The FBI has quietly released information regarding Hillary Clinton that, had it been released prior to the election, would have forced FBI Director James Comey to recommend prosecution. The question is why is the FBI releasing this information now? Why didn’t they release it before the election? Did Comey deliberately conceal the information knowing the pressure to recommend prosecution would have been overwhelming?

On Monday night Judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox Business’ Lou Dobbs that the latest document dump released by the FBI in the case against Hillary Clinton is the smoking gun, ostensibly meaning it would have led to her prosecution had it been public knowledge prior to the election.

Dobbs: The questions arise, why weren’t they released? Why did the FBI director have such a struggle , a hamlet act, that persisted over a number of months? This evidence, makes it clear, his last judgment on the matter of prosecution was utterly in error, does it not?

Napolitano: You’re absolutely correct. This is the smoking gun if ever there was one. This ramps up the case for her prosecution to the point where, ironically, it may also ramp up the case for President Obama to issue her a pardon and to take this off of Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions’ desks. If he doesn’t do that, the pressure from the AG, from the FBI agents who conducted the investigation, who probably posted this stuff last night during the Giants Packers game, will make it very difficult for him to resist.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Powdered Wig Society updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

What I can’t understand is Judge Napolitano’s statement that this pressures Barack Hussein to pardon Hitlery. Pardon her for what? She hasn’t been charged with anything. How can she be pardoned for something with which she was never charged?

I may have found the answer in an 1866 Supreme Court ruling, Ex parte Garland:

9. The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.

I originally thought that Comey refused to recommend prosecution of Clinton because had she been prosecuted, then she could be pardoned and not prosecuted by the Trump administration. And that may be the case. If it is, then Comey and Trump may have an angle to challenge a presidential pardon. I’m not sure what it is, but it will be interesting to find out, if it is indeed the case.

There is a dead spot in the following video from the :09 mark to the :19 mark that I could not fix. However, the full dialogue is in the transcript, above.