President Obama has pledged to remain neutral in the federal investigations into Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. In a recent interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, Obama repeatedly declared that he could guarantee that he has not been involved and will not be involved in shielding Clinton from prosecution for her role in transmitting thousands of classified documents over an unsecured email server.
However, when Fox News’ Juan Williams maintained that we should take Obama’s word that he will steer clear of influencing the investigation, fellow Fox News commentator Jesse Waters absolutely shredded Williams’ naiveté and made some excellent points on why Obama cannot possibly be trusted to remain objective.
Obama declared that he maintains a strict line between himself and the affairs of the DOJ. When Williams defended Obama, Watters pounced:
“I love how [Obama] says there’s a strict line between myself and the DOJ. Kind of like the red line in Syria, Juan. We know this guy doesn’t respect lines.”
“He says he never interferes with investigations — except when he said there’s not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS, or when he said Trayvon could’ve been my son. Do you remember that Juan?” Watters questioned.
“How about the Cambridge Police acted stupidly? The guy interferes with investigations constantly,” he continued.
Watters is right; Obama has a long history of getting involved and influencing investigations. Further, Watters neglected to mention the largest involvement by Obama to date: his shielding Eric Holder from prosecution by asserting executive privilege.
After then-Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with federal investigators investigating the deaths that resulted from Holder’s Fast and Furious operation, Obama shielded Holder from prosecution, extending his own flimsy pretense of executive privilege to the attorney general so that Holder would never have to pay for his crimes.
Watters then makes a brilliant point regarding Obama’s position.
“He basically says she’s innocent, but he hasn’t been briefed. You can’t have it both ways,” Watters said.
Obama maintained that Clinton was not guilty of jeopardizing national security, but that she was “careless” in her execution of duties.
However, he also maintained that he had had no involvement with the DOJ regarding the Clinton investigations.
So, the natural question is: has Obama been briefed on the details of the investigations and that’s why he’s confident that she’s innocent? Or has he remained distanced from the investigations? He is essentially asserting two conflicting narratives.
On a related note, isn’t Barack Obama a lawyer? Aren’t lawyers trained to spot these kinds of conflicting narratives? If a witness simultaneously claims to have witnessed a crime and to not have witnessed a crime, shouldn’t the witness be impeached as untrustworthy?
Similarly, Obama has maintained that he has not been briefed on the details but is certain of her innocence. He also claims that he keeps a distance with the DOJ on investigations but has repeatedly gotten involved in federal, state and local investigations.
At this point, Obama’s word means next to nothing.