What about the bankster crooks who crashed the U.S. and world economy?
What about those who committed torture on war prisoners?
What about the trillions of dollars worth of tax scofflaws?
The rich and powerful are often "above the law"!
So that premise is wrong. Hillary Clinton may well be "above the law." She's a multi-billionaire now, thanks to her 'service' as Sec of State and to Goldman Sachs' largesse and that of others.
Here's another possible scenario: The Republicans, morons though they seem to be, had finally got onto her private server and understood its implications to national security and as to illegal Clinton Foundation dealings, and were going to pursue it beyond "Benghazi! Benghazi!", and so the FBI took the matter up, a) to get it out of the hands of Congress in Clinton's coronation year, and b) to protect Clinton, as well as protecting Obama's scandal-free legacy. ??
I don't know which is true, that the FBI are involved in a real investigation, which could result in their recommending indictment of Clinton (and I think there is reason to indict--the Saudi arms deal/Clinton Foundation connection alone should be indictable), OR the FBI is protecting Clinton and will exonerate her of any wrongdoing, and cover everything up.
I don't know where Obama stands on Clinton in general and on indicting Clinton. Could be either way. He is a hard man to read. He has reason to loathe and even hate Clinton (from the '08 primaries, from endangering his scandal-free legacy and from clusterfucks she created in the ME and in Honduras/LatAm that Obama and Kerry seem to be trying to remedy). But he is most certainly an Establishment figure--is with her, for instance, on TPP--so, where would he stand if the FBI recommends indictment? I don't know!
I don't know where the CIA stands on Clinton in general, and on her breaches of national security, let alone her dirty arms deals. This could be the most important opinion of all. I have a FEELING that the CIA doesn't like or trust the Clinton's and wouldn't want them back in the White House. She wants to smash Iran (like Rumsfeld & Cheney); they want to infiltrate it. That is their mode. They were not happy with Rumsfeld and the Neo-cons. She's a Neo-con and has the chief Neo-con, Robert Kagan, as her advisor! (--not to mention Henry Kissinger). Do they want that kind of trouble again? Hillary outing their agents if they disagree about smashing somebody? Hillary with her outside-government-channels secrecy? The CIA (or a powerful faction within the CIA) opposed the Iraq War. Indeed, the Bushwhacks' WMD crapola was why the Bushwhacks went after the CIA counter-proliferation agents. Clinton supported the Iraq War. I think it's possible the CIA didn't want her to win the primaries back in '08 and helped Obama. Can't prove it. Just a feeling.
If the CIA and the FBI are on the same page, that could mean indictment. They may have been waiting to see if Sanders could knock her out before they moved on an indictment. (It's dicier for them, politically, to indict a winning presidential candidate, than one who is losing or dropped out.)
But these are very hard things to know. It's guess work. One thing that is NOT hard to know--it is plain fact--is that the electronic voting systems that were rushed into place during the 2002 to 2004 period, all over the country, were very, VERY riggable, and still are. Their first purpose was to keep Bush/Cheney in power in 2004. They were controlled largely by one, private, far rightwing-connected corporation--ES&S (which bought out Diebold, to bury that name)--and run on their 'TRADE SECRET' code, with virtually no auditing. I don't think the CIA would allow that to go on very long without taking control of it. And they were literally at war with Bush/Cheney at that point (2003, year of the outings; and 2004-2006, the Fitzgerald investigation and the ousting of Rumsfeld; also curtailing of Cheney as to nuking Iran).
I DO feel, very strongly, that we should continue to support Bernie Sanders, and do everything we can to win him the nomination. I think that is still possible. NY was not that big of a set back. More primaries to come, including CA (which the Clinton machine may find it harder to rig than NY and AZ). (Their rigging seems to involve disenfranchisement of voters, rather than direct control of the 'TRADE SECRET' code by which the votes are 'counted'.)
If--a big IF--the FBI recommends that Clinton or her aides be indicted, then, of course, Sanders will have a good shot at the nomination even if he doesn't have a surefire delegate count. He will be the only one standing--and he has a far better chance in the GE than she does anyway. It would actually be the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party.
But, bear in mind, that, if he doesn't have the pledged delegates wrapped up, they could choose someone else. The party bigwigs clearly oppose honesty in a Democratic candidate. They are almost all involved in the Clinton pay-to-play game. Would they pull such treachery? Of course they would. Wiser heads may prevail as to tearing the Democratic Party to pieces. But the threat remains, unless and until we oust these sort of party bigwigs.
Best thing is to fight for every vote and every delegate, at this point, and try to win Sanders the nomination outright. Do not count on the FBI to hold Clinton accountable. She is one of the rich and powerful.
One other thing: Special prosecutor Fitzgerald prosecuted Cheney aide 'Scooter' Libby for the CIA outings. He stated, in his last press conference on this matter, that "there is a cloud over the vice president's office" but that this was "a political matter" and not his venue. In short, he could have gone after Cheney and didn't for the very reason that Cheney was an 'elected' official in high office. The FBI may be similarly reluctant to go after Clinton, because she has so much Establishment support (the Neo-cons, Wall Street, the MIC, most Dem pols) and especially if she wins the nomination. They would likely be accused of interfering in the political realm.
= new reply since forum marked as read
