Lock Her Up? Acting Attorney General Said ‘I Would Indict Hillary Clinton’

Peter D'Abrosca   |  

Nov 9, 2018

• Share on Gab
• Share on Parler
• Share on Gettr
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Flipboard
• Share on Telegram
• Share via Email

The acting Attorney General who took the place of canned Jefferson B. Sessions said in a 2016 op-ed that he would indeed indict Hillary R. Clinton.

“According to FBI Director James Comey’s statement on Tuesday, former secretary of State Hillary Clinton could have been charged with violating several different code sections, and he detailed the evidence that supports bringing criminal charges,” said Matthew Whitaker in a USA Today opinion column.

“Yet, Director Comey’s judgment was that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring the case,” Whitaker continued. “I disagree. I believe myself to have been a reasonable prosecutor, and when the facts and evidence show a criminal violation has been committed, the individuals involved should not dictate whether the case is prosecuted.”

The title of the column was “I would Indict Hillary Clinton: Opposing view.”

Whitaker made the case for why Clinton should be indicted for sending and receiving classified emails on her private, unsecured server, listing the elements of the statute and explaining how Clinton violated the statute.

“Of the emails either turned over or recovered by the FBI, 110 contained information that was classified at the time it was sent or received, of which eight email chains contained information that was top secret at the time it was sent,” he said. “The facts also show it was gross negligence when she removed the information from State Department security.”

“A reasonable prosecutor may ask, if on numerous occasions, an unknown State Department employee had taken top secret information from a secured system, emailed that information on a Gmail account, and stored the information on a personal server for years, would that individual be prosecuted? I believe they would,” the piece finished.

It would appear that the rubber is meeting the road. Soon, we may find out whether Whitaker was serious when he wrote the op-ed two years ago, or whether he is all hat and no cattle.

YOU VOTE: Should sanctuary cities lose federal funding for refusing to cooperate with immigration enforcement? *

• Yes – They are breaking the law and should face consequences.
• No – Cities should have the right to set their own policies.
• Only if they repeatedly ignore ICE detainer requests.
• I don’t know enough about sanctuary cities.

Email *

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. You may opt out at any time.

Vote To See Results