There have been some pretty potent reactions in the alternative press to Judge Andrew Napolitano's WND column of July 1, "Hillary's secret war." In it, the judge analyzes a shocking interview with an international arms dealer that centers around the man's dealings with the State Department under Hillary Clinton, as well as evidence in the same vein that has surfaced through other sources, Clinton's destruction of emails covering that period and testimony she gave at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee in January of 2013.

Napolitano is one of the first of his stature and background in the law to pull no punches pertaining to the former secretary of state's criminality. Yet despite his usual unambiguous legal opinions – or judgments, if you will – written and broadcast, here he doesn't provide any, instead leaving the reader to digest the weighty revelations.

I could almost hear the Judge intone to his readers: You're smart; you figure it out. What do we typically do with people who commit serial criminal offenses?

Writing for TruthRevolt.org last week, Mark Tapson made a case for arresting and charging Ms. Clinton, as well as expressing an almost passionate yearning that this would take place with all due speed.

Judge Napolitano's column ends with the following:

"Hillary Clinton lied to Congress, gave arms to terrorists and destroyed her emails. How much longer can she hide the truth? How much longer can her lawlessness go unchallenged and unprosecuted? Does she really think the American voters will overlook her criminal behavior and put her in the White House where she can pardon herself?"

Strong words, and Napolitano certainly echoes my sentiments. The urgency contained in that final paragraph reminded me of an editorial comment I made elsewhere just this past weekend. This one addressed the Obama State Department denying visas to Assyrian Christians who were in imminent danger of persecution from the ISIS terror group several weeks ago, while continuing to allow every potential jihadi who wishes it entry into the United States:

"When will Americans – American Christians in particular – stand up and demand that … Barack Hussein Obama II be dragged from the White House in chains?"

Strong words? I suppose – but certainly in keeping with the opinions I usually express here.

Back to Judge Napolitano's pointed questions, specifically the last one. Does Hillary Clinton think American voters will overlook her criminal behavior and elect her president? For me, that gave rise to yet another question: Why are she and the president still walking around free, committing crimes and lying their faces off about them on a daily basis?

The answer to that one might very well answer the last question posed by the judge.

Here's the reasoning: It would be very easy for American voters to overlook Clinton's criminal behavior if they didn't know about it in the first place.

Why wouldn't voters put Hillary Clinton in the White House if her crimes are systematically overlooked by the press and the Republican leadership in the same manner Barack Obama's identity fraud, lack of a valid birth certificate, forged Selective Service registration, invalid Social Security number, sealed academic records, ties to criminals, terrorists, radicals, and racists, and possible ties to several Chicago murders were systematically overlooked by the press and by Republicans during the 2008 election cycle?

Bereft of such information as discussed in the judge's column, revealed in the Fox News investigation he references, other evidence gleaned by unbiased news sources and by Congress, American voters would have little more than the Clinton hype machine and shallow cult of personality upon which to base their estimations of her. Add to that an establishment press fawning over her in the same obsequious manner as they fawned over Obama in 2008, and she's well on her way to the White House.

And wouldn't it'd be so cool for America to finally have her first woman president?

Within days of the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, I voiced my concern that as opposed to having botched or nixed a rescue of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the three other Americans who perished, the White House might actually have orchestrated the event to erase (or at least obscure) evidence of their criminal activities with regard to arming terrorists, which was indeed occurring at the time.

Should this have been the case, the order certainly would not have come from Hillary Clinton. Testimony has been given asserting that agents of the later deposed Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi were participants in the Benghazi attack. Obama himself bulldozed the way for Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood thugs into Cairo. Obama and both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been extremely close with Morsi and the 'Brotherhood for years – in the case of the Clintons, it's been decades.

That's likely one of the reasons Egyptian-born Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's deputy chief of staff at the State Department and current campaign staffer, has been doing her share to stonewall the probe into the Benghazi massacre. Abedin comes from a good, solid Muslim Brotherhood family, and while her attorney insists that she's been "searching her personal records," she still hasn't turned over documents that the House Select Committee on Benghazi claims could clarify questions about the origins of the bogus "anti-Islam YouTube video" memorandum the White House used to explain the motive for the attack.

Perhaps Abedin inadvertently saved her work files on Hillary's email server …

Last Friday, Tom Fitton, president of the watchdog group Judicial Watch, said that his organization's independent investigation produced evidence that Hillary Clinton herself was instrumental in crafting the counterfeit Benghazi talking points, as opposed to simply reciting the false narrative.

None of this information, however, is reaching the voters Judge Napolitano referenced. I am certainly not offering this to discredit the Judge's estimation of this case in any way, but the titanic mound of damning evidence against the president, Ms. Clinton and scores of complicit White House appointees that is so familiar to WND readers and other astute citizens is wholly unknown to the vast majority of Americans who will cast votes in 2016. Think about that.

Like the facts which should have rendered Barack Obama unelectable in 2008, this evidence could very well remain unknown to them, giving Ms. Clinton an excellent shot at the presidency.

In the current radically corrupted political climate, why wouldn't we expect such a thing to occur?

Source

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.