After the Fall of Swalwell, Is This Dem Rep Next?
If What This Law Professor Says Comes True, Eric Swalwell Is Totally Screwed
This Is What Marjorie Taylor Greene Said When Asked Whether Trump Should Be...
Podcaster Gives Hasan Piker an Out on His Radical Views, and Piker Doubles...
Here's How the Biden Administration Weaponized the FACE Act Against Pro-Life Americans
Abby Phillip Lied About Illegals Getting Medicaid, and Scott Jennings Didn't Let Her...
'We're Not Walking Away From This Fight.' Two of Swalwell Accusers Speak Out,...
Mamdani Announces His Plan to Destroy NYC's Bodegas Will Take Effect Next Year
Israel Likely Just Thwarted Another Major Terror Attack
Are the U.S. and Iran Going to Return to Pakistan for More Negotiations?
New Jersey's Democratic Congressional Nominee Was Spotted Wearing an Interesting Shirt
Marco Rubio to Head Peace Talks Between Israel and Lebanon
JD Vance Says He Backs Trump's Iran Strategy '100 Percent'
Here's How Much the US Blockade is Costing Iran
Prediction Market Madness Heightens Americans’ Concerns
Tipsheet

WH: It Does Not Seem Hillary Will Be Indicted, 'Based on What We Know'

WH: It Does Not Seem Hillary Will Be Indicted, 'Based on What We Know'

There has been widespread speculation over whether Hillary Clinton will be indicted for her email scandal, but on Friday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest suggested that she wouldn’t be, at least “based on what we know from the Department of Justice.”

Advertisement

Earnest was responding to a reporter’s question asking if he had “certainty and confidence” that the former secretary of state would not be indicted. Earnest did not presume to speak for the Department of Justice, but eventually said the investigation did “not seem to be headed in that direction.”

“That will be a decision that is made by the Department of Justice and prosecutors over there,” he responded. “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.”

Earnest’s response was not strong enough to lay ongoing speculation to rest. If you’re wondering why not, take a look at Guy’s piece from earlier this week weighing what some experts have said about the possibility of an indictment.

In the post he looked at the argument former federal judge and U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey made in a recent op/ed, which is that based on publicly available information alone, criminal charges should be filed. Guy also examined a piece by Andy McCarthy that seeks to explain how Team Clinton has been getting away with saying she’s not a subject of the investigation—something Earnest repeated on Friday.

Advertisement

Related:

HILLARY CLINTON

“[McCarthy] says "targets" and "subjects" are targets and subjects of grand jury investigations, and that no matter how intensive the criminal inquiry may be, the FBI itself cannot convene a grand jury on its own. Prosecutors are needed for that part of the process to swing into motion. "No Justice Department, no grand jury. No grand jury, no case — period," he writes.”

Don’t forget, Earnest was speaking on the same day the Obama administration confirmed that Hillary’s server had top-secret information, which is why 22 emails cannot be released.

Carly Fiorina was right. With each passing day it seems like Hillary Clinton is more qualified for the 'big house' than the White House.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement