Duckk said take Mrs Clinton\not in jail here.

PeterZ wrote:A Trump Presidency IS giving the pox to both houses. Actually prosecuting that sort of corruption is a move in the right direction. So what if appointing a special prosecutor is motivated by personal animus. The move will keep more politicians honest. If Trump wins, I want him to take a chainsaw to the current establishment. No one else in sight will even try. Hillary will further institutionalize the corruption.

PeterZ wrote:A special presecutor is hardly a guaranteed conviction. His quip was well timed and will be replayed, but hardly a promise. Again, he does not have enough internal support in government to get away with squat. Clinton has proved she has enough pull to evade prosecution.

Something about these two statements does not fit together, I wonder if you can figure out what it is.

PeterZ wrote:Either way if she slows down that much, she risks loosing that consistent 2%-3% lead she's had.

Are you perhaps referring to the 6% lead she has?

PeterZ wrote:A Trump Presidency IS giving the pox to both houses. Actually prosecuting that sort of corruption is a move in the right direction. ... The move will keep more politicians honest. If Trump wins, I want him to take a chainsaw to the current establishment. No one else in sight will even try. Hillary will further institutionalize the corruption.

Both candidates represent a pox on the electorate. Clinton's is perhaps worse because collusion with the DNC to try to limit candidates, and giving internal documents about Bernie Sanders strikes at the legitimacy of the electoral process.

So what if appointing a special prosecutor is motivated by personal animus.

I suppose the Devil is in the perception on this one. I is like Obama going after Bush for War Crimes and Misdemeanors over fabricating the rather flimsy evidence used to drag us into Iraq. It looks like a personal vendetta against Trump's enemies. And it is just so typical Trump to try to ruin an adversary. Use of government resources for private vengeance is so third world. Yet it drags up accusations of Obama using the IRS against The Tea Party.

Sorry, how can you make one abuse of power bad and the next abuse of power good? Simply because your guy won and "She deserves it" doesn't, somehow, sound adequate for a society based on rule (as opposed to misuse)of law.

I will concede your point that Clinton played fast and loose with the law, even to the point of consulting with someone in the previous (Republican)administration (Colin Powell) over how he skirted the law (?). At some point, after, what, 30 +/- years of harassment and pseudo-prosecution by the GOP it has secured no indictments, no even civil prosecution, there must be some "animus" involved here. All Trump would succeed in accomplishing is to further embarrass the GOP.

I am not advocating abuse of power. I believe an honest investigation is needed. Why a president asks for one is besides the point for me. If the primary reason is that het hates her guts, I'll take it. Not because she is being prosecuted regardless of fault, but because her actions deserve investigation in a thorough manner. Not one where everyone gets immunity and no charges for any wrong doing are made.

Making 100's of millions from foreign donations while SecState is real troubling to me. Especially how that Foundation is run.

WeirdlyWired wrote:

PeterZ wrote:A Trump Presidency IS giving the pox to both houses. Actually prosecuting that sort of corruption is a move in the right direction. ... The move will keep more politicians honest. If Trump wins, I want him to take a chainsaw to the current establishment. No one else in sight will even try. Hillary will further institutionalize the corruption.

Both candidates represent a pox on the electorate. Clinton's is perhaps worse because collusion with the DNC to try to limit candidates, and giving internal documents about Bernie Sanders strikes at the legitimacy of the electoral process.

So what if appointing a special prosecutor is motivated by personal animus.

I suppose the Devil is in the perception on this one. I is like Obama going after Bush for War Crimes and Misdemeanors over fabricating the rather flimsy evidence used to drag us into Iraq. It looks like a personal vendetta against Trump's enemies. And it is just so typical Trump to try to ruin an adversary. Use of government resources for private vengeance is so third world. Yet it drags up accusations of Obama using the IRS against The Tea Party.

Sorry, how can you make one abuse of power bad and the next abuse of power good? Simply because your guy won and "She deserves it" doesn't, somehow, sound adequate for a society based on rule (as opposed to misuse)of law.

I will concede your point that Clinton played fast and loose with the law, even to the point of consulting with someone in the previous (Republican)administration (Colin Powell) over how he skirted the law (?). At some point, after, what, 30 +/- years of harassment and pseudo-prosecution by the GOP it has secured no indictments, no even civil prosecution, there must be some "animus" involved here. All Trump would succeed in accomplishing is to further embarrass the GOP.

Unlike the Trump foundation, which has been used by the Dinald to buy things for him, and bribe state officials into not going forward with criminal investigations into the Donald.

There's no evidence of impropriety with the Clinton foundation, lots for the Trump one.

But it's Hillary that gets lambasted.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Have I been asleep and dreaming all those blue panel congressional hearings? Weren't there hearings over Benghazi and why she failed to protect those poor diplomats? Didn't congress waste months over e-mail gate? Monica-gate? Whitewater-gate? Pork belly futures-gate? No it was cattle futures-gate. Didn't the Republican Congress give immunity to anyone who would testify against her?

Don't all prosecuting attorneys grant immunity for testimony against "bigger fish?" Aren't plea bargains a normal part of the criminal justice process? So, not satisfied with dragging this person through the mud since Bill was sworn in as president in 1993, almost 24 years; having found NOTHING] criminally actionable, having failed even in civil court; it is not enough. You want ONE MORE GO at her, I mean "in the name of Justice and the American Way." Will it stop on the day of her funeral, or will it continue until Chelsea's death?

WeirdlyWired wrote:Have I been asleep and dreaming all those blue panel congressional hearings? Weren't there hearings over Benghazi and why she failed to protect those poor diplomats? Didn't congress waste months over e-mail gate? Monica-gate? Whitewater-gate? Pork belly futures-gate? No it was cattle futures-gate. Didn't the Republican Congress give immunity to anyone who would testify against her?

Don't all prosecuting attorneys grant immunity for testimony against "bigger fish?" Aren't plea bargains a normal part of the criminal justice process? So, not satisfied with dragging this person through the mud since Bill was sworn in as president in 1993, almost 24 years; having found NOTHING] criminally actionable, having failed even in civil court; it is not enough. You want ONE MORE GO at her, I mean "in the name of Justice and the American Way." Will it stop on the day of her funeral, or will it continue until Chelsea's death?

What you are witnessing is one more indicator of Trump's megalomania. He'll tell you not to believe the courts, or the FBI, or the press, or anyone else. He paints himself as the sole owner of the "truth". When he goes down the plughole on Election Day he'll tell you not to believe the votes, that the election is "rigged" against him, like everything else in this world. The idea that everyone is out to get him reinforces his own sense of just how unique and important he is.

The email investigation basically promised everyone immunity but failed to target anyone worthy of charges even though Comey found HRC improperly handled confidential information. He didn't find intent to commit a crime. Yet her subordinates destroyed evidence congress subpoenaed. That smells of trying to hide evidence of wrong doing.

That's not nothing.

An honest investigation no matter why someone calls for it is as I said fine with me.

WeirdlyWired wrote:Have I been asleep and dreaming all those blue panel congressional hearings? Weren't there hearings over Benghazi and why she failed to protect those poor diplomats? Didn't congress waste months over e-mail gate? Monica-gate? Whitewater-gate? Pork belly futures-gate? No it was cattle futures-gate. Didn't the Republican Congress give immunity to anyone who would testify against her?

Don't all prosecuting attorneys grant immunity for testimony against "bigger fish?" Aren't plea bargains a normal part of the criminal justice process? So, not satisfied with dragging this person through the mud since Bill was sworn in as president in 1993, almost 24 years; having found NOTHING] criminally actionable, having failed even in civil court; it is not enough. You want ONE MORE GO at her, I mean "in the name of Justice and the American Way." Will it stop on the day of her funeral, or will it continue until Chelsea's death?

The Clinton Foundation does have issues with taxes and does collect from people Secretary Clinton dealt with as Secretary of State.

Leaked emails from the DNC does show that There was a lot of coordination between the Foundation staff and Clinton's official staff between donors and those that she met with as Secretary of State. Proof of a quid pro quo? No, but inappropriate and suggestive of a quid pro quo.

I never called for an investigation of the Foundation. I doubt that there was anything they could find to prove a quid pro quo. I do believe that it is inappropriate to collect money from foreign people and corporations while one is the Secretary of State.

These activities prove she has the mind set of a cheap grifter.

If Trump's Foundation acted inappropriately, take it and him to court. No double standards.

Annachie wrote:Unlike the Trump foundation, which has been used by the Dinald to buy things for him, and bribe state officials into not going forward with criminal investigations into the Donald.

There's no evidence of impropriety with the Clinton foundation, lots for the Trump one.

But it's Hillary that gets lambasted.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Fear not! the Tea Party members of the House have vowed to keep fighting for "truth, Justice and The American Dream" I suppose they will use the tactics they used to repeal Obamacare. send an Article of Impeachment to the Senate, have it tried, have it fail by 51-50 along strict party lines, wait 10 days and repeat.

Would be funny, but ...

Not the Tea Party, establishment GOP. That's why we got Trump in the first place. That POS legislation is a joke.

WeirdlyWired wrote:Fear not! the Tea Party members of the House have vowed to keep fighting for "truth, Justice and The American Dream" I suppose they will use the tactics they used to repeal Obamacare. send an Article of Impeachment to the Senate, have it tried, have it fail by 51-50 along strict party lines, wait 10 days and repeat.

Would be funny, but ...