The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
The Mistress of Deception
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The self-inflicted wounds of Hillary Rodham Clinton just keep manifesting themselves. She has two serious issues that have arisen in the past week; one is political and the other is legal. Both have deception at their root.

Her political problem is one of credibility. We know from her emails that she informed her daughter Chelsea and the then-prime minister of Egypt within 12 hours of the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, that he had been killed in Benghazi by al-Qaida. We know from the public record that the Obama administration’s narrative blamed the killings of the ambassador and his guards on an anonymous crowd’s spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muhammad video.

Over this past weekend we learned that her own embassy staff in Tripoli told her senior staff in Washington the day after the killings that the video was not an issue, and very few Libyans had seen it. We also know from her emails that the CIA informed her within 24 hours of the ambassador’s murder that it had been planned by al-Qaida 12 days before the actual killings.

Nevertheless, she persisted in blaming the video. When she received the bodies of Ambassador Stevens and his three bodyguards at Andrews Air Force base three days after their murders, she told the media and the families of the deceased assembled there that the four Americans had been killed by a spontaneous mob reacting to a cheap 15-minute anti-Muhammad video.

Clinton’s sordid behavior throughout this unhappy affair reveals a cavalier attitude about the truth and a ready willingness to deceive the public for short-term political gain. This might not harm her political aspirations with her base in the Democratic Party; but it will be a serious political problem for her with independent voters, without whose support she simply cannot be elected.

Yet, her name might not appear on any ballot in 2016.

That’s because, each time she addresses these issues — her involvement in Benghazi and her emails — her legal problems get worse. We already know that the FBI has been investigating her for espionage (the failure to secure state secrets), destruction of government property and obstruction of justice (wiping her computer server clean of governmental emails that were and are the property of the federal government), and perjury (lying to a federal judge about whether she returned all governmental emails to the State Department).

ORDER IT NOW

Now, she has added new potential perjury and misleading Congress issues because of her deceptive testimony to the House Benghazi committee. In 2011, when President Obama persuaded NATO to enact and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, he sent American intelligence agents on the ground. Since they were not military and were not shooting at Libyan government forces, he could plausibly argue that he had not put “boots” on the ground. Clinton, however, decided that she could accelerate the departure of the Libyan strongman, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, by arming some of the Libyan rebel groups that were attempting to oppose him and thus helping them to shoot at government forces.

So, in violation of federal law and the U.N. arms embargo on Libya she authorized the shipment of American arms to Qatar, knowing they’d be passed off to Libyan rebels, some of whom were al-Qaida, a few of whom killed Ambassador Stevens using American-made weapons. When asked about this, she said she knew nothing of it. The emails underlying this are in the public domain. Clinton not only knew of the arms-to-Libyan-rebels deal, she authored and authorized it. She lied about this under oath.

After surveying the damage done to his regime and his family by NATO bombings, Col. Kaddafi made known his wish to negotiate a peaceful departure from Libya. When his wish was presented to Clinton, a source in the room with Clinton has revealed that she silently made the “off with his head” hand motion by moving her hand quickly across her neck. She could do that because she knew the rebels were well equipped with American arms with which to kill him. She didn’t care that many of the rebels were al-Qaida or that arming them was a felony. She lied about this under oath.

My Fox News colleagues Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne have scrutinized Clinton’s testimony with respect to her friend and adviser Sidney Blumenthal. Recall that President Obama vetoed Clinton’s wish to hire him as her State Department senior adviser. So she had the Clinton Foundation pay him a greater salary than the State Department would have, and he became her silent de facto advisor.

They emailed each other hundreds of times during her tenure. He provided intelligence to her, which he obtained from a security company on the ground in Libya in which he had a financial interest. He advised her on how to present herself to the media. He even advocated the parameters of the Libyan no-fly zone and she acted upon his recommendations. Yet she told the committee he was “just a friend.” She was highly deceptive and criminally misleading about this under oath.

It is difficult to believe that the federal prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Clinton will not recommend that she be indicted. Inexplicably, she seems to have forgotten that they were monitoring what she said under oath to the Benghazi committee. By lying under oath, and by misleading Congress, she gave that team additional areas to investigate and on which to recommend indictments.

When those recommendations are made known, no ballot will bear her name.

Copyright 2015 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Hillary Clinton, Libya 
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I don’t see any possibility that Hillary will be indicted for anything, particularly this close to the presidential election year. No one in the FBI or anywhere else would risk the firestorm that would result from the HRC faithful, the Demo party apparatus and her billionaire backers. Besides which, elites, both political and financial (and regretfully, Hillary is the elite of the political elite) tend not to be subject to the rule of law. That’s for the rest of us losers.

  2. MEexpert says:

    A wishful thinking. Obama administration has been guilty of many of the same things. They have been supplying arms to Saudi Arabia and Qatar knowing full well that these arms will end up in ISIS hands.

    Furthermore, Obama DOJ has declined to prosecute other similar crimes. The investigations will drag on until past the election day. Unfortunately, all the politicians are corrupt. They will make lot of noise but nothing will be done about it. Republicans have no stomach for any more indictments either.

    We are a lawless country now.

  3. It is difficult to believe that the federal prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Clinton will not recommend that she be indicted.

    I think the long-term political (and societal) fallout will be more significant if the FBI ends up not recommending that she be indicted. 75% of Americans surveyed consider the federal government to be inherently corrupt. I believe much of this sentiment is due to Hillary’s (and Bill’s) long history of corruption and their getting away with it. A failure to pursue indictment will ensure that the vast majority of Americans will assume that the federal government is irreversibly corrupt and they will respond accordingly over a long period of time, mainly in the form of complete disregard for any concept of law and order.

  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    What about all of the allegations in the book CLINTON CASH by Peter Schweizer ? They are devastating and should also be investigated . The book is well worth reading .

  5. She won’t be indicted, period, end of story. And it won’t be because of the media or her backers or anyone else.

    Two reasons:

    1. The GOP are such a bunch of limp d**ks that at least some of them will wail and whine about “how will it look to the rest of world if a former First Lady goes to prison?”. John McCain, Lindsay Graham, the entire Bush family, et al will go on and on about how we should not punish Mrs. Clinton for her “mistakes.”

    2. The Clintons play hard, and they play for keeps. You think they don’t have all kinds of dirt on their adversaries in BOTH parties that they’re willing to sling if need be? I am sure there have already been missives from the Clinton camp to the effect of “be sure you want to do that. We’ve got the goods on you and your (fill in blank here with sexual perversions, shady financial dealings, and/or loyalties to foreign powers).”

  6. 2. The Clintons play hard, and they play for keeps. You think they don’t have all kinds of dirt on their adversaries in BOTH parties that they’re willing to sling if need be? I am sure there have already been missives from the Clinton camp to the effect of “be sure you want to do that. We’ve got the goods on you and your (fill in blank here with sexual perversions, shady financial dealings, and/or loyalties to foreign powers).”

    If Hillary is facing the prospect of a recommendation of indictment, on the part of the FBI, its not immediately clear precisely whom she can threaten and/or bribe, in order to get out from under that. I suppose a direct order from the President, or the Attorney General, to the Director of the FBI, might be effective, but I wouldn’t count on that, as a successful survival strategy. I suspect, the FBI will do what it deems proper, unless Barack Obama is really willing to go to bat for Hillary…and I find that rather unlikely.

    On the other hand, the idea of Hillary being indicted in March or whenever, does kinda feel almost too good to be true.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  7. @Kevin O'Keeffe

    If Hillary is facing the prospect of a recommendation of indictment, on the part of the FBI, its not immediately clear precisely whom she can threaten and/or bribe, in order to get out from under that.

    Marc Rich

    Vince Foster

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS