Why No Hillary Indictrment

            I don’t know about anybody else, but to me the incessant cacophony in the media before the first presidential debate was the very definition of excess. I don’t think the media could have placed a greater importance on any event short of the Big Bang.  Unfortunately, its absorbed frenzy totally obliterated another story of perhaps greater import: the Friday night FBI dump of information that revealed why Hillary Clinton was never indicted (the Friday night in question being just three days before the debate).

            The reason FBI Director James Comey decided against recommending an indictment of Secretary Clinton—even after laying out a solid case for it—is that it would have exposed President Obama as a direct participant in the case, making him liable to prosecution himself for a violation of the law. The facts are really quite simple.

            We all remember President Obama announcing that he had first heard about Hillary’s illegal use of a private server from a news story in the press. That was a lie.  We now learn from the information turned over by the FBI that Obama not only knew about Clinton’s server, he sent classified email(s) to her on it. Even more telling, he used a pseudonym so as not to be identified as the source of the information.  According to former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, “He not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton.”

            Are we starting to get the picture? Had Comey recommended a Clinton indictment, the prosecutorial process would have revealed the President’s own culpability and brought public embarrassment to the President, the Justice Department, and the FBI. Hence, the need for a massive cover-up, beginning with “straight-shooter” Comey squashing the indictment.

            The stench of corruption pervades this administration. The old saying has never been truer: A fish rots from the head down.