Makes for quite a nightmare!

I wonder if anyone in Washington thought about nominating Judge Napolitano to replace Scalia.

It would be a risky but brilliant move by Obama, since he would probably be Borked and not be confirmed, so he could claim that he tried to reach across the aisle... and Congress frustrated him yet again. And that would set him up for being nominated himself, by Hillary, to be Scalia's replacement.

I really need to stop smoking this stuff. I almost believed that scenario could actually play out.....

I just woke up after having passed out from holding my breath. I'm going to try this again, see you after the next black out.

1) probably...I am not an expert...some here, seem to have a better lock on legalities.

2) Many if not all...I say that because if they supported here in the first place, that probably means they, then as well as after...still have no mind to critically think with and it's still about emotion and gimme gimme cause everyone else has more than me.

I've read all the comments, and made a couple myself. The word pardon has come up.

I got into a lengthy discussion earlier with some Canadians, God help me, about Trump. I'm not a Trump supporter by any means, but once into a discussion like that, it makes no difference. I'm American, Guilt by association.

At the end, I posed a hypothetical question: What if Hillary is indicted, and then pardoned, before the election? Should she still keep running? Should she still be supported? In your opinion (to the Canadians), is she still the best choice? No answer.

Obviously, that's not my question to this group. But, I have in fact, two:

1. Legally, under that scenario (indicted and pardoned) could she still run?

2. Would her "followers", remembering that this discussion started about Trump, even care, or vote for her anyway?

I have no delusions about DOJ corruption. But Napolitano knows his stuff, and if the facts are that immunity is not granted unless testimony is very valuable, and also implies that a grand jury is already sitting, this is important information. IMO, given his background, I would say that is several levels above speculation. But, as other skeptics in the group, absolutely no surprise if nothing comes of it.

I guess, like me, he wishes it doesn't exist and finds it hard to admit it does.

I've thought that way for awhile. We're not talking about Reason or Logic here, but Politics, ergo, feelings. I hate predicting emotions or politics, but we know there is no love lost between Obama and Hillary. My "emotional" reading of Obama is: he'll not indict if it's for the good of his party, and doesn't hurt his "legacy". If the evidence is overwhelming, and not indicting will, at some point, destroy (what he sees, not me, as) his "legacy", he will say go ahead, indict her.

mec4cdic is correct in all respects procedurally except the implication that a failure to indict means the end of the case. A "no bill," as it is called, does not trigger the protections of the double jeopardy clause. The prosectors can., if they wish, try again with supplemental evidence before the same or another Grand Jury. I don't think that is likely, but I wanted to point out that possibility.

Bernie says he's sick of hearing about it too!

When thinking of the Clintons, I'm reminded of a long held belief. "Speak truth to power". Unfortunately, too many times I've had to deal with the disappointment of watching them slide right past any justice.

Seems to me, knowing her Alinskyite back ground, her criminal behavior at the Watergate investigations and subsequent firering, never mind Clearwater... it is reasonable and quite probable that there were nefarious reasons for her actions.

To me the charges of accidentally disclosing classified material are minor, almost a technicality. What I want to know, however, is why she went to the trouble to set up her own e-mail system. Was she discussing things that were illegal or immoral that she didn't want to be part of the public record?

If it happens O will pardon her. O has to be nose deep in her conduct to the point where any examination of her actions would incriminate him and many others in his Oministration and other federal agencies.

Both! hahah, not all editing is effective post post.

A suit or a suite? You mean the orange pants suit or the walls in the suite painted her favorite color orange?

i really hope it comes to past, but...

hillary wants to be president...

obama wants to a supreme court justice...

i think the "fix" is already been made...

Respect for Napolitano or not he gave no indication that he actually knows anything about what the FBI will do, only what he speculates based on immunity. Where is his confidence in Justice Department corruption?

Indictment or not, the emails will haunt Hillary the rest of the year and make it more difficult for her to win the general election. For Donald Trump, it will be the gift that keeps on giving.

The only question I can answer is she had the server in her bathroom....must of gotten pretty moldy in there!

First the pardon, then the nomination to the Supreme Court.

Yes, his books should be a staple in freedom -loving people's libraries.

Your intentions were good and I share your respect for Judge Napolitano. I over-reacted. Wish there was more known - like what jurisdiction is handling this case? Where was her server sitting, physically? A Federal Grand Jury can only indict for offenses that occurred within their jurisdiction. Is it a regular or a special grand juey? These are a few of my questions that no reporter has answered. Meanwhile, keep up the good work.

"We the people" have reserved a suit at the famous Hotel Gitmo...at her own expense.

I've learned much from Andrew Napolitano.