the criminal justice system works. Federal agents do investigations and present cases, and US Attorneys decline or file charges. That the Attorney General felt she had to say that suggests she either has no idea of normal criminal justice system procedures, or she is preparing the battlespace for the announcement that no charges will ever be filed against Hillary.
I’m also shocked, shocked (!) about this:
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.
I don’t agree with Donald Trump about much, but in this, he is absolutely correct.
As I’ve previously noted, the evidence against Clinton doesn’t matter. It is highly unlikely the Democrat establishment would allow its frontrunner to be indicted. It is, however, understood that there is no love lost between the Clintons and the Obamas. However, Obama understands that the only way to protect his shaky legacy is for Hillary to win the presidency, and it’s likely they each have a great deal of embarrassing, if not criminal, information on each other. Still, Obama might allow her to be indicted, and then pardon her and anyone that could harm him.
I’ve also predicted that before Obama leaves office we’ll see a blizzard of pardons the likes of which mankind has never seen. Barack Obama is not going to leave anyone in a position to harm him or his closest cronies.
This is what happens when Americans elect people they know care nothing for the rule of law. I’m shocked, shocked! But the shocks never end:
During Lynch’s testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said that he believes there are similarities between the tobacco industry denying scientific studies showing the dangers of using tobacco and companies within the fossil fuel industry denying studies allegedly showing the threat of carbon emissions…
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)… concluded his comments by posing a question to the country’s top law enforcement officer.
‘My question to you is, other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?’ he asked.
‘This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,’ Lynch answered. ‘I’m not aware of a civil referral at this time.
Translation: The Federal Department Of Justice is actually considering suing and/or prosecuting Exxon, and presumably anyone else, who holds a differing view on climate change and the government intentions. That’s the kind of totalitarian pursuit of thought crime that might give even Stalin, Castro or Mao pause.
But surely the Obama Administration wouldn’t so stupidly violate the constitution without good cause and solid science?
Further, the federal government is probably the last place you’d want to start such an inquiry, to say nothing of bringing charges against people. Lynch’s colleague over that EPA, Gina McCarthy, has recently admitted that they don’t even understand how the oil and gas industry works, particularly when it comes to emissions. And even if you accept the assumptions offered as to what particular emissions do to global temperatures the government’s proposed remedies seem highly unscientific. For one example, when actual scientists get a chance to look at the data, they conclude that the current methane rules under discussion would only (possibly) reduce temperatures by .0004 degrees C by 2100.