[Ed. – I don’t know why anyone expects anything else. McCarthy uses rhetorical emphasis to ask if Lynch couldn’t stonewall a Hillary indictment — but I think a better way to frame it is, why wouldn’t Lynch stonewall a Hillary indictment? That kind of in-your-face abuse of discretion is what the Obama administration has specialized in. Lynch and Holder have been especially guilty of it. We could justifiably say it’s Lynch’s default position to stonewall on Hillary.
[Exit point: We can assume Obama wants to hold the possibility of an indictment over Hillary’s head, until it’s not useful to him anymore. Don’t forget that once he plays the card, he can’t un-play it. He’ll hold it to play at the right time, if he needs it.]
An indictment would be devastating to the Democrats’ chances of retaining the White House in the November election. Thus, the conventional wisdom holds that Lynch will decline prosecution, which the executive branch has the unreviewable constitutional power to do, regardless of how damning the proof of crimes might be.
But what if the conventional wisdom is wrong? And to be clear, I am not suggesting that Lynch will shock the world by approving an indictment against her party’s candidate for the presidency.
What if Loretta Lynch simply decides to . . . do nothing?
The FBI can make a recommendation to prosecute in the strongest terms based on the most convincing evidence. But not only does the FBI have no power to force the Justice Department to prosecute; it has no power to force the Justice Department to decide whether to prosecute.