No indictments? How many different criminal acts have to under investigation by the FBI before it gains the effect of critical mass and an indictment comes down for perjury, or destruction of evidence, or obstruction of justice, or conspiracy to obstruct justice? What about RICO? By this stage there is evidence galore of the Clinton Foundation falling afoul of the RICO Act. As Guiliani said tonight, he could have gotten an indictment on a fraction of what the FBI has now and may have had back in July.
As critical as I am of the FBI at times, when they act like the thugs they are supposed to be putting in jail, I also believe that there are some good, decent men and women in the ranks who look at the piling evidence and recognize that their bureau is being painted with the same brush as the Clinton Foundation. Frankly, they look a little "bought off" not so much by money as by the promise of retirement and continued employment, some pretty persuasive inducements themselves.
There has been some information alluded to at True Pundit that many high-ranking officials including the Clintons, Abedin, Weiner and a few senators and representatives along with staff members taking part in child molestation. I have no concrete evidence of this charge, just the story at True Pundit, but I had heard rumors of the same earlier. While I have no independent information confirming this story, is this what it takes? Something of this magnitude? Why would none of the other information be enough to warrant an indictment? The system is this broken, that it takes some disgusting charge of child porn to finally put a stake through the heart of the beast?
So, assuming that the story at True Pundit is NOT accurate, but some dirty tricks being played in the last week of the campaign, let's look at what is known and ask why that is not enough already? DOJ colluding with the Clinton campaign, DOJ obstruction of justice for irrationally refusing to empanel a grand jury for crimes of racketeering for which there is ample evidence, perjury, destruction of evidence, etc etc. Why is that not enough?
Of course, we understand corrupt government officials. There is just too much power in the hands of fallible human beings for there not to be some to take advantage of an opportunity, so we know it exists, but we always feel like if it comes to light there will be indictments regardless of political status. Now we find that political status does outweigh justice. And, not in a little, fudging sort of way, but in a way that makes it possible for someone to run a criminal organization out of the Secretary of State's office, and when caught, the offender is able to keep the presidential campaign on track...ON TRACK, with media support, with cover from the president himself using distraction and obfuscation to aid the campaign.
Good God, is there no point at which the DOJ is shamed into an indictment? If not, then what role can the FBI play in establishing a little justice in the Department of Justice? Or, is that it? No pledge to the Constitution can weigh on the conscience of these FBI agents? Resign and reveal, go to prison if you have to (you might be acquitted by the jury). You know, there are some in Benghazi who gave more than that trying to serve the country that made freedom possible. Or, is it better that all of the citizens suffer under the absolute tyranny of criminal officials to save your pension?
Think of all of the scandals surrounding the Clintons, from Bill's election of governor until this very moment and it is absolutely staggering and their imperviousness to conviction has fueled it all, because where there is no accountability the criminals are emboldened and the abuses multiplied. Think of the future; anything that is not ultimately rectified is sanctioned. Unless all of the FBI agents are corrupt they cannot allow the behavior of the Clintons and their accomplices go unaddressed. It will completely undermine the image of the Bureau, perhaps for generations.