Joe diGenova: FBI Will Revolt If Hillary Not Charged
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ex-u.s.-atty-clinton-two-months-away-from-criminal-indictment/article/2579620
RUSH: Then in the Stack, as I get to the program today, remember the name Joe diGenova, former Justice Department official. He was on cable TV regularly during the nineties during the Clinton impeachment era and his lovely and gracious wife, Victoria Toensing. Well, anyway, diGenova is out there today claiming that the FBI has so much evidence on Hillary, and they just keep gathering it, that it is overwhelming. That if Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, does not charge her, that there is going to be a revolt in the FBI and in parts of the Justice Department because it will mean that protected, politically protected political operatives and employees at the State Department and elsewhere can get away with trafficking in classified information, if Hillary Clinton is not charged.
He says the evidence is overwhelming and that the FBI is continuing to gather it. And he said he cannot the fathom that she wouldn't be, given the weight of the evidence, and the only reason she might not be would be because of politics and Loretta Lynch and Obama running the DOJ and not wanting to do any damage to the Democrat Party by indicting Hillary. So I have that story coming up for you as the program unfolds. Some things from yesterday held over that I put right on the top of yesterday's Stack.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I mentioned this earlier. Here are the details. The story's in the Washington Examiner. "A former US attorney thinks Hillary Clinton could face a criminal indictment from the FBI within the next 60 days." Now, I want to say at the outset, we've been hearing this for months now, and I'm not opining here. I'm just sharing with you the latest thought on this from somebody who's actually been as close to this in a previous regime as you can be.
"Joe diGenova, a Republican US attorney appointed by President Reagan, said [Hillary]'s 'biggest problem right now' is the open FBI investigation into the contents of her private emails. 'They have reached a critical mass in their investigation of the secretary and all of her senior staff,' diGenova said... 'And, it's going to come to a head, I would suggest, in the next 60 days.' FBI Director James Comey has refused to answer questions about when his agents will wrap up a months-long probe into whether Clinton and her staff mishandled classified information ..."
There was another document dump of these e-mails on New Year's Eve. Maybe it was New Year's Day. We're up now to either 1100 or 1400 emails. I don't remember the exact number, but it's over a thousand e-mails with classified information that Mrs. Clinton was sending, receiving, trafficking in. She can claim ignorance and that they weren't marked, but by definition if she's receiving them they're classified, and everybody with prior government experience knows that that's standard operating procedure.
Now, diGenova said, "I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Attorney General Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI..." If she doesn't charge... What is her name? Loretta Lynch. If she doesn't charge given the mountains of evidence the FBI is compiling, diGenova says, "[T]here will be a massive revolt inside the FBI which [Lynch] will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable.
"The evidence against the Clinton staff and the secretary is so overwhelming at this point that if, in fact, she chooses not to charge Hillary, they will never be able to charge another federal employee with the negligent handling of classified information." Further, he said, "The intelligence community will not stand for that. They will fight for indictment and they are already in the process of gearing themselves to basically revolt if she refuses to bring charges." So according to diGenova -- we can read between the lines here -- the FBI has compiled mountains of evidence that is deeply incriminating.
And while this is happening, there are real doubts and concerns within the DOJ that there will be no charges, for whatever political reasons. If there are no charges, by the way, the purpose here obviously is to protect the Democrat Party. I mean, this is like standard op. It doesn't even require any in-depth analysis. If diGenova's right that there's this mountain of compelling evidence that is just conclusive as hell of her guilt, and if there are no charges, if the Obama Department of Justice did not charge her, it's clear the reason will be so as to not destroy the Democrat Party's presidential prospects in November, pure and simple.
And, by the way, it's to the point now that employees inside the intelligence community and the DOJ already are getting ready for that. They think it's a legitimate possibility that the political concerns will overweigh the legal and there will be no charges. They're getting ready to revolt. So the take-away from this has to be that, if we trust that diGenova is informed to the degree that he is and knows what he's talking about, apparently the evidence is overwhelming. Now, as I say, we've been hearing in one way or another since the summer.
I mean, maybe even prior to that. We've heard both sides, that, "Ah, there won't be charges; he's not gonna charge," or that Obama's "waiting for the right time 'cause Obama does not want her to be president." We've heard all of this. We've heard all this speculation. And the speculation has all been based on the fact that there is a lot of evidence -- and it's increasing in amount as they keep collecting it -- that Mrs. Clinton has broken the law, violated all kinds of security all kinds of security laws, A, with the existence of the private server; B, trafficking in classified e-mails.
And, by the way, folks, this does not even count what she has been doing with these e-mails. In addition to trafficking in classified data, look at the access that she's been selling, and we don't know if that's part of the evidence that's being collected. But all of these donations to the Bill and Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Crime Family Foundation or whatever they call it? She's receiving tens of millions of dollars already from agents of foreign governments! Now, why? It's not because the Clintons are universally loved.
If you're some foreign despot, tinhorn leader, you don't have to pay Bill Clinton to have sex during the Clinton Global Initiative, so they're not buying sex from the Clintons. (Although...) They're buying access. They're buying it on the come, on the belief that Hillary is gonna be the next president. They're buy -- when you have this amount of money being, quote/unquote "donated" to a presidential candidate's foundation, it's a natural thing to start thinking about influence selling, influence buying.
And when there's this kind of money going around and being donated, you have to start thinking of some of the darker aspects of it -- such as bribery and blackmail and extortion -- as possibilities. And don't think that doesn't happen. Don't think that doesn't go on. Don't think that isn't attempted.
The stakes are high in international relations, and when it all revolves -- or a good part of it revolves -- around money, as most everything does in this world (high political, high finance worlds), the opportunity for dark, deceitful kind of trafficking is high. So whatever. We'll see. I don't know what a revolt would look like, and I don't know what kind of impact a revolt would have inside the intelligence community, inside the DOJ. Mounting evidence, but there's no charges. What would a revolt look like?
But it wouldn't surprise me.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ex-u.s.-atty-clinton-two-months-away-from-criminal-indictment/article/2579620
RUSH: Then in the Stack, as I get to the program today, remember the name Joe diGenova, former Justice Department official. He was on cable TV regularly during the nineties during the Clinton impeachment era and his lovely and gracious wife, Victoria Toensing. Well, anyway, diGenova is out there today claiming that the FBI has so much evidence on Hillary, and they just keep gathering it, that it is overwhelming. That if Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, does not charge her, that there is going to be a revolt in the FBI and in parts of the Justice Department because it will mean that protected, politically protected political operatives and employees at the State Department and elsewhere can get away with trafficking in classified information, if Hillary Clinton is not charged.
He says the evidence is overwhelming and that the FBI is continuing to gather it. And he said he cannot the fathom that she wouldn't be, given the weight of the evidence, and the only reason she might not be would be because of politics and Loretta Lynch and Obama running the DOJ and not wanting to do any damage to the Democrat Party by indicting Hillary. So I have that story coming up for you as the program unfolds. Some things from yesterday held over that I put right on the top of yesterday's Stack.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I mentioned this earlier. Here are the details. The story's in the Washington Examiner. "A former US attorney thinks Hillary Clinton could face a criminal indictment from the FBI within the next 60 days." Now, I want to say at the outset, we've been hearing this for months now, and I'm not opining here. I'm just sharing with you the latest thought on this from somebody who's actually been as close to this in a previous regime as you can be.
"Joe diGenova, a Republican US attorney appointed by President Reagan, said [Hillary]'s 'biggest problem right now' is the open FBI investigation into the contents of her private emails. 'They have reached a critical mass in their investigation of the secretary and all of her senior staff,' diGenova said... 'And, it's going to come to a head, I would suggest, in the next 60 days.' FBI Director James Comey has refused to answer questions about when his agents will wrap up a months-long probe into whether Clinton and her staff mishandled classified information ..."
There was another document dump of these e-mails on New Year's Eve. Maybe it was New Year's Day. We're up now to either 1100 or 1400 emails. I don't remember the exact number, but it's over a thousand e-mails with classified information that Mrs. Clinton was sending, receiving, trafficking in. She can claim ignorance and that they weren't marked, but by definition if she's receiving them they're classified, and everybody with prior government experience knows that that's standard operating procedure.
Now, diGenova said, "I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Attorney General Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI..." If she doesn't charge... What is her name? Loretta Lynch. If she doesn't charge given the mountains of evidence the FBI is compiling, diGenova says, "[T]here will be a massive revolt inside the FBI which [Lynch] will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable.
"The evidence against the Clinton staff and the secretary is so overwhelming at this point that if, in fact, she chooses not to charge Hillary, they will never be able to charge another federal employee with the negligent handling of classified information." Further, he said, "The intelligence community will not stand for that. They will fight for indictment and they are already in the process of gearing themselves to basically revolt if she refuses to bring charges." So according to diGenova -- we can read between the lines here -- the FBI has compiled mountains of evidence that is deeply incriminating.
And while this is happening, there are real doubts and concerns within the DOJ that there will be no charges, for whatever political reasons. If there are no charges, by the way, the purpose here obviously is to protect the Democrat Party. I mean, this is like standard op. It doesn't even require any in-depth analysis. If diGenova's right that there's this mountain of compelling evidence that is just conclusive as hell of her guilt, and if there are no charges, if the Obama Department of Justice did not charge her, it's clear the reason will be so as to not destroy the Democrat Party's presidential prospects in November, pure and simple.
And, by the way, it's to the point now that employees inside the intelligence community and the DOJ already are getting ready for that. They think it's a legitimate possibility that the political concerns will overweigh the legal and there will be no charges. They're getting ready to revolt. So the take-away from this has to be that, if we trust that diGenova is informed to the degree that he is and knows what he's talking about, apparently the evidence is overwhelming. Now, as I say, we've been hearing in one way or another since the summer.
I mean, maybe even prior to that. We've heard both sides, that, "Ah, there won't be charges; he's not gonna charge," or that Obama's "waiting for the right time 'cause Obama does not want her to be president." We've heard all of this. We've heard all this speculation. And the speculation has all been based on the fact that there is a lot of evidence -- and it's increasing in amount as they keep collecting it -- that Mrs. Clinton has broken the law, violated all kinds of security all kinds of security laws, A, with the existence of the private server; B, trafficking in classified e-mails.
And, by the way, folks, this does not even count what she has been doing with these e-mails. In addition to trafficking in classified data, look at the access that she's been selling, and we don't know if that's part of the evidence that's being collected. But all of these donations to the Bill and Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Crime Family Foundation or whatever they call it? She's receiving tens of millions of dollars already from agents of foreign governments! Now, why? It's not because the Clintons are universally loved.
If you're some foreign despot, tinhorn leader, you don't have to pay Bill Clinton to have sex during the Clinton Global Initiative, so they're not buying sex from the Clintons. (Although...) They're buying access. They're buying it on the come, on the belief that Hillary is gonna be the next president. They're buy -- when you have this amount of money being, quote/unquote "donated" to a presidential candidate's foundation, it's a natural thing to start thinking about influence selling, influence buying.
And when there's this kind of money going around and being donated, you have to start thinking of some of the darker aspects of it -- such as bribery and blackmail and extortion -- as possibilities. And don't think that doesn't happen. Don't think that doesn't go on. Don't think that isn't attempted.
The stakes are high in international relations, and when it all revolves -- or a good part of it revolves -- around money, as most everything does in this world (high political, high finance worlds), the opportunity for dark, deceitful kind of trafficking is high. So whatever. We'll see. I don't know what a revolt would look like, and I don't know what kind of impact a revolt would have inside the intelligence community, inside the DOJ. Mounting evidence, but there's no charges. What would a revolt look like?
But it wouldn't surprise me.