The previous Super Tuesday results showed what many had predicted, which is Hillary Clinton winning the majority of delegates for the Democratic Party as covered by The Inquisitr.
As the presidential front-runner, Hillary Clinton remains at the top as a better chance to win the race to the oval office, but because of that, she also continues to be a target of what many consider to be a major e-mail scandal, with ties to the Benghazi attack which The Inquisitr has also reported on.
The Inquisitr has also recently reported on the claim by former New Jersey Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News that the FBI was ready to charge Hillary Clinton. That appears to be another attempt for the conservative media network to remind viewers that they will continue to circulate the idea that she should be charged.
The article reports how the contributor tries to predict how the fallout from her not being indicted as opposed to being indicted, would devastate her campaign for her as well as the Obama’s presidency.
The Washington Post’s piece on the Republican’s determination to “dream” of the indictment of Hillary Clinton, makes the same point that The Inquisitr did, which was to suggest within conservative media that the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Obama administration would never indict one of their own.
But the article by the Post also clarifies the differences between creating a criminal case against her in comparison to other cases where administration officials — or anyone with access to classified files legally or illegally — are considered criminal acts, while Clinton’s supposed scandal is not.
Most importantly, the article exposes what it feels are the actual intentions of Republicans and their followers.
“But having gone this far, they need to keep up appearances, and they also know that just talking about her emails serves to convince people that something scandalous must have happened. So they are laying the groundwork to argue, if and when she doesn’t get indicted, that it must only be because Barack Obama’s corrupt administration quashed the investigation and hid the truth from the public.”
Last Friday during the Des Moines A.M. Rotary club, The Des Moines Register reported that Senator Chuck Grassley who was present at the event suggested that if the investigation into Clinton’s emails stymied for some reason, that the F.B.I could leak reports.
“…if there’s political interference, then I assume that somebody in the FBI is going to leak these reports and it’s either going to have an effect politically or it’s going to lead to prosecution if there’s enough evidence.”
The article stated that he was responding to someone who had provided a long answer to a question about the status of the investigation. But when asked by a reporter later whether he was suggesting that the bureau intentionally leak out the reports, he said it would be a violation of the law and he “does not encourage a violation of the law.”
Politico reported on Democratic senate minority leader Harry Reid’s response to Grassley’s leak prediction in an article which refers to both politicians as raging bulls. It said that Reid has been on the attack since February over many decisions, mostly that of blocking senate hearings for Merrick Garland.
The Inquisitr reported on a mentioned plan to force hearings to take place.
But as the op-ed by the Washington Post suggests — aside from the growing amount of speculative reports on what the F.B.I may or may not do — there have not been any updates on the investigation and where the current one might lead.
In many of these sources, even the president himself has provided his view of the case, which many have interpreted as a way to diffuse the weight of a potential criminal indictment, causing the public and media sources to continue to make predictions or form theories within the context of the election year.
During the campaign, when Hillary Clinton was asked about the e-mail investigation and whether she would be or what she would do if she were indicted, she has expressed that the charges or even the question is absurd.
[Photo by Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Images]