Skip to main content

Rush Limbaugh right on Clinton’s email conspiracy theory

Written By | Sep 14, 2015

WASHINGTON, Sept. 14, 2015 – Obama’s DOJ and the media seem to be coordinating to put lipstick on a pig.

Last month political commentator Monica Crowley predicted Obama was targeting Hillary for political destruction. Just days ago, major political pundits believed Hillary would be indicted for the growing email scandal. And Bernie Sanders’ recent poll numbers suggest the issue is hurting Hillary badly.

But something significant shifted on Thursday, the eve of 9/11.

In a bizarre turn of events, Obama’s DOJ lawyers stood before a federal court judge and insisted with a straight face that Hillary has done nothing wrong: “There is no question that Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server.”

Hillary Clinton’s plausible deniability defense is old

Moreover, the DOJ argued that neither the federal court nor the DOJ has the legal power to demand that Mrs. Clinton turn over any more emails. The DOJ is attempting to shield Hillary from prosecution under 18 USC Section 1924 by asserting she “had authority” to delete personal emails (ignore classified emails, judge). Nothing to see here.

Two days after Obama’s DOJ mysteriously absolved Hillary from her server sins, the Washington Post also gave its blessing, trumpeting a tech company’s conclusion that Hillary’s server has not been wiped: “The revelation that Clinton never ordered the server wiped could bolster her statements that her actions have been aboveboard, suggesting that she did not take active steps to hide her e-mails.”

Translation: Hillary is no Nixon. The fact Hillary didn’t wipe the server is retroactive proof of innocence. Because she didn’t think she was doing anything wrong by deleting irrelevant emails, she’s clean. Never mind the law. Case closed.

It’s a one-two PR punch. DOJ argues Hillary’s actions are legal. Washington Post suggests Hillary’s intent is pure.

Why? Why should the DOJ suddenly declare that Hillary followed the law by deleting emails from her private server? And why is the Washington Post taking the lead concerning Hillary’s motivation and state of mind with regard to deleting classified emails?

Media to nation: Pay no attention to G-Men tailing Hillary Clinton

Rush Limbaugh called it over a month ago: Is the DOJ doing email damage control for the Obama Administration?

It is fair to assume the DOJ wouldn’t so precipitously exonerate Hillary without Obama’s approval. So why the reversal from a few weeks ago? What has been happening in those few weeks? Well, thousands of emails have been produced under court order, and thousands more are in the pipeline to be revealed. What revelations are contained in emails that haven’t been made public? Is there a sudden rush to shut down the investigation connected to any revelations in still-hidden emails?

In coming weeks, watch for media to parrot Washington Post’s “Hillary didn’t mean to” narrative in an attempt to rehab her image as a liar. And look for the left websites and social media to advance the DOJ’s incomplete exoneration of Hillary, echoing her infamous line “What difference at this point does it make?” And there you have the “Lipstick on a pig.”

Perhaps it means the DNC and Obama are circling the wagons around Hillary to protect against Bernie Sanders, the DNC’s version of Donald Trump. Or it could mean something much more damaging for the Obama legacy.

The only question is what? Based on what you do know, the possibilities are staggering. Can you say Benghazi?


Susan Swift

California PolitiChick Susan Swift Arnall is lawyer, wife and one conservative mother of seven children. Since her impassioned call into Rush Limbaugh's radio program in 2009, Susan has given political commentary on radio and blogs, and was invited in 2010 by Andrew Breitbart to write for his young website Big Journalism. She has written over 60 published articles for Breitbart. A Texas native, Susan's career began as a child actor, including the title role in Audrey Rose directed by the legendary Robert Wise. While acting, Susan attended and graduated magna cum laude from UCLA's famous Department of Theater Arts, then she attended Pepperdine Law School where she graduated with honors and served as an editor of its Law Review and has authored law review articles on entertainment law and federal civil procedure. She worked as a lawyer at a prominent international law firm in Los Angeles, and later joined the LAPD legal defense team in the Rodney King federal civil rights lawsuit, for which work she received a special award from the LAPD Booster Association. While raising her family, Susan started and runs a small business servicing Hollywood productions, and produces and directs a youth Summer Shakespeare acting program. A staunch defender of life and traditional marriage, she served as the San Fernando diocesan regional chair for Californians for Parental Rights, a grassroots organization that sought to advance a parental notification initiative in California. Follow @_SusanSwift on Twitter.