In a recent interview with Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah and Chris Wallace on FOX News basically inserted himself into a federal investigation into the crimes of Hillary Clinton against the people of the united States, in which she jeopardized national security. According to Joseph Farah at WND, “Obama just pre-emptively pardoned Hillary.”
Farah points out the following which Obama stated to Wallace about Hillary Clinton:
- She did not jeopardize America’s national security secrets;
- Politics will not influence the outcome of the massive FBI investigation and his Justice Department’s decision about possible prosecution;
- She was “careless” in terms of managing her emails;
- The scandal needs to be put in “perspective” because Hillary “served her country” and did an outstanding job;
- “She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy.”
According to Hillary, however, there is no way she will be indicted or led away in handcuffs over the matter.
Yet, even Obama administration mouthpiece MSNBC was stunned by Obama’s remarks.
“Can you guys believe what you just heard?” said host Joe Scarborough.
“He said he wasn’t going to talk to the attorney general about the pending investigation, but he just did, as he did back in October when he said, ‘No national security issues here. Nothing to see, move along,’ said co-host Mika Brzenzinkski.
“And he just did it again!” Scarborough said. “And then in the same interview said, ‘I’m not talking to my attorney general about it.’ Talk about a rigged process.”
Scaraborough then pointed out that Obama has been “more aggressive with reporters about classified secrets being leaked than any president.”
“Are the president’s standards much lower when it comes to America’s national security than his own State Department?” he asked.
“It’s as if he’s like the Clinton campaign communications director in trying to exonerate her before the investigation is completed,” Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin said.
As for his co-host, she responded that if Obama was going to campaign for Hillary, he “may as well endorse her.”
As for Farah, he writes, “Anyone objectively looking at the evidence publicly available against Hillary Clinton understands the seriousness of the case. It wasn’t just a matter of ‘carelessness’ on her part. It was a matter of knowingly violating all of the laws and regulations guiding national security secrets. Others have gone to prison for similar offenses regardless of whether they were matters of “carelessness” or not. Top officials like the secretary of state are supposed to set a higher standard for guarding secrets. They are not supposed to be ‘careless.'”
“And what does it say about someone aspiring to be president that she was ‘careless’ in dealing with national security matters? Is that a vote of confidence?” adds Farah. “Is that a ringing endorsement?”
“In effect, Obama just pre-emptively pardoned Hillary,” writes Farah. “Add that to a long list of impeachable offenses he has committed over the last seven years.”
Yes, I believe it is an endorsement. It’s just one criminal scratching another criminal’s back. But hey, we have Obama’s word, whatever that is worth, that Hillary will not be treated any different by the Department of InJustice than anyone else.
So far, I’m not seeing her imprisoned like the non-violent political prisoners from Bundy Ranch or the Oregon protests, are you? Nope, she is definitely being treated much differently than those who call out the corrupt DC mafia for their crimes.