Register
A password will be e-mailed to you.

Yesterday’s announcement by FBI Director James Comey, outlining the many indiscretions involved in Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, seemed to be building toward a clear indictment. That turned out not to be the case, as Comey finished his press conference with the declaration that charges would not be recommended.  The outcry across the internet was instantaneous; with memes and hashtags declaring she was #abovethelaw. Many conservative and libertarian pundits added their voices to this outcry. But not Gary Johnson. As the former governor told CNN just a few days ago, he believes Hillary is innocent:

“I’m not a stone-thrower when it comes to Hillary Clinton and her emails and her server,” he said. “I don’t think there has been criminal intent on Hillary Clinton’s part. I don’t see an indictment.”

The former two-term governor of New Mexico doesn’t seem to have a negative thing to say about Hillary lately. During CNN’s Libertarian town hall, Johnson was asked to make a brief word association after several names were called out. When the announcer said, “Hillary Clinton,” Johnson replied, “a wonderful public servant.” Bill Weld, Johnson’s VP choice, said she was an “old friend” and that they had a “life-long bond.”  When Barack Obama’s name was mentioned, Johnson said, “a good guy,” and his running mate Bill Weld said, “statesman-like.” By contrast, Johnson has repeatedly called Trump “a racist,” despite repeated insistence that he isn’t going to participate in “name-calling,” and will “stick to the issues.”

Johnson has long been considered by many to be more of a leftist that leans libertarian. His choice of Bill Weld as a running mate only reinforced this perspective. Their very positive (an not infrequent) comments toward the very non-libertarian Democratic party nominee (and current government officials) contrasted with their willingness to bash the (also not-libertarian) Republican Trump, seem telling.

  • zjs1993

    In fairness, Johnson’s statement is “I don’t think there has been criminal intent on Hillary Clinton’s part.”
    Criminal intent would require Hillary to have knowingly or purposefully done what she did with the emails. This is not to say that she does not deserve criminal liability. As the FBI Director said, Hillary was “extremely careless,” which is, in other words, ‘reckless.’ Criminal liability can still be prescribed to someone who does not have criminal intent if recklessness or negligence is present, depending on the statute, which I admittedly do not know the culpability requirement of.
    Ultimately, I think Johnson’s statement was intelligently worded, as he did not say Hillary cannot be criminally liable, but also did not say that her actions did not grossly deviate from the standard conduct of a ‘reasonable person.’

  • Shakeyfly

    GJ = Libertarian Lite.

  • Pingback: Array()

  • Pingback: APOCALYPSE CLINTON – Sacred Owls()

  • jaimeoperez

    Good Grief. Until now I hadn’t realized what a bunch of butt-hurt crybabies comprise LP ‘leading voices’. Who needs old party attacks when you have holier-than-thou ideological purists and masters of ad hominem second-guessing and criticizing those that are doing their best to bring sanity into the public, political discourse. If you love Trump, vote for him. If you love Hillary, vote for her. If you hate Trump, attack him, If you hate Hillary attack her. If you are not going to help promote the LP message and our current ticket Johnson-Weld…stfu or get out of the way. Next time, run for office or seek a media venue to vent your emotions.

  • Pingback: 2016 - shadowbrooks | Pearltrees()

  • Pingback: Trump in 2000: "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums()

18K Shares
Share18K
+123
Tweet
Pin1
Share1
Stumble