The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Napolitano ArchiveBlogview
What if the Fix Was In?
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

What if the folks who run the Department of Political Justice recently were told that the republic would suffer if Hillary Clinton were indicted for espionage because Donald Trump might succeed Barack Obama in the presidency? What if espionage is the failure to safeguard state secrets and the evidence that Clinton failed to safeguard them is unambiguous and overwhelming?

What if President Obama never really liked his former rival whom he appointed as his secretary of state? What if he had no real interest in seeing her succeed him because he and his wife simply could never trust her?

What if, when Clinton suggested to the president that the U.S. wage a secret undeclared war against Libya, the president went along with it as a no-lose proposition? What if he assumed that if her secret war succeeded he’d get the credit and if her secret war failed she would get the blame?

What if the means of fighting the secret war consisted of employing intelligence assets rather than the U.S. military? What if Clinton concocted that idea because the use of the military requires a public reporting to the entire Congress but the use of intelligence assets requires only a secret reporting to a dozen members of Congress?

What if Clinton expanded her war by permitting American and foreign arms dealers to bypass the NATO arms embargo on Libya by selling heavy-duty, military-grade arms directly to militias in Libya? What if this was Clinton’s dream scenario — an apparent civil war in Libya in which the victorious side was secretly armed by the U.S., with democracy brought to the country and Clinton the architect of it all?

What if the CIA warned Clinton that this would backfire? What if the CIA told her that she was arming not pro-Western militias but anti-American terrorist groups? What if she rejected all that advice? What if providing material assistance to terrorist groups is a felony? What if the Department of Political Justice actually obtained an indictment of an American arms dealer for going along with Clinton’s schemes?

What if Clinton’s secret war in Libya was a disaster? What if she succeeded in toppling the Libyan leader, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, only to have him replaced by feuding warlords who control anti-Western terrorist groups that not only failed to produce democracy but instead produced destruction, chaos, terror, torture and death?

What if Clinton managed her Libyan disaster using a non-secure email system even though she regularly sent and received state secrets? What if she sent many emails containing state secrets about her Libyan war to her friend Sid Blumenthal? What if Blumenthal had been turned down for a State Department job by the president himself?

What if Blumenthal did not have a government security clearance to receive lawfully any state secrets? What if Clinton knew that? What if the FBI found that Blumenthal’s emails had been hacked by intelligence services of foreign governments that are hostile to America?

What if there were terrible secrets that Clinton wanted to keep from the public and for that reason she used private servers and non-government-issued mobile devices? What if those terrible secrets involved her enabling the unlawful behavior of her husband and his shoddy, unlawful foundation? What if Mrs. Clinton made decisions as secretary of state that were intended to enrich her husband and herself and she needed to keep emails about those decisions away from the public?

What if the president recognized all this and authorized the FBI to conduct criminal investigations of Mrs. Clinton?

What if, after the ascendancy of Donald Trump in the Republican presidential primaries, the president warmed up to his former rival? What if Trump so got under the president’s skin that it drove him to embrace Clinton as his chosen successor and as the one Democrat who could prevent a Trump presidency?

What if the president sent word to the Department of Political Justice to exonerate Clinton no matter what evidence was found against her? What if, in response to that political interference, the FBI investigation of her failure to safeguard state secrets and her corruption took irregular turns?

What if FBI management began to intimidate FBI agents who had the goods on her? What if FBI management forced agents to sign highly irregular agreements governing what the agents can tell anyone when it comes to what they learned about Clinton?

What if the Department of Political Justice never subpoenaed anything from Clinton? What if it never convened a grand jury to seek and hear evidence against her? What if the FBI requires a grand jury to subpoena documents and tangible things? What if it is highly irregular for a major FBI criminal investigation to be undertaken without a grand jury?

What if the attorney general was involved in a publicity stunt with Clinton’s husband and then used that stunt as an excuse to remove herself and her top aides from making decisions in the case? What if this was a sham, done so as to make it appear that FBI professionals — rather than someone politically motivated, such as the president or the attorney general — were calling the shots in the case?

What if Hillary Clinton has engaged in espionage and public corruption and FBI agents know that she has? What if they have evidence to prove it but they could not present anything to a grand jury because President Obama wants Clinton, and not Donald Trump, to succeed him in office? What if this blatant political interference with a criminal investigation is itself a crime? What if, midstream in this criminal investigation, the fix was put in?

What do we do about it?

Copyright 2016 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Hillary Clinton 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Like someone else said, Comey punted the decision to the voters. The buck stops with us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Connecticut Famer
    There may not be enough of "us" to prevent this woman from being elected, but this controversy has wings that won't quit. As Judge Napolitano might ask "What if Hillary Clinton is elected president and a crisis ensues involving a foreign country which crisis is directly attributable to information contained on those emails which were hacked?"

    This will not end well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/anapolitano/what-if-the-fix-was-in/#comment-1500282
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. And what if the “Hillary For Prison” campaign fails and Hillary Clinton becomes President?

    1. Alex Jones is found dead in a gym lying on a weightlifter’s bench with a photo on his chest, showing him pulling in his stomach while holding up a bottle of DNA Force. Police take a photo of him lying supinely on his back with a weightlifting bar fitted with 380 lb straddling his neck; the cause of his death in what was obviously an unbelievably freak accident that crushed his windpipe and cervical vertebrae.

    2. Roger Stone is waiting trial in the Guantanamo Bay detention center and wishing he was Roger Rabbit.

    3. Trump is found in Atlantic City on a roulette table with his feet dangling over the far end from the wheel, a bullet having gone through both his temples and a Smith & Wesson 686 .38 still in his hand pointing at his head–one bullet remains in its chambers. The ball in the roulette wheel is sitting in the pocket of No. 1. The presidential nominee is televised still lying on the roulette table with a copy of The Art Of The Deal by his side; his business card that appears to have been a page marker has slipped out and fallen between the word “EVEN” and two spades–an ace and a queen–that mysteriously landed there from the nearby blackjack table, when a fan was turned on.

    4. The country gravitates towards civil war and martial law is imposed–with NATO troops assisting the armed forces combat patriots who refuse to hand over their guns as Hillary Clinton’s executive order to outlaw all firearms is enforced.

    5. People who betray their friends and neighbors are rewarded with food stamps.

    6. All of the above.

    Read More
  3. The fix was in. Growing up in the Chicago Area, as Hillary did and whence Obama came, I know a thing or two about how politics of this kind works.

    Read More
  4. what if every president since ww II was in violation of the nuremberg principles and was hanged?
    america has never lived up to its ideals, or even its constitution.
    laws always have been, and always will be, for the little people.
    what if the greater the difference between the haves & the have nots the more likely a revolt?
    then beware.

    Read More
  5. What if the judge quit writing these frivolous “what if” columns and instead iterated a few cogent comments? Maybe an easy way to make his word-count requirement, but nothing but gibberish for his readers. Comey took the easy path and sold-out to, supposedly, the voters in November. Sure he did . . . and I believe in the tooth fairy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Stop moaning about the Judge's rhetorical style, you dullard. The use of rhetorical questions goes back to Cicero and further back. It is a method little used by modern columnists, so it is refreshing to see Mr Justice Napolitano use it so effectively. Rather than providing us readers with easy suggestions, it forces us to stop and consider the matter in hand.
    While I have a high regard for Mr Napolitano, he is not in the same league as Marcus Tullius. But, there again, Cicero was a Roman ,whereas Mr Napolitano is a mere Neapolitan.
    , @WorkingClass
    "nothing but gibberish for his readers"

    Yes thank you. Gibberish is exactly what this is. These are not rhetorical questions. These are a series of insinuations. If the judge wants to speculate then why not just speculate? What are you hiding behind all this obfuscation judge?
  6. What if Andrew Napolitano could see a spade as a spade and keep his mouth shut instead of running with a dozen wild scenarios?

    Read More
  7. These innuendos against Mrs. Clinton can’t be valid. If the suggestions that Clinton’s were opportunists were accurate the Clintons would be wealthy far beyond their objective earning power.

    Read More
  8. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I’d vote for Trump for no reason other than his ability to reopen the investigation with his own Attorney General on January 21,2017.

    Read More
  9. @Frederick John
    What if the judge quit writing these frivolous "what if" columns and instead iterated a few cogent comments? Maybe an easy way to make his word-count requirement, but nothing but gibberish for his readers. Comey took the easy path and sold-out to, supposedly, the voters in November. Sure he did . . . and I believe in the tooth fairy.

    Stop moaning about the Judge’s rhetorical style, you dullard. The use of rhetorical questions goes back to Cicero and further back. It is a method little used by modern columnists, so it is refreshing to see Mr Justice Napolitano use it so effectively. Rather than providing us readers with easy suggestions, it forces us to stop and consider the matter in hand.
    While I have a high regard for Mr Napolitano, he is not in the same league as Marcus Tullius. But, there again, Cicero was a Roman ,whereas Mr Napolitano is a mere Neapolitan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frederick John
    Please . . . Cicero? Who could even read in Cicero's time? That was then, this is now. To what types of people was Cicero attempting to appeal? Seems we might be a bit more savvy today than in Cicero's time. Maybe there's a reason it "is little used by columnists" today. The judge wants to avoid offering an opinion to which he might be held accountable. He has not exactly been batting 500 vis-a-vis his recent opinions, like Hillary will be indicted. The judge is wrong quite frequently, as a matter of fact. I can see why he might not want to gon on the record with concrete viewpoints.
    , @falcemartello
    Well said Napolitano is well known for this style on many articles. He is a conservative aand a legal beagle and more often then ought comes up with some very salient points. One recent one was the Orlando shooting and exposing the they way the anglo-zionist used this event for their agenda, Not one person was killed by the so called shooter they were all killed by the SWAT team. . I am left and come from long line of left leaning politics in my family but we all acknowledge salient facts and question more.
  10. What if these people know they are above the law, and don’t care what the public knows, because they know nothing can happen to them? What if all this legalistic agonising is just the wriggles of discomfort by mid level people who want to think that laws which apply to them still apply to their superiors?

    Read More
  11. WHAT IF we still had a “press” that was part of the solution, not the problem.

    Read More
  12. @Frederick John
    What if the judge quit writing these frivolous "what if" columns and instead iterated a few cogent comments? Maybe an easy way to make his word-count requirement, but nothing but gibberish for his readers. Comey took the easy path and sold-out to, supposedly, the voters in November. Sure he did . . . and I believe in the tooth fairy.

    “nothing but gibberish for his readers”

    Yes thank you. Gibberish is exactly what this is. These are not rhetorical questions. These are a series of insinuations. If the judge wants to speculate then why not just speculate? What are you hiding behind all this obfuscation judge?

    Read More
  13. @Verymuchalive
    Stop moaning about the Judge's rhetorical style, you dullard. The use of rhetorical questions goes back to Cicero and further back. It is a method little used by modern columnists, so it is refreshing to see Mr Justice Napolitano use it so effectively. Rather than providing us readers with easy suggestions, it forces us to stop and consider the matter in hand.
    While I have a high regard for Mr Napolitano, he is not in the same league as Marcus Tullius. But, there again, Cicero was a Roman ,whereas Mr Napolitano is a mere Neapolitan.

    Please . . . Cicero? Who could even read in Cicero’s time? That was then, this is now. To what types of people was Cicero attempting to appeal? Seems we might be a bit more savvy today than in Cicero’s time. Maybe there’s a reason it “is little used by columnists” today. The judge wants to avoid offering an opinion to which he might be held accountable. He has not exactly been batting 500 vis-a-vis his recent opinions, like Hillary will be indicted. The judge is wrong quite frequently, as a matter of fact. I can see why he might not want to gon on the record with concrete viewpoints.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Cicero's speeches were primarily meant to be heard. Their purpose was to convince the members of the jury. They were obviously effective as he was the most successful defence lawyer who ever lived. He never lost a case.
    Literacy in Ancient Rome was actually quite high, comparable to many parts of Renascence Europe. However, the Barbarian invasions , Dark Ages and Muslim conquest of Egypt destroyed many papyri and drastically reduced literacy long term. It is reckoned that less than 1% of Ancient works of literature have survived into the Modern Age. What did survive was very much hit and miss. Many of Cicero's works survived, but little Greek Drama for example.
    But you are right. Judge Napolitano has been frequently erroneous in his conclusions. This is more a reflection of the debasement and corruption of modern American politics and judiciary than anything else. Judge Napolitano still believes that America is a First World nation, where the rule of law will be applied, even if belatedly. It's not. Unless prevented, it will become a Third World republic, which is after all what the Clintons and the 1% want.
  14. What if Sidney Blumenthal, Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin, et al were members of a billionaire-sponsored private club? What if that club determines U.S. policy and provides most of the senior appointees for every administration? What if corporate members of that club paid millions in “speaking fees” to the Clintons? What if Hillary admits that she’s just hired help and the club tells her “what to do and how to think”?

    “It’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

    – Clinton speech at CFR, 2009-07-15, video and transcript:

    http://www.cfr.org/diplomacy-and-statecraft/conversation-us-secretary-state-hillary-rodham-clinton/p34589

    CFR corporate members:

    http://www.cfr.org/about/corporate/roster.html

    Read More
  15. @Verymuchalive
    Stop moaning about the Judge's rhetorical style, you dullard. The use of rhetorical questions goes back to Cicero and further back. It is a method little used by modern columnists, so it is refreshing to see Mr Justice Napolitano use it so effectively. Rather than providing us readers with easy suggestions, it forces us to stop and consider the matter in hand.
    While I have a high regard for Mr Napolitano, he is not in the same league as Marcus Tullius. But, there again, Cicero was a Roman ,whereas Mr Napolitano is a mere Neapolitan.

    Well said Napolitano is well known for this style on many articles. He is a conservative aand a legal beagle and more often then ought comes up with some very salient points. One recent one was the Orlando shooting and exposing the they way the anglo-zionist used this event for their agenda, Not one person was killed by the so called shooter they were all killed by the SWAT team. . I am left and come from long line of left leaning politics in my family but we all acknowledge salient facts and question more.

    Read More
  16. @Frederick John
    Please . . . Cicero? Who could even read in Cicero's time? That was then, this is now. To what types of people was Cicero attempting to appeal? Seems we might be a bit more savvy today than in Cicero's time. Maybe there's a reason it "is little used by columnists" today. The judge wants to avoid offering an opinion to which he might be held accountable. He has not exactly been batting 500 vis-a-vis his recent opinions, like Hillary will be indicted. The judge is wrong quite frequently, as a matter of fact. I can see why he might not want to gon on the record with concrete viewpoints.

    Cicero’s speeches were primarily meant to be heard. Their purpose was to convince the members of the jury. They were obviously effective as he was the most successful defence lawyer who ever lived. He never lost a case.
    Literacy in Ancient Rome was actually quite high, comparable to many parts of Renascence Europe. However, the Barbarian invasions , Dark Ages and Muslim conquest of Egypt destroyed many papyri and drastically reduced literacy long term. It is reckoned that less than 1% of Ancient works of literature have survived into the Modern Age. What did survive was very much hit and miss. Many of Cicero’s works survived, but little Greek Drama for example.
    But you are right. Judge Napolitano has been frequently erroneous in his conclusions. This is more a reflection of the debasement and corruption of modern American politics and judiciary than anything else. Judge Napolitano still believes that America is a First World nation, where the rule of law will be applied, even if belatedly. It’s not. Unless prevented, it will become a Third World republic, which is after all what the Clintons and the 1% want.

    Read More
  17. @Fran Macadam
    Like someone else said, Comey punted the decision to the voters. The buck stops with us.

    There may not be enough of “us” to prevent this woman from being elected, but this controversy has wings that won’t quit. As Judge Napolitano might ask “What if Hillary Clinton is elected president and a crisis ensues involving a foreign country which crisis is directly attributable to information contained on those emails which were hacked?”

    This will not end well.

    Read More
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
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
While other top brass played press agents for the administration’s war, William Odom told the truth about Iraq—though few listened.
A thousand years of meritocracy shaped the Middle Kingdom.