Former GOP Leader: “My FBI Friends Tell Me They’re Ready to Indict Hillary”

2872464575_7189354d77The liberals will flat out dismiss his insights.

After all, he was a former GOP House Leader.

Who was indicted for money-laundering/campaign finance violations. (that were subsequently dismissed)

This indictment ended Delay’s political career.

So Tom Delay knows how this game is played.

He knows who pulls the strings in Washington.

He has FBI connections at the top levels.

So, when Tom Delay claims the FBI is ready to pull the trigger on Hillary’s indictment…

Liberals will of course dismiss it.

But it probably is true.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay earlier this week claimed that the Justice Department is on the cusp of filing charges against Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton over the mishandling of classified information.

“I have friends that are in the FBI and they tell me they’re ready to indict,” DeLay said on Newsmax TV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Monday.

“They’re ready to recommend an indictment, and they also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they’re going public. So one way or another, either she’s going to be indicted and that process begins, or we try her in the public eye with her campaign,” he told the conservative news outlet. “One way or another, she’s going to have to face these charges.”

The FBI is currently investigating Clinton’s personal server to see whether the former secretary of State or any of her associates mishandled classified information.

If the Obama Administration doesn’t indict Hillary,but the FBI recommend indictment, then it’s up to public opinion and the voters.

Expect the liberal media to spin the truth.

You already know the truth.

Hillary as President would be a disaster.

 

You may also like...

  • Enough

    If the FBI does this end run around Comey’s announcement, the most interesting detail will be whether they assert her indiscretions were accidental or intentional. Comey argued there were no ulterior Clinton motives in having/using/sending/keeping/deleting e-mails with gov’t. secrets outside of regulations that clearly forbade it. Comey’s conclusion: Clinton was careless or reckless, not malicious or self serving. (However motive is irrelevant to the legal standard that applies.) So will they continue to ignore a motive, not being required for the indictment, or will they assert one? If they do will it relate to her moonlighting with Huma for the various Clinton foundations during her term as Sec. of State to fill its hundreds of million dollar coffers, or will it relate to her motive to conceal official decisions that either protected Obama or her own lawlessness? Her motives are numerous and noteworthy, but irrelevant for a conviction.

    How will they disagree with Clinton’s long time friend, then simple FBI agent Jim Comey, with whom she worked since the unusual deaths of Vince Foster and Jerry Parks and the Mena Airport investigations in 1993?