Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
And the subject is Ben Ghazi.
And -- report running enough foxnews.com written by James Rosen.
And end -- -- in the essence of it is that the State Department secretary of then secretary of state Hillary Clinton doing an end run around their own counterterrorism.
Really to whitewash this thing or get the word terrorism removed from -- a judge -- -- -- Donald.
Let me ask you what are the legal and.
Occasions while the legal implications for the Obama administration in general Mike and and first -- good afternoon or in Chicago time good morning -- -- it's -- pleasure to be with you.
The legal implications for the administration are profound and for mrs.
Clinton would be -- personal and extremely profound.
Because if what James Rosen has served so wonderfully reported.
Can be demonstrated under oath and in a credible way out of the mouths of James -- sources.
That would substantially contradict mrs.
Now I don't know if her testimony was given under oath but it doesn't matter because lying to congress.
Carries the same criminal liability and the same punishment as lying under oath to congress.
I'm not suggesting that mrs.
Clinton lied that I'm saying that a case could be made out either legally an a in a courtroom for prosecutor wanted to.
And certainly politically and in the public's -- or should she decide to seek higher office.
That she materially misled the congress.
During that famous what difference does it make testimony of hers which was substantially at odds with what James is reporting his sources have told.
Now there's -- section from that report from the James Rosen report that says it was an effort early on to delete all references.
In the early documentation that came out of the State Department.
If that's there if it proves true we talk about some -- of an obstruction charge.
Well no wouldn't be it wouldn't be obstruction of justice -- on -- unless someone could argue.
That the cables.
And the information that came from the State Department after the event had concluded.
Impeded the ability at the FBI and American intelligence agents to find the culprits who did this so that would be obstruction.
Obstruction means interference with a criminal investigation or criminal.
Prosecute prosecutions that does not mean interference with the dissemination of the truth.
So for example if it turns out that ambassador rice.
Was lying we know she made material misrepresentations she said she are articulated what she was told to say but she can't really tell us who told her.
But if it turns out she was lying.
That is not a cry -- -- because it was not under oath that was not to congress.
And it didn't materially.
Interfere with a prosecution that would be a political wrong on her boss the president.
What suffer for egregiously -- she couldn't be prosecuted for on the other hand mrs.
Clinton was giving testimony before a United States senate committee.
And she had it not only the moral but the legal obligation.
To tell the truth that she understood it at the time.
He'll pick it in order to make a case you're gonna have to prove motivation at some point that was something that was causing the president that was something that was causing the secretary of state to do this.
And the only motivation I see right now is just a desire to not use the keyword to not call this thing terrorism to say no terrorist attacks happen on a lot.
Well the the big motivation.
Is the president's reelection.
At the time -- Secretary Rice made the statements she made it.
The whole world thought that Mitt Romney stood a fighting chance of beating and Barack Obama and the depending upon when all this some can and its relationship to the first.
-- of the debates that Mitt Romney in fact what actually lose to this reason it too obtuse to suppose that.
That the administration's.
Dancing around the truth here was motivated by the president's desire to get reelected or at least to put this to the back burner.
Until after Election Day now what's on on the front burner this is not gonna affect the president's reelection obviously it's a done deal that could it can certainly affect his peace of mind it.
And this is so political success.
For the remaining three and a half years.
This his second term and it could affect that political future and even arguably that the freedom.
But still that the motivation is just to say nothing happen on my watch I kept Americans is secure wherever they were yeah.
The world yeah -- -- and and and then we now know that if that was a motivation it was a false.
In terms of Hillary Clinton but is she.
At all subject -- vulnerable.
-- well I mean I'm not only not just politically but it when we're talking to you let's talk about criminal okay it -- -- in as a textbook case.
Yes she is vulnerable but as a practical matter.
The president controls a federal criminal prosecutions for as long as he's president through his attorney general Eric Holder.
It is almost inconceivable.
That he would authorize.
Attorney general holder.
-- -- -- A US attorney somewhere probably in Washington DC to seek an indictment of mrs.
For materially misleading congress the same charge that.
Roger Clemens was -- was tried for.
Interesting right -- the statue of limitations is five years so it goes into a period of time.
After Barack Obama's presidency.
But it's extremely unlikely whatever she does in 2016 that -- be prosecuted between now and 2016.
And it's unlikely that she'd be prosecuted after 2016.
Because too much time we'll have passed.
Filter by section