If you're a Judge Napolitano fan - or you just enjoy predictions of Hillary's demise - I've got two clips you'll like here. First, he went on O'Reilly last night with what I guess is inside information about the FBI's evidence against Hillary. If he's right, it's so overwhelming that it not only justifies an indictment but is more than enough to get a conviction. That's already pretty clear, I think, from what the public knows about the case - but it's one thing for me to say that. It's another thing for someone with Judge Nap's credentials to say it.
The audio is a little low on this one so put on headphones if you've got them and crank the volume:
The next one is from the judge's own minute-and-a-half "chambers" segment. Here he deals with the same issue, but more in the vein of what will happen if - as many expect - Obama saves Hillary by ordering Attorney General Loretta Lynch not to indict her regardless of the evidence. (Even if the "order" is one of those not-spoken-but-understood things.) In that case, all good and Hillary cruises to the White House? Er, no:
The problem with Judge Napolitano talking about a Watergate-type scandal that rivals the Midnight Massacre is obvious, isn't it? Not that the circumstances don't match up - they clearly do - but that you can't have a Watergate if Woodward and Bernstein are on Nixon's side, and in this case I don't see what motivates the modern-day media to go after Obama and/or Hillary for the simple reason that you've got the parties mixed up. Republican president swoops in and saves the scandal-ridden presumptive Republican nominee? Hell yes. The media are all over that one 24/7, to the point they're declaring it an existential threat to the nation. But here?
I want to believe. I really do. Napolitano thinks you'll see FBI Director James Comey resign in outrage while others in the FBI make the evidence publicly known so everyone can see what Lynch brushed aside in her decision to let Hillary off the hook - and under the circumstances, that would be too much for even the partisan MSM to bury.
The reason I think he might be wrong is that the MSM has become much more blatantly partisan since the days of Nixon, and I don't think they have much shame left when it comes to protecting Democrats. I do not think the media will say, "Well, partisanship be damned, we've got to do our jobs with integrity." They abandoned that ship a long time ago. But the reason I think he might be right is that alternative media no longer makes it possible for the MSM to completely cover things up. If the New York Times, the Washington Post and the big networks try to pretend there's no story, Fox News, the Washington Times and sites like ours will make sure people know there is absolutely a story.
That might be enough to shame the MSM into covering it. They don't want to look obviously in the tank, because the one thing they do value more than their liberalism is the appearance - however fraudulent - of their integrity. But I'm not as convinced as Napolitano that the FBI goes scorched earth in the event of a DOJ coverup. I want to believe. I really do. But it would have to be more than just Comey resigning and going public. It seems to me the agents in charge of the investigation would have to risk their own careers to go public as well.
Maybe they're sufficiently convicted on the matter that they see this as their hill to die on. I don't know. I hope so, but it sure seems like a lot to ask of anyone. Then again, if it was me, would I do it to stop Hillary from becoming president? Hell yes. Maybe I should have more faith that I'm not the only one.
