Judge Jeanine: 'The Clintons Repeatedly Violate
Post# of 65629
Posted On: 07/03/2016 11:44:58 AM
Judge Jeanine:
'The Clintons Repeatedly Violate
Our Standard of Truthfulness and Honesty'
Bill and Hillary Clinton have repeatedly lied to the American people, making them both unfit to return to the White House, Judge Jeanine Pirro said on "Justice" last night.
She pointed out that Bill was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, only escaping an indictment by accepting a penalty short of criminal conviction.
She added that Hillary has been investigated for everything from the Rose Law Firm to Whitewater to cattle futures to her private email server.
And that's not even going into the controversies surrounding the Clinton Foundation, Judge Jeanine said.
"So what should we Americans reasonably believe? Nothing that they say," Judge Jeanine said. "The Clintons repeatedly violate our standard of truthfulness and honesty."
"So should these people be trusted to run this country? Should Hillary Clinton be trusted to run for president of the United States? Should the Clintons be trusted to go back into the White House? The answer is positively, absolutely, undeniably, unquestionably no!"
Watch Judge Jeanine's powerful opening statement above and read a full transcript below.
For the first time in the history of this great nation, the person about to become the Democratic nominee for president of the United States was interrogated by the FBI today as part of an ongoing yearlong federal criminal investigation.
This within days of the target's husband Bill Clinton meeting privately on board a parked private jet with the attorney general of the United States - who has his wife's future in her hands and deciding whether that wife should be indicted for engaging in criminal activity.
That Loretta Lynch, the chief law enforcement officer of this country, the head of the United States Department of Justice, the citadel of integrity and impartiality, would violate her own Justice Department rules on ethical conduct, specifically rule 14, would not only talk for 30 minutes in a private, un-memorialized meeting - but for a local reporter, and not then recuse herself from the criminal investigation brings shame on all the great United States
Attorneys who work tirelessly, ethically doing their jobs without fear or favor, every small town prosecutor in this country, would not only refuse to speak with the spouse of a target, but would refuse to even be in their company - to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Loretta Lynch tries to sell us a bill of goods and then tries to back out of her unethical conduct by saying this: Did you notice she said she "expects to accept"? Does accepting their recommendation mean she doesn’t have the right to overrule it? No! She didn't say, "I will recuse myself." She didn't say, "I will ask for a special prosecutor." This is all smoke and mirrors.
What is going on in this country?
We have a president who lies about everything from a peaceful protest that got out of hand in Benghazi to you can keep your health care and your doctor, a secretary of state who lies about everything from that despicable video causing the deaths of an ambassador and three Americans to having her own server for "convenience."
Folks, these are people for whom there are no consequences. And yet they keep going higher and higher in our government. These are people openly flaunting the system while ordinary Americans are held to a completely different standard.
I have spent over three decades in criminal justice as a prosecutor, judge and elected district attorney. I have investigated arrested, indicted, prosecuted and sentenced criminals for murder, rape, violent felonies and every one of them is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
But is everyone entitled to a presumption of truthfulness? Are these people entitled to a presumption of truthfulness?
The answer is absolutely not!
There is no way Bill Clinton is entitled to a presumption of truthfulness. His talking to the attorney general when he himself might be a target, or at least a witness in the worldwide money laundering operation called the Clinton Foundation parading as a not for profit charity would be bad enough, if we had reason to believe they were telling the truth but with Bill Clinton there can be no presumption of truthfulness. There is serial evidence to the contrary.
Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
He escaped indictment by accepting a penalty short of criminal conviction including an unequivocal admission of lying under oath, by surrendering his law license. As a result he was disbarred.
Hillary Clinton has been investigated for everything from the rose law firm to Whitewater to cattle futures.
So what should we Americans reasonably believe? Nothing that they say. The Clintons repeatedly violate our standard of truthfulness and honesty.
So should these people be trusted to run this country? Should Hillary Clinton be trusted to run for president of the United States? Should the Clintons be trusted to go back into the White House? The answer is positively, absolutely, undeniably, unquestionably no.
'The Clintons Repeatedly Violate
Our Standard of Truthfulness and Honesty'
Bill and Hillary Clinton have repeatedly lied to the American people, making them both unfit to return to the White House, Judge Jeanine Pirro said on "Justice" last night.
She pointed out that Bill was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, only escaping an indictment by accepting a penalty short of criminal conviction.
She added that Hillary has been investigated for everything from the Rose Law Firm to Whitewater to cattle futures to her private email server.
And that's not even going into the controversies surrounding the Clinton Foundation, Judge Jeanine said.
"So what should we Americans reasonably believe? Nothing that they say," Judge Jeanine said. "The Clintons repeatedly violate our standard of truthfulness and honesty."
"So should these people be trusted to run this country? Should Hillary Clinton be trusted to run for president of the United States? Should the Clintons be trusted to go back into the White House? The answer is positively, absolutely, undeniably, unquestionably no!"
Watch Judge Jeanine's powerful opening statement above and read a full transcript below.
For the first time in the history of this great nation, the person about to become the Democratic nominee for president of the United States was interrogated by the FBI today as part of an ongoing yearlong federal criminal investigation.
This within days of the target's husband Bill Clinton meeting privately on board a parked private jet with the attorney general of the United States - who has his wife's future in her hands and deciding whether that wife should be indicted for engaging in criminal activity.
That Loretta Lynch, the chief law enforcement officer of this country, the head of the United States Department of Justice, the citadel of integrity and impartiality, would violate her own Justice Department rules on ethical conduct, specifically rule 14, would not only talk for 30 minutes in a private, un-memorialized meeting - but for a local reporter, and not then recuse herself from the criminal investigation brings shame on all the great United States
Attorneys who work tirelessly, ethically doing their jobs without fear or favor, every small town prosecutor in this country, would not only refuse to speak with the spouse of a target, but would refuse to even be in their company - to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Loretta Lynch tries to sell us a bill of goods and then tries to back out of her unethical conduct by saying this: Did you notice she said she "expects to accept"? Does accepting their recommendation mean she doesn’t have the right to overrule it? No! She didn't say, "I will recuse myself." She didn't say, "I will ask for a special prosecutor." This is all smoke and mirrors.
What is going on in this country?
We have a president who lies about everything from a peaceful protest that got out of hand in Benghazi to you can keep your health care and your doctor, a secretary of state who lies about everything from that despicable video causing the deaths of an ambassador and three Americans to having her own server for "convenience."
Folks, these are people for whom there are no consequences. And yet they keep going higher and higher in our government. These are people openly flaunting the system while ordinary Americans are held to a completely different standard.
I have spent over three decades in criminal justice as a prosecutor, judge and elected district attorney. I have investigated arrested, indicted, prosecuted and sentenced criminals for murder, rape, violent felonies and every one of them is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
But is everyone entitled to a presumption of truthfulness? Are these people entitled to a presumption of truthfulness?
The answer is absolutely not!
There is no way Bill Clinton is entitled to a presumption of truthfulness. His talking to the attorney general when he himself might be a target, or at least a witness in the worldwide money laundering operation called the Clinton Foundation parading as a not for profit charity would be bad enough, if we had reason to believe they were telling the truth but with Bill Clinton there can be no presumption of truthfulness. There is serial evidence to the contrary.
Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
He escaped indictment by accepting a penalty short of criminal conviction including an unequivocal admission of lying under oath, by surrendering his law license. As a result he was disbarred.
Hillary Clinton has been investigated for everything from the rose law firm to Whitewater to cattle futures.
So what should we Americans reasonably believe? Nothing that they say. The Clintons repeatedly violate our standard of truthfulness and honesty.
So should these people be trusted to run this country? Should Hillary Clinton be trusted to run for president of the United States? Should the Clintons be trusted to go back into the White House? The answer is positively, absolutely, undeniably, unquestionably no.
(3)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼