The question if Hillary Clinton will be indicted or won’t be indicted was put to White House puppy dog Josh Earnest on Friday. He dutifully tried to deflect the question but ended up probably saying more than he or Bobo Obama wanted him to say. His comment was that, “What I know that some officials over there have said is that she is not a target of the investigation. So that does not seem to be the direction that it’s trending. But I’m certainly not going to weigh in on a decision or in that process in any way. That is a decision to be made solely by independent prosecutors but again, based on what we know from the Department of Justice, it does not seem to be headed in that direction.”
That would get one to think that our man-child president, who has lacked the manhood over 160 million males in this country currently have swinging between their legs, would again be faced with a difficult problem, and we all know when faced with difficulty, Obama goes golfing. Unfortunately for him, it’s winter in DC, and he’s going to have to fly someplace warm to do it. Somehow I don’t think that’s going to matter much to him.
I’ve said all along that I think that there are two ways the Obama administration can go with this whole thing. The first is to be upstanding and non-partisan and do the right thing and indict Hillary if the evidence is there and the referral from the FBI is there. The second is to not indict her, and tell the American people that there just isn’t any evidence that she violated the law. Either would be disastrous for Clinton’s campaign. Independents and Republicans alike would cry foul, and her likeability numbers, already in the 30 percent range would plummet. It basically spells an end to her campaign regardless what she does, because the Republicans very easily make this about electing a criminal to the White House to continue the crony politics that Obama has displayed. That will play very well in a country where Obama is upside down on his job approval and likeability numbers.
The other thing to watch for is, if someone other than Hillary gets indicted, basically as a scapegoat. That has been discussed ad nauseum as well. Huma Abedin has been mentioned in that light, as has Cheryl Mills. Now, that does seem probable given the Clinton’s past history. They’ve always had someone there to take the fall for them. But in the court of public opinion, I really doubt that’s going to matter.
And in the end analysis, it may not matter anyway. Hillary’s numbers are cratering around the country, and Bernie Sanders gains by leaps and bounds on her in every single state on almost a daily basis. Currently, it’s Sanders by a little bit (well within the margin of error) in Iowa, and trouncing her in New Hampshire. Hillary’s campaign is saying that she could very conceivably lose both, but the “southern firewall strategy” of taking the south beginning with South Carolina and continuing on through Super Tuesday, would be enough to give her the momentum she needs. But there is something else that no one is considering and bears discussing…and we’ll do that in the next blog! Don’t miss it (how’s that for a cliff-hanger?)
Carry on world…you’re dismissed!