As for the Clintons, don't forget that House Republicans have had their investigation going for quite some time. If Trump really did want the Clintons prosecuted, it might make the best sense to look as though it wasn't his agenda at all, but a longstanding effort in Congress that is simply taking its proper course. But now that Hillary Clinton has suffered the shocking defeat in the election, will the House keep up that work? I see a report from November 13:
Following Donald Trump’s Election Day win, GOP legislators in the House will no longer focus their energies on investigating Hillary Clinton, according to Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy....
“Look, I’m the majority leader, I set the agenda,” McCarthy told Fox News. “The agenda is going to be about job creation, it’s going to be about reforming and repealing Obamacare. It’s going to be on infrastructure. That’s the focus that this election was about.”...
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, pledged to press on with investigating Clinton just two days before Trump’s surprise win in the general election. “We’re going to keep after this until we get to the truth,” Chaffetz told Fox News. “We don’t have it yet.”
Posts
210 comments:
1 – 200 of 210 Newer› Newest»No doubt the best way to treat her is to show that laws are for the little people.
Bullshit.
There was never any crimes in the first place. As has been true for twenty years, Hillary Clinton was smeared.
She used her time at State to sell influence and fill her family coffers. The FBI should be unleashed to go after her. This is a travesty.
Lock her up!
Lock her up!
Lock her up!
The Republican CONGRESS, on the other hand, has some ideas on Hillary's fate.
I feel JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED.
Hillary needs to go to the guillotine. She ain't royalty.
The precedent of Donald Trump running on "lock her up!" can not be undone and will remain corrosive for years to come.
But Ann will never acknowledge that.
Her criminal behavior is a joke on the left. They don't care.
@Once,
Bullshit.
There was never any crimes in the first place. As has been true for twenty years, Hillary Clinton was smeared.
I'm not sure what you do for a living, but clearly it's never involved any interaction with classified materials.
Breaking promises already.
just another indicator that the man has no integrity and can't ever be taken at his word.
I'm of two minds on this. I get the desirability of focusing on the country imstead of an individual. I also get the danger of the new Administration persecuting their opponents. OTOH, Clinton's self-dealing and flaunting of FOIA is outrageous. There's a case to be made for deterence of future politicians. And then there's that thing called justice.
Personally, I would have kept the possibility of prosecution on the table in the hopes of having President Obama pardon her. Let the history books record that. Of course, Trump himself could pardon her. That would be good for a laugh.
But there was never any point in an actual prosecution, because you could never get a jury to convict. Anyone who has reached an opinion of her guilt or innocence would be required to recuse themselves from the jury. That would rule out every responsible citizen, plus quite a few Democrats. Absolutely no chance a jury of those that remain would convict her of anything, no matter the evidence.
Of course, not everyone who was obligated to recuse themselves would do so. Some would stay to try to advance their partisan interests, others in hopes of their 15 minutes of fame or a book deal. So she would have a strong argument that it would be impossible to impanel an impartial jury.
The correct approach is for Trump to say and do nothing but for the Legislature to forcefully investigate the State department's behavior, using the DOJ where necessary. Grant all the immunity you want, but get it on record that these people violated rules & laws. Don't accept anyone taking the 5th (give them personal immunity and then compel testimony) and set the standard that we, the American people, will not allow our government to act without accountability.
It bothers me that Lois Lerner is not in jail, but it bothers me MUCH more that a sizable percent of this nation may actually think "the IRS did nothing wrong." As it is people are not only getting away with wrongdoing, they're also convincing the public that no wrongdoing was done. This is rot, and this cannot be allowed to continue. The Legislature must force the bad acts into the open--and force an all-too-reluctant Media to publicize them--if any actual progress is to be made.
The nation can survive a few Hillary Clintons or Lois Lerners escaping their just punishment (in a cell). Good governance, and trust in government itself, cannot survive the tolerance hidden festering of wrongdoing.
She used her time at State to sell influence and fill her family coffers.
I'd imagine that Trump is planning to make Hillary's alleged attempts to "sell influence and fill her family coffers" look like small potatoes. He is already mixing his business and government affairs.
It is a real sign of how the rule of law has declined under Trump that he, and he alone, gets to decide whether the Clintons will be prosecuted. He should be saying, and the American people should be demanding, that the administration of the law will remain independent.
I see this as the right approach for the country right now - pursuing her personally will get us nowhere. And it gives the FBI some closure for their actions.
However, this says nothing of the Clinton Foundation and I damn well expect that the Foundation will continue to be investigated.
This is one of those situations where making it personal is more harmful than aiming at the general organizational activities.
I don't know about this--did she (and her foundation) commit crimes or didn't they? If they did, as Trump seemed to believe during the election (though who knows, he isn't Mr. Consistency) then the proper course would be to let the new DOJ make that determination at the very least. After the RNC convention, it seemed Republicans were pretty much in agreement that Hillary got away with something big with the help of Obama's DOJ. Was that all just politics and BS?
Or, if Trump doesn't want to seem like he's pursuing a political vendetta, why not at least stick with the call to appoint an independent counsel (and pick one with enough cred that whatever their conclusion it won't look completely like a partisan attack job or a Clinton coverup)?
I don't buy this "move on" crap. It's one thing if we're talking about partisan battling, but if the Clintons committed crimes, letting them go out of "they're nice people" reasoning just makes it seem that once again, the rich and powerful have their own rules.
Curious what Trump fans think of this. Would they seriously agree that they need to move on from this?
I strongly disagree. Give her a pass for mishandling classified information, permanently revoke the security clearances for her and her associates, but go after the fraudulent charity as well as the selling of past and future influence. A strong example needs to be set that a politician can't create a sham charity to be used as a political action committee or a slush fund to pay political associates.
Perhaps this is Trump's way of tricking Obama into not pardoning her or the charity.
Actually, pardoning her would be an interesting move--sort of an acknowledgement that she's guilty without dragging the country through an investigation and prosecution. Still, though, seems the rich and powerful get their own breaks.
Freder Frederson said...
"I'd imagine that Trump is planning ...".
Normally, you use you imagination on the past, Freder. Good to see you getting proactive with your imagination. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, particularly one like yours.
Hillary wouldn't have "moved on". She would have used every tool of the weaponized government Obama would have left to her.
Of course, I'm not opposed to prosecution of those around her for their crimes, and convictions would likely be possible for the little people.
Hahahahahahah! Told you so. So he will be breaking one promise after another to his dupes. No one should be surprised. No wall. No deportation force. No end to Obamacare. You people have no clue who Trump is.
Love the outrage by April Apple.
Fredder
He is already mixing his business and government affairs.
Really? How? Has he stuffed his fake-charity foundation with money he made selling pay-to-play promises?
"He should be saying, and the American people should be demanding, that the administration of the law will remain independent." [emphasis added]
Oh, man.
Once written, twice... said...
Bullshit.
There was never any crimes in the first place.
I see someone read that fake news story about Comey clearing Clinton. It is sad the damage that the fake news can do.
Trump has all long treated the rule of law as a political implement to be used to gain power. It is to bad that history will record that the FBI allowed themselves to be used in this regard and has soiled its reputation in the process.
If you believe that Clinton's crimes were victimless, then I suppose it might make sense to let her crawl off into the darkness with her hundreds of millions in loot. Maybe they could squeeze a few million out of her first, for the Coptic film-maker who spent most of a year in prison because of her lies.
I'm ok with not pursuing the security charges at this point (the pay to play and RICO is another matter).
However, I would immediately terminate the security clearances of HRC, and every political or career State employee that facilitated the email server scheme, looked the other way or that transmitted classified data via the same...
No mention of Cheryl Mills and lawyer David Kendall. Plausible case for obstruction of justice. Emails subpoenaed by Congress were destroyed by Platte Networks guy after phone call with Mills and Kendall. Give the Platte Networks guy full immunity and he rats out Mills and Kendall. Give those two the Scooter Libby treatment.
How can Trump -- still a private citizen -- have governmental affairs? Lulz
Jane Hamsher is, I am sure, is singing a very very different tune now.
In a perfect world, there would be a criminal investigation. However, there are practical restrictions on what can be accomplished, due to both political and resource (time/manpower) limitations, and the President needs to prioritize. A criminal investigation isn't a high enough priority, although they should consider continuing a fact-finding investigation. Looking into the IRS and DOJ shenanigans is much more important long-term; with the CGI probably the next in line
Prosecute the crime, not the person, as I believe then Attorney General Robert Jackson once said. This should be left up to DOJ and FBI.
@ Brando
After the RNC convention, it seemed Republicans were pretty much in agreement that Hillary got away with something big with the help of Obama's DOJ. Was that all just politics and BS?
Or, if Trump doesn't want to seem like he's pursuing a political vendetta, why not at least stick with the call to appoint an independent counsel (and pick one with enough cred that whatever their conclusion it won't look completely like a partisan attack job or a Clinton coverup)?
I don't buy this "move on" crap. It's one thing if we're talking about partisan battling, but if the Clintons committed crimes, letting them go out of "they're nice people" reasoning just makes it seem that once again, the rich and powerful have their own rules.
Indeed.
"She used her time at State to sell influence and fill her family coffers."
"I'd imagine that Trump is planning to make Hillary's alleged attempts to "sell influence and fill her family coffers" look like small potatoes. He is already mixing his business and government affairs."
So right. Trump doesn't want to set a precedent, for it might be himself that is looking at charges of influence peddling one day.
Trump does something you'd think the lefties would approve and they're still going ballistic! This is great!
"Freder Frederson said...
I'd imagine that Trump is planning to make Hillary's alleged attempts to "sell influence and fill her family coffers" look like small potatoes. He is already mixing his business and government affairs."
Really? Example?
Actually, pardoning her would be an interesting move--sort of an acknowledgement that she's guilty without dragging the country through an investigation and prosecution.
I concur. A pardon implies guilt. Let the Clintons spend their days trying to have the pardon revoked.
Couldn't happen to a better couple.
Trump is saying he is going to forgive the Clintons and not pursue them because he does not want it highlighted that both a Republican Congress and a highly partisan FBI could not uncover any wrongdoing by them over the past twenty years.
You Hillbillies are willing dupes.
Once written, twice... said...
It is a real sign of how the rule of law has declined under Trump that he, and he alone, gets to decide whether the Clintons will be prosecuted
I genuinely don't know if you're being comically ironic or if this is just astoundingly stupid. The rule of law has declined "under Trump" already!
To be clear, It would never be possible to find a jury in the country that would vote 12-0 to convict. Since you can't get a conviction, the political price for trying is to high. Just revoke the clearances and move on.
I do like the obstruction of Justice angle against Mills and Kendall though. Nobody likes lawyers to start with :)
No crime, no pardon. Why the dupes here keep this idea of a pardon of Clinton by President Obama going is nutty to say the least.
Really? Example?
Here you go
This seems wrong-headed to me. The right course is to go to the FBI that has done the investigations so far, and see if they were able to do their jobs properly. If they had, and they closed the investigation because they thought there was not enough there to prosecute (Comey's story), so announce that fact and drop it.
On the other hand, if it turns out that dozens of investigators wanted to recommend prosecution, and that fact was suppressed from above (this is the story according to the "leaks") - then announce that. Turn them loose and let them do their job properly. Make sure that whatever they find is made public with no more suppression.
The decision should not be made based on, She's suffered enough, but based on, No one is above the law. Let the law do its job properly, and let everyone accept that because the facts are made public.
She had classified data in her non-secure server -- that's a crime. Once sputtered is unwilling to accept facts -- unexpectedly.
"To be clear, It would never be possible to find a jury in the country that would vote 12-0 to convict." Nonsense. Depends on the evidence, like any other trial.
If the investigation is dropped as soon as you win the election, then you're admitting that it was never anything but political persecution in the first place, and never an actual matter of law or justice.
More influence peddling.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/-Foreign-diplomats-see-spending-money-at-Trump-hotel-as-easy-gesture-to-new-president.html
WASHINGTON - About 100 foreign diplomats, from Brazil to Turkey, gathered at the Trump International Hotel this week to sip Trump-branded champagne, dine on sliders and hear a sales pitch about the U.S. president-elect's newest hotel.
The event for the diplomatic community, held one week after the election, was in the Lincoln Library, a junior ballroom with 16-foot ceilings and velvet drapes that is also available for rent.
Some attendees won raffle prizes - among them overnight stays at other Trump properties around the world - allowing them to become better acquainted with the business holdings of the new commander in chief.
Trump is still a private citizen, Freder. The Electoral College hasn't yet convened. Lulz
If I'd thought he reneg on that one, I'd have stayed home and let her wreck the country. If your larceny is big enough, there's no law to hold you accountable. Got it. Loud. And. Clear.
We did not elect King Trump. Given the strong opinions he has expressed, he should recuse himself from making decisions on the matter. If Hilary broke the law, she should be investigated and prosecuted by career prosecutors not politicians. He is of course free to grant her a pardon, but he doesn't get to pick and choose who the FBI will investigate.
Brando said...
Or, if Trump doesn't want to seem like he's pursuing a political vendetta, why not at least stick with the call to appoint an independent counsel (and pick one with enough cred that whatever their conclusion it won't look completely like a partisan attack job or a Clinton coverup)?
No such person exists -- look at how quickly Democrats went from praising Director Comey's impartiality and character when he was "exonerating" Hillary, to calling him a partisan hack the second he did something they didn't like.
In the end I have to admit it's enough for me that Hillary is (please let it be so) finished with politics and will never again have power to sell. In a just world she'd be in prison; but in fairness, Petraeus never landed in prison either, as any little person who did the same thing would have.
Trump is still a private citizen, Freder.
That is splitting hairs.
"I concur. A pardon implies guilt. Let the Clintons spend their days trying to have the pardon revoked."
I think they probably are guilty of something, but it would be even funnier to do that to someone who wasn't guilty. Imagine you're an incumbent president, and the opposing party nominates someone, and you issue an immediate pardon of them (which you can do regardless of even whether they're being investigated). Then they say "hey, what are you pardoning me for? I didn't do anything!" and you can say "sure, whatever, but the American people need to move on from what you may or may not have done..."
Well, I'd be amused, anyway.
@ARM, @Freder, @Once bitten, a pair of questions for you.
How much money was raised by the Clinton Foundation for Haitian relief?
How much did the Foundation actually spend in Haiti?
Betcha they keep up the investigation into the Clinton Foundation and Huma keeping government docs within reach of the Pervert. Those investigations probably can't be stopped.
Trump should wait at least a year so that the appropriate government agencies can build a case against the Clinton Crime Foundation. That way, he could prosecute and jail all 3 Clintons. Call it a hat trick.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
Personally, I would have kept the possibility of prosecution on the table in the hopes of having President Obama pardon her.
I would leave the issue open so the media can reveal themselves as partisan hacks concerned only about protecting the Queen while I am focused on policies that help Americans.
UnknownInga thinks that marketing a property is influence peddling! I'm having too much fun.
So a nation of laws is still out of reach?
What is the legal principle that compels the congress to walk away from this?
What is the moral principle?
To escape prosecution all she had to do was run for President. Win or lose.
Hillary Clinton seems to be the only person in American history that was always above the law.
Nice precedent to set on our watch. I can hardly wait to see how it gets used against a nation of laws in the future.
Unknown said...
No crime, no pardon. Why the dupes here keep this idea of a pardon of Clinton by President Obama going is nutty to say the least.
History begs to differ.
Is that all there is?
"Look, I think he's thinking of many different things as he prepares to become the President of the United States, and things that sound like the campaign aren't among them"
Hmm...
Stating an absolute fact is splitting hairs, Fredo? Please try to display some dignity and intellectual rigor.
I said "larceny". Wrong word. Doesn't matter much, but I thought I'd point it out before someone else does. Pick your own crime: accepting bribes/influence peddling, charity fraud, mishandling classified info to the point of probably treason, lying to the FBI and Congress. I'm sure there's lots more, but those are the obvious ones. And they are so obvious that I'm angered to hear that "Lock her up" meant nothing to Trump. No one is above the law. If they've "suffered enough already", that's their own damn fault for breaking the law, but they won't really have suffered enough until justice is done. This is not, no matter how vicious the political rhetoric was, a personal thing. This is the American people, who have been violated, sold out, lied to, and used. I hope he's just saying that until he has actual power, and until he has enough evidence in his own hand (and not those of the faithless Comey) to make it impossible not to pursue. I'm hoping.
"No such person exists -- look at how quickly Democrats went from praising Director Comey's impartiality and character when he was "exonerating" Hillary, to calling him a partisan hack the second he did something they didn't like."
There's always going to be some of that, no matter which way the IC goes, but someone less controversial would be ideal for that position.
"In the end I have to admit it's enough for me that Hillary is (please let it be so) finished with politics and will never again have power to sell. In a just world she'd be in prison; but in fairness, Petraeus never landed in prison either, as any little person who did the same thing would have."
I didn't think Hillary committed some form of graft just because I didn't want her in charge, but rather the other way around. At the very least, it deserved a thorough investigation so we'd at least know the people involved (from the bribers to the bribe-ees) aren't above the law.
At least this ought to be pushed until the new DOJ can take a look at it and provide reasons for why they will or won't prosecute. I know there's "prosecutorial discretion" but we should at least see what they weighed.
Hell, it's not like this "magnanimity" is going to win him fans on the left.
Brando said...I don't buy this "move on" crap. It's one thing if we're talking about partisan battling, but if the Clintons committed crimes, letting them go out of "they're nice people" reasoning just makes it seem that once again, the rich and powerful have their own rules.
You're not wrong, but we're working with the constraints of the real world here. The Media can't wait to write the "Republicans overreach" story...geniuses like Once Written are pre-blaming Trump for harming the rule of law (which apparently they care about again--suddenly!) and Trump hasn't even been sworn into office!
What is more important: personally punishing Hillary Clinton or actually upholding the rule of law & restoring trust in government/good government practices both through truth/transparency & by incentivizing correct behavior? Hillary likely deserves prosecution but she will not be prosecuted. That is unjust--others who acted as she did would be and have been prosecuted. Very well--the price of correcting that, of getting justice for Hillary Herself, is too high. What can be done, then? Make her behavior--her actions, her misdeeds, her mismanagement, her lies--public. Grant her immunity or pardon and then make her say, under oath, what she did. She will not testify, but fine--make every person who drew a government paycheck stand before a committee, on the record, and admit what was done. Make them admit it all!
I don't want a show trial. I want the truth. The truth, in this case, is bad enough. Only by making the government accountable--by demonstrating that crimes & misdeeds by government workers and officials will be discovered & publicized to the American people--do we have a chance of preventing such behavior in the future.
Hillary can retire to NY with her millions if she wishes, as long as she does so with her reputation stained by the truth about her actions and misdeeds. That is enough.
Fredder. MEH.
Windfarms often do ruin the view... and they kill millions of birds. So?
- that's a big meh compared to this.
and this and this. and this.
and this.
and this.
and this.
The best for last- from the New York Times:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Once all 3 Clintons are waterboarded, the government will have a lot more information about their crimes to make it a lot easier to prosecute.
While I strongly believe Hillary to be culpable, I also believe it is both benevolent and smart of Trump to let it go. He's got his plan to implement and pursuit of this issue would only divert resources.
Maybe going after the Clintons would be more trouble than it's worth, but it sucks that they really are above the law.
If Trump had lost, Hillary would probably have sicked the dogs on him. He would have been lucky not to wind up disgraced, broke and in jail. The Democrats and the Republicans would have made an example of him to anyone who might think they could go up against the DC establishment.
Let's start with the basics: there isn't another person in the US that could have done what Clinton admitted doing and maintained a top secret security clearance. There isn't another person in the US that could have done what Clinton and her team did and not been prosecuted for obstruction of justice.
The voters had a pretty good idea of what happened and denied her the presidency. Time to close the door on HRC. Good-bye.
Amadeus 48 said...
Let's start with the basics: there isn't another person in the US that could have done what Clinton admitted doing and maintained a top secret security clearance.
Revoking her security clearance is a no-brainer.
"Revoking her security clearance is a no-brainer."
Wait, why do the Clintons still have security clearances anyway? Doesn't your clearance expire when you no longer have a need for it?
The reason I asked is because the incoming administration should propose legislation to prevent officials from influence peddling or -- almost as bad! -- the appearance of influence peddling via an allegedly charitable organization.
"Blogger Bob said...
If the investigation is dropped as soon as you win the election, then you're admitting that it was never anything but political persecution in the first place, and never an actual matter of law or justice."
Worth repeating, and it's the stinking other shoe of this call for accepting lawlessness.
There simply is no good argument beyond feelings. I'm sure the huge American government can do two things at once, reform and follow the law. Wait, that's just one thing.
It has nothing to do with Trump, and never did. Those who started the investigation should finish it. If Chafetz and Gowdy are done, then OK, but it should not be up to Trump. Nobody voted for him in order to get her off. Well maybe she did, but that's just one vote.
I don't believe any of the Clintons currently have security clearances. They certainly have no need-to-know.
"You're not wrong, but we're working with the constraints of the real world here. The Media can't wait to write the "Republicans overreach" story...geniuses like Once Written are pre-blaming Trump for harming the rule of law (which apparently they care about again--suddenly!) and Trump hasn't even been sworn into office!"
Well, that's sort of baked into the cake, but I don't see why this couldn't have been a decision based on the recommendation of the new DOJ--is (say) Sessions provided a report to the president outlining the pros and cons of prosecution, and at that point the president decides it's not worth prosecution and maybe even grants a pardon. I get that we're not always going to have every criminal prosecuted.
I don't want a show trial either--and frankly, if Hillary is somehow innocent (or at least not guilty of anything more than stupidity), or if she's guilty but there's simply not adequate evidence to prosecute her (more likely--I can't imagine an e-mail that specifically says "pay my foundation and we'll get that arms sale cleared"), then it makes sense that that's all there is. It's just not clear that that has been done (Obama's FBI investigation notwithstanding).
Clears decks for Sessions to fire Comey.
Bob said...
If the investigation is dropped as soon as you win the election, then you're admitting that it was never anything but political persecution in the first place, and never an actual matter of law or justice.
"At that instant, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and his sight was restored."
Okay, tinfoil hat time here....
Just suppose that Trump knows things about the state of Hillary Clinton's health that we, the general public, don't know. He knows about what really caused that collapse on 9/11. He also may know that HRC took her loss hard, really hard. As in "she's now suicidal" hard.
Trump knows both of the Clintons personally. Ivanka is (was?) good friends with Chelsea. If Bill called Donald & and asked him, in memory of friendlier days & from president to president, to lay off Hillary, don't you think Trump would do it? I do.
"If Chafetz and Gowdy are done, then OK, but it should not be up to Trump. Nobody voted for him in order to get her off. Well maybe she did, but that's just one vote."
This shouldn't have any effect on Congress continuing its investigation though. But the White House has more prosecutorial resources than Congress.
Trump should offer her a pardon, but not for free. The condition would be that she donate all money received from foreign governments or individuals while she was SoS to the US Treasury.
If O pardons her before he leaves, then the investigation continues.
Brando said...
"Revoking her security clearance is a no-brainer."
Wait, why do the Clintons still have security clearances anyway? Doesn't your clearance expire when you no longer have a need for it?
I think most ex-Presidents still have clearances (writing memoirs, being special envoys, courtesy, etc) , and as do most ex-SECDEF's and SECStates.
The theory is that their successor may need to reach out and ask for help.
The minions like Huma? No F'ing way she or Mills should have a clearance now.
Trump should issue a Comey pardon: lay out the facts of law-breaking and corruption, by Clinton and her cronies, including the foundation pay to play scheme, then magnanimously forgive her for the sake of the country and being nice to old ladies.
Hillary herself is now a moot point. She fades into irrelevance even as we speak.....There are no huge speaking fees in store for her or for her family. The Clinton Foundation will not be receiving any large donations from foreign governments or hedge fund managers. This is not a punishment to fit the crime, but it's something. I think the Clintons will find irrelevance more discomfiting than prosecution, Prosecution affords the possibility of martyrdom, and that's how they and the media would portray it. Joan of Arc, Sojourner Truth, Hillary Clinton. A woman for all seasons.........I wouldn't like to see Hillary in jail, nor would I like to see her posturing heroically before some Congressional committee. Let it go. She got away with it, again.
I'd like to see a bar graph showing the numbers of speeches and dollar amounts the Clinton Inc garnered between 2005 and 2020. In fact a quick check already shows it dropped 37% in 2015 alone.
What about the children?
Freder Frederson:
Trump is still a private citizen, Freder.
That is splitting hairs.
What part of "transition" is confusing you Freder? We only have one president at a time. I know we all wish Obama was gone already, but he is still president. Give private citizen (and POTUS-elect) Trump some time to transit from the most complicated international company any president has run to the job of CinC. That's what the time between election and inauguration is for, Man.
readering said...
Clears decks for Sessions to fire Comey.
FWIW, Comey is a Presidential appointee. Only POTUS can fire him. Though Trump should do a Brimley (aka the end of Absence of Malice):
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Now we'll talk all day if you want to. But, come sundown, there's gonna be two things true that ain't true now. One is that the United States Department of Justice is goin' to know what in the good Christ - e'scuse me, Angie - is goin' on around here. And the other's I'm gonna have somebody's ass in muh briefcase.
-------
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: What'd you figure you'd do after government service, Elliott?
Elliott Rosen: I'm not quitting.
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: You ain't no Presidential appointee, Elliott. One that hired you is me. You got thirty days.
Doesn't your clearance expire when you no longer have a need for it?
No. They expire after a certain length of time (dependent on the security level) if they aren't maintained, and presumably they wouldn't be if she had no job requiring it. But revoking is different. It creates a substantive item on the record which must be overcome to award a new clearance. If it's simply allowed to expire if she applies for reinstatement she can claim none of this was a problem and her political cronies will run interference. If it's revoked for mishandling classified information she'll never get it reinstated.
If you listen closely you can hear the wailing and rending of garments over at AprilApple's house. Avert your eyes my fellow man, for if you cannot you will never expunge your witness of the human suffering this news has wrought.
"No. They expire after a certain length of time (dependent on the security level) if they aren't maintained, and presumably they wouldn't be if she had no job requiring it."
Right--and if you no longer have a need, it doesn't get renewed. Not sure why ex-presidents or ex Secretaries of State need them.
If the news Hillary won't get locked up brings you down, just click your heels three times and repeat, "Hillary will never be President."
And remember, in Arkansas, half the campus of the Clinton Presidential Library will remain a vacant lot.
When the rebels blew up the Death Star, Darth Vadar got away, but it was still a great victory and a happy ending to that episode.
Sebastian said...Trump should issue a Comey pardon: lay out the facts of law-breaking and corruption, by Clinton and her cronies, including the foundation pay to play scheme, then magnanimously forgive her for the sake of the country and being nice to old ladies.
Yes, Sebastian, that is the right idea--but make sure what is given is a FULL accounting, not just of Clinton but of all the involved government employees. Everyone.
AReasonableMan said..."At that instant, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and his sight was restored."
So if I understand the theory, ARM, it's that Trump and Trump's people in government led a political persecution of poor innocent Hillary Clinton for several years? Is that the theory? Trump, who has never held office and who is widely disliked by the "establishment GOP", orchestrated fake inquiries, helped manufacture evidence (evidence including facts to which Hillary Clinton Herself has been made to admit), and somehow pressured the FBI into believing that Clinton and her department acted inappropriately. Is that it? It was all a sham, no actual wrongdoing occurred--there really was nothing to see there? Despite the facts we know, despite the plain actions of the people involved to hide evidence and thwart an investigation (one might say "obstruct justice..."), despite the admission of even many on the Left that the repeated and changing excuses of Hillary Herself do not hold up...despite all of that you truly believe there was nothing to any of it?
Honestly, do the people who are routinely prosecuted for mishandling classified material just not exist in your world?
"I think most ex-Presidents still have clearances (writing memoirs, being special envoys, courtesy, etc) , and as do most ex-SECDEF's and SECStates."
That makes sense, though in such cases I don't see why they can't do something more temporary and ad hoc. Of course I'm also of the quaint notion that a First Lady shouldn't have a staff, budget and offices, as it's not a real job.
He can get at her, without seemingly getting at her, by making sure the DOJ and the IRS go hammer-and-tong at the Clinton Foundation.
BTW, the CF is running a Black Friday Sale. All regurgitated speeches will be delivered at 97% off list price. Further discounts for all-seniors events.
bagoh20 said...It has nothing to do with Trump, and never did.
--
Well..when he explicitly and passionately vowed to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her, he kinda made it about him.
Law and order prez opts for latter.
ARM - Explain to the class why you think Hillary is innocent.
Brando said...
"No. They expire after a certain length of time (dependent on the security level) if they aren't maintained, and presumably they wouldn't be if she had no job requiring it."
Right--and if you no longer have a need, it doesn't get renewed.
Not being renewed is not the same as being revoked. Expired clearances can easily be reinstated with a quickie background check. A revocation precludes that possibility.
YoungHegelian offers up a plausible outline. I doubt that Hillary!! is suicidal, however, given that she's been around politics her whole life and has seen elections come and go. It's part of the game.
I would like the IRS to go after the Clinton Global Initiative however. The reason? Haiti, for starters.
Sorry Ann but apples and oranges. Just because some think that Hillary has successfully run out the clock does not mean she should be giving a pass.
Please tell me what "crimes" Bush was accused of committing? I don't mean "lefty wet-dream" stuff but actual crimes. No "lied us into war" and no "war crimes" crap. Real stuff because I don't recall anything with "teeth". Unlike Hillary who stands credibly accused of selling government influence, mishandling classified information, committed perjury to cover it up, and setting up a private email server to avoid FOIA as well as enable all of the prior. Allowing that to slide is bad, bad, bad.
The Clintons already got their pass when they last left the WH. Recall all of the WH property they absconded with and when caught were permitted to make partial restitution? That was OUR property they stole. They should have been in jail then.
Whats interesting is Breitbarts web page now.
"Broken Promise...."
HoodlumDoodlum said...
Honestly, do the people who are routinely prosecuted for mishandling classified material just not exist in your world?
Shouldn't this question be directed at President-elect Pussy Grabber rather than myself?
ARM - read 9:51 - and give us all your high and mighty answer.
He needs to prosecute the assorted agencies, though, viciously. The IRS thumbed their noses at subpoenas. That cannot be permitted.
There was never any crimes in the first place.
Plenty have gone to jail for far less. Continuing to lie only harms your cred...oh wait, that ship already sailed.
It is a real sign of how the rule of law has declined under Trump that he, and he alone, gets to decide whether the Clintons will be prosecuted.
Thanks Obama.
Geez.. I was told by all of the right people that trump was a fascist totolitarian who would imprison all gays, blacks, hispanics, gay and corrupt politicians.
Golly gee, what am I to believe? Reality or democrats with bylines??
No ARM- answer the question. You can't.
Rick said...
Doesn't your clearance expire when you no longer have a need for it?
No. They expire after a certain length of time (dependent on the security level) if they aren't maintained, and presumably they wouldn't be if she had no job requiring it. But revoking is different. It creates a substantive item on the record which must be overcome to award a new clearance. If it's simply allowed to expire if she applies for reinstatement she can claim none of this was a problem and her political cronies will run interference. If it's revoked for mishandling classified information she'll never get it reinstated.
To expand: 4 terms
1. "Investigation" the sort of info that HRC requires an security reinvestigation every 5 years and then an Adjudication by an agency (State in this case) to grant a clearance. The adjudication phase is where previous revocation of a clearance would be a problem
2. "Clearance" Granted by an agency, when combined with "need to know", and "indoc" (e.g. Inbriefing) allows access to classified info
3. "Need to know" Just because you hold a clearance from some agency for some purpose absolutely does not give you access to other info for which you have no legitimate purpose
4. "Debriefing" Upon departure from a job needing access, you are debriefed, and swear that you have turned over all your info, etc, etc, etc, etc
AReasonableMan said...Shouldn't this question be directed at President-elect Pussy Grabber rather than myself?
I don't care about Trump's answer. Whatever decision he makes, for whatever reason, does not change my belief about the facts and about what the correct action should be. My idea of justice does not depend in any way on Donald Trump's personal choices, ARM. The truth, to me, as I know and understand it, is wholly apart from some opinion Donald Trump might express.
I wasn't asking Trump. I am asking you.
This is for public consumption. The reality, though, is that the foundation will be investigated. Trump won't stop that- that much I can guarantee.
The Justice Dept. can prosecute.
Congressional investigators cannot. They are about Congressional oversight and recommending legislation to prevent future mistakes and misdeeds similar to those alleged to have taken place in the past.
There is a difference that should be noted between the Bush and Obama situations.
The Bush administration did not hamstring the DOJ to quash of the Plame allegations while in office, as clearly Obama has done throughout his administration in several matters.
Oh, the Clintons have not been through nearly enough. But I never expected a Trump administration to pursue a criminal investigation on the email thing no matter how many times Trump led the crowd in the Crooked Hillary Lock Her Up chant. And I guess it's high time Trump supporters started to get a feel for the kind of red meat bull hockey the campaign was slinging for their benefit and understand for once and all that laws really are for little people like them.
Of course, Congress will do what Congress will do. And I presume the investigations into the Clinton Foundation already in progress will continue.
What kind of criminal charges might the Obama administration have pursued against George W. Bush?
LOL ARM- Your corrupt gal lost. SHE LOST. I know that makes you sads.
There are dozens of service members in jail now for far less than she did.
Letting her go just shows that wealthy powerful people are treated better than the plebes. If the government doesn't do the right thing then the people will be forced to do the wrong thing.
AprilApple said...
ARM - Explain
One explanation is that Trump's candidacy was just part of an elaborate plot devised by the Clintons to clear them of all wrong doing by elevating all and every charge against them to the point of farcical absurdity, thus rendering every charge impotent and politically motivated. If true, you are now fully vindicated in your deepest suspicions of the purpose and motives behind Trump's candidacy. Alternatively, you just got played. Hard call.
Blogger AReasonableMan said...
HoodlumDoodlum said...
Honestly, do the people who are routinely prosecuted for mishandling classified material just not exist in your world?
Shouldn't this question be directed at President-elect Pussy Grabber rather than myself?
No you piece of garbage. I have seen people investigated and thrown in jail. You support different rules for powerful democrats. All of the leftists here are arguing for treating Hillary like royalty. It is disgusting.
ARM - Stall.
What is YOUR opinion of Hillary's guilt or innocence? Still waiting.
ARM - Are you going to answer Hoodlumdoodlum?
Still waiting.
ARM laughs at the rule of law. Laws are for little people. Progressives don't give a rat's behind about laws when their criminals have the correct political affiliation.
Achilles said...
No you piece of garbage.
Shouldn't this anger be directed at President-elect Pussy Grabber rather than myself?
and no "war crimes" crap.
What, don't you believe war crimes are "real crimes"? You might want tell Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Alfred Jodl, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Wilhelm Keitel, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Alfred Rosenberg, Fritz Sauckel, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, and Julius Streicher (and Herman Goering, but he escaped the noose by committing suicide).
Red State said ...
Trump won’t investigate Hillary Clinton. There will be no “lock her up” moment, unless she does something completely new.
For those who kept clear eyes throughout the election season, this is not a shock. It’s one of those “I told you so,” moments.
To say that Trump will break a minimum of 75% of his campaign promises would be a very conservative estimate.
That’s not to say other candidates don’t break their promises. They do, but this is a situation where we can almost guarantee that it’s not just logistics that will lead to the broken promises, but the very real fact that the candidate is not who he claimed to be.
btw - I will own up to the fact that I thought Trump's run was a joke and they he was in it to throw it to his old elbow rubbing pals - the Clintons. So?
Certainly, with this new revelation, it could be Trump is throwing his old pals a bone. And yes - if that is the case it's bullshit.
Progressive response: "LOL! We love you Hillary!" We knew Trump was a fraud, or something."
***Predictable.
ARM - got anything original?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-clinton-investigation-kellyanne-conway-231735
"Breitbart News, the alt-right news organization seen as an arm of the Trump campaign, headlined the lead story on its home page “BROKEN PROMISE.”
Looks like they already changed their headline, LOL! With a little pressure from Trump?
The idea that Trump can "lock her up" is ridiculous. Trump can let the FBI and the DOJ ( a real DOJ) do their job. The investigation into the Clinton Foundation /fake charity -- should continue.
"Not being renewed is not the same as being revoked. Expired clearances can easily be reinstated with a quickie background check. A revocation precludes that possibility."
Oh I know--I just was wondering why they still had them in the first place. But considering the circumstances they should certainly be revoked at this point--it's pretty clear they have at least been negligent with classified information. Lower level government employees get in serious trouble for less.
Freder Frederson said...
and no "war crimes" crap.
What, don't you believe war crimes are "real crimes"? You might want tell Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Alfred Jodl, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Wilhelm Keitel, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Alfred Rosenberg, Fritz Sauckel, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, and Julius Streicher (and Herman Goering, but he escaped the noose by committing suicide).
11/22/16, 10:29 AM
Way to miss the point. I said I did not think that Bush was guilty of war crimes, unlike the left that could not shut up about it. I never said there was no such thing.
The "dense" is strong in this one...
"The idea that Trump can "lock her up" is ridiculous. Trump can let the FBI and the DOJ ( a real DOJ) do their job. The investigation into the Clinton Foundation /fake charity -- should continue."
Right--he shouldn't be promising "I'll put her in jail" any more than he should be letting her off. The whole situation justifies a thorough, nonpartisan investigation and if there's evidence of guilt, prosecute.
If they're going to back off from this, at least present your reasoning (and why this reasoning wasn't present during the campaign when it seemed they'd be going after her).
And if personal friendship has any effect on this, that's appalling. That's perhaps the worst reason not to prosecute!
Brando said...
it's pretty clear they have at least been negligent with classified information. Lower level government employees get in serious trouble for less.
and all those LL employees in this set of crimes should lose their clearances as well. "to encourage the others" to do their jobs...
Speculative comment from CTH -- what if Trump announced this so that Obama won't pardon her. A trap would be nice!
ARM is really losing his shit over this! Here's your safety pin, bro.
LOL!
"The idea that Trump can "lock her up" is ridiculous. Trump can let the FBI and the DOJ ( a real DOJ) do their job. The investigation into the Clinton Foundation /fake charity -- should continue."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-foundation-irs-charitable-funds-self-dealing-231743
"Donald Trump’s foundation has acknowledged violating a prohibition against using charitable funds to benefit the leaders of the organization or their family members, a practice known as “self-dealing.”
In the charity’s latest report to the IRS, posted online late Monday, the Donald J. Trump Foundation indicates that it transferred income or assets to someone it wasn’t allowed to, such as Trump or a person or an organization close to him, in 2015 and previous years."
There was never any crimes in the first place. As has been true for twenty years, Hillary Clinton was smeared.
You are easily the most smug troll to ever invade the threads here, along with being the most stupid. That's quite an accomplishment.
If you have any evidence whatsoever that she was "smeared", present it. Tool.
Brando - 11:03 Exactly.
and - "They are good people" is not good reasoning.
LOL -IngaUnthink
From your link:
The Post revealed a drop-off in Trump’s own contributions to the foundation since 2007. In 2015, the charity received $566,370 from the Trump Corporation and $50,000 from another company at the same address (Trump Tower) called Trump Productions, according to the IRS filing.
The biggest gift, $150,000, came from the London office of the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, the charity of a Ukrainian businessman who has also given to the Clinton Global Initiative and the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. The New York Real Estate Institute gave $10,000, and a man in Mount Vernon, New York, named Lawrence Roman gave $5,000, according to the filing.
Small potatoes compared to the Clintons.
"and - "They are good people" is not good reasoning."
Or even believable after the "nasty woman" comment. "Good people"? There may be good reasons not to prosecute, but hell, even if they WERE good people (highly doubtful!) since when was that enough reason to overcome evidence of wrongdoing?
Next Step for ARM and Inga
Let's start with the basics: there isn't another person in the US that could have done what Clinton admitted doing and maintained a top secret security clearance. There isn't another person in the US that could have done what Clinton and her team did and not been prosecuted for obstruction of justice.
The voters had a pretty good idea of what happened and denied her the presidency. Time to close the door on HRC. Good-bye.
Agree 100%. And, add that few in this country could have done what Crooked Hillary and her minions did, and not gone to prison. The leftists here claim that she did nothing criminal. BS. Dir. Comey laid out sufficient facts to convict her of multiple counts under the Espionage Act, and then told us that they couldn't prove specific intent - despite the legal standard being gross negligence, and not specific intent. The FBI couldn't get convictions because the DoJ had been subverted by Obama, Holder, and Lynch. They weren't going to find a US Atty (all appointed by Obama) to honestly try the case, and were unlikely to find lower level attorneys to do their job prosecuting her (esp after 8 years of litmus test hiring of attys in the Dept.) The fix was in, as was obvious, when a close (Clinton campaign manager) Podesta friend in the DoJ was put in charge of the Clinton public corruption investigation (and it was run out of Lynch's old EDNY district, where she had hired many of the attys). It is just plain silly to claim, with all the evidence available, that no crimes were committed. Silly, but not unexpected from our resident leftists here.
That said, I agree with letting the investigations die. If they continued, we would find ourselves in a situation where winning the Presidency meant prosecuting your opponents criminally was acceptable, and, thus, would start to be used the next time that a Dem was elected. And, indeed, I thought for awhile that the only way that Crooked Hillary could evade prison was for her to win election. Not where we need to be going.
Could this be a head fake to forestall an Obama pardon until Trump actually takes office?
Ask yourself this - why did AG Lynch put close Podesta friend, Asst AG Peter Kadzik, in charge of the Clinton public corruption investigation? This was the furthest thing that she could have done to avoid the appearance of impropriety. It stank to high heaven. Yet, it was done publicly. And, after meeting personally with Crooked Hillary's husband (who was also implicated in the public corruption investigation of their family foundation). Every attorney in the country should have screamed about the ethical problems there. Lynch shouldn't have ethically put Kadzik in that position, Kadzik shouldn't have ethically taken the assignment, and Lynch shouldn't have ethically met with Bill Clinton personally. Yet, it was so brazen, and no one on the left blinked. As I said above - I think that it was signally that the fix was in by the Obama Administration, and nothing we could do about it.
Obama is going to pardon Hillary and her aides. This shitshow happened under him and he hates Hillary.
Speaking of which, is that FireDogLake train wreck still going, or did it fade away?
He won't prosecute Crooked Hilary but did he say he won't go after others, like Huma? Podesta? The server guy?
Get them on the stand and let them sing to get leniency.
Still no need to prosecute Crooked Hilary. Just let them live in ignominy.
John HEnry
"That said, I agree with letting the investigations die. If they continued, we would find ourselves in a situation where winning the Presidency meant prosecuting your opponents criminally was acceptable, and, thus, would start to be used the next time that a Dem was elected."
I get your argument about not prosecuting political opponents--and certainly if there was no "there there"--that is, if this was just BS and the only prosecution would be to harass her on a trumped up charge--I'd agree that it would be an appalling precedent. Banana republic crap, even. And if on reflection Trump's DOJ found that there was no evidence of criminality on her part, or if the evidence they found was thin enough that a prosecution would be unwise even if this was not Clinton we're talking about, I'd be fine with not prosecuting.
But if a political opponent was found to actually be guilty of crimes, should we just overlook it simply because we don't want to look partisan?
The DOJ would lose the case, just as they did with Ted Stevens, John Edwards, and Bob McDonnell (and Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens). Without overwhelming evidence, good defense lawyers kick their ass.
CWJ... Yes. Lull them to sleep with "He has no interest in pursuing her, punishing her..."
Then when Obama is gone, without having pardoned her, the DOJ drops the hammer with indictments of all the same people over the Clinton Foundation scheme.
Any Obama pardon would not be limited to "emails" so the pardon puts everything out of reach. No one really wants to continue pursuing the email thing (it looks too political, seems like more campaigning, and would be difficult to convict now that Comey poisoned the well). Though she's guilty as hell and there's no reasonable denial of that fact. Just ask Christian Saucier.
But the Foundation? Yes, that shit needs to be investigated and prosecuted.
Very distinguishable situations. The Bush era CIA people relied in good faith on the legal guidance they received from Justice Department officials who okayed waterboarding and other techniques. Prosecuting them for doing what they believed to be legal and necessary to defend America would've destroyed morale. How is that even remotely similar to what Hillary did?
Hillary shouldn't be immune from prosecution simply because she rigged the primary against Bernie. This isn't a matter of Trump acting like a Third World despot and jailing a political opponent just because. There are real and serious issues about how the Clintons have conducted their business affairs and possibly sold influence since Bill left office.
"The Administration" shouldn't be pursuing any criminal investigations at all. The FBI and DoJ do that.
Kellyanne Conway has no business ruling out any (further) criminal investigation of the Clintons. Just like Trump had no business saying that Mrs. Clinton "should be in jail."
When do the layers of stupidity end, with all things Trump? I'd be happy to see Mrs. Clinton indicted; but only if the DoJ had a solid case. I don't want to see her indicted because Trump hates her. And I don't want to see Mrs. Clinton avoid prosecution simply because Kellyanne Conway thinks the politics might not be just right.
“We’re going to keep after this until we get to the truth,” Chaffetz told Fox News. “We don’t have it yet.”
Yes, we do have the truth – which is that the Clintons sold influence. They are crooks. However, I do not believe it would be good for the nation’s collective psyche to have “show trials” after elections. It would set a very harmful precedent.
Curious what Trump fans think of this. Would they seriously agree that they need to move on from this?
Let the Clintons languor in the luxury of their ill-gotten wealth. Allow Trump to be magnanimous in victory. Allow the nation to heal. But no security clearances ever again for the Clintons or anyone in their posse.
There was never any crimes in the first place. As has been true for twenty years, Hillary Clinton was smeared.
True. Hillary was smeared with her own excrement. Figuratively, of course.
Maybe there was a plea deal: Trump agrees not to prosecute and HRC agrees not to suborn the Electoral College.
"Let the Clintons languor in the luxury of their ill-gotten wealth."
I really don't understand how that's something we'd want if she is in fact guilty. At least let the new DOJ make that determination.
Hell, I'm still bitter over the Marc Rich pardon and think this "professional courtesy" of letting things drop is crazy. Not if real wrongs were committed.
Chuck said...
"The Administration" shouldn't be pursuing any criminal investigations at all. The FBI and DoJ do that.
Kellyanne Conway has no business ruling out any (further) criminal investigation of the Clintons. Just like Trump had no business saying that Mrs. Clinton "should be in jail."
When do the layers of stupidity end, with all things Trump? I'd be happy to see Mrs. Clinton indicted; but only if the DoJ had a solid case. I don't want to see her indicted because Trump hates her. And I don't want to see Mrs. Clinton avoid prosecution simply because Kellyanne Conway thinks the politics might not be just right.
Obama turned the DOJ into a political arm of his presidency. Everything you said is 100% right except that the DOJ isn't a part of the administration. It is now for worse or more worse.
Prosecuted she becomes a martyr to the Democrats. Leaving her alone with her pervert husband to always wonder what might have been. Blaming her subordinates for her failures. humiliated. Calls never returned. Requests ignored. Her political career over forever.
No.
This is an appropriate end.
"Prosecuted she becomes a martyr to the Democrats."
She's already going to be a martyr to them, who think she's another Al Gore, who would have won if it weren't for a BS scandal over "emails".
If a thorough investigation actually uncovers evidence for prosecution, suddenly it becomes harder to deny that this was actually a big deal (sure, her die hards will still deny the reality, but that's a small minority). Most importantly, it's a signal to the country that being powerful and connected shouldn't insulate you from the law.
And if they decide based on a review that they don't have enough reason to prosecute, fine, release that. At least it'll look like there was better reason to not prosecute than "I want to be nice to the Clintons".
I agree with Rusty.
Let's not make the Clintons relevant again. They live for the battle. Let's ignore them and leave them to lead miserable, irrelevant lives.
Karma will take care of the Clintons--as it already appears to be doing.
Help her heal!
Help her heal!
Help her heal!
It certainly isn't as catchy as:
Lock her up!
Lock her up!
Lock her up!
As a moderate, I want to assure everyone here that I would also like to be part of the healing process. I am here to help anyone struggling to understand what just happened - YOU GOT PLAYED! It's not complex, but I understand that it can be emotionally wrenching when it finally dawns on you.
"Moderate" is a qualifier, ARM. It means nothing.
You voted for her. You're really a coward.
AprilApple said...
You voted for her.
If you had even a vague clue about what goes on this world you would know that a) this is not true and b) YOU GOT PLAYED!
AReasonableMan said...
YOU GOT PLAYED!
11/22/16, 2:49 PM
Depends on your definition of "played". If you buy a $500 million dollar lotto ticket for $1 from someone that swears "its a winner!" and you only win $50,000, did you really get played?
The country managed to dodge the bullet named "Hillary". Unless Trump starts WW-III with all nukes flying AND God decides enough is enough and literally starts Armageddon on that same day, I'm calling this a win.
Trump has the "potential" to be awful. Hillary is proven to be. I'll take my chances with Trump thank you.
We shall see, ARM. You seem really happy that your gal-pal might get away with all that corruption.
You voted for her. No matter how Clintonian you lie, I'm certain you voted for her.
one more thing ARM - HILLARY FUCKING LOST! HAHAHAHAHAAA
AprilApple said...
I'm certain you voted for her.
Just as you spent the last year believing that Trump was a front for the Clintons. Your record for having a clue is inversely proportional to your ability to hate.
YOU GOT PLAYED!
Poor ARM -- left with nothing but cheap sloganeering. I wonder what he'll say next Spring if the DoJ finds something in the Clinton Crime Foundation that merits a different tack on prosecution. Don't get cocky, kid.
"You voted for her. No matter how Clintonian you lie, I'm certain you voted for her."
Wasn't ARM backing Trump at some point this year? When did that change?
"YOU GOT PLAYED!"
How did AprilApple get played? Based on her posts it sounds like she couldn't trust or stand either Trump or Clinton. Whoever she voted for (probably Trump) I doubt it was with any trust in them.
AReasonableMan said...
YOU GOT PLAYED!
Five minutes ago the left claimed to believe a vote for Trump was a vote for the far-right, but somehow in this five minutes it means the exact opposite. Do moderates internalize the most extreme positions of their party to the point of believing contradictory positions - so long as they both support criticism of the enemy?
I got played? Don't you mean we all got played?
You seem happy that we all got played! Go Hillary! oh wait? today she is still a loser.
Poor ARM. :-(
ARM - still waiting for you to asnwer a few questions posted to you:
1) Do you think Hillary is innocent?
2) So if I understand the theory, ARM, it's that Trump and Trump's people in government led a political persecution of poor innocent Hillary Clinton for several years? Is that the theory? Trump, who has never held office and who is widely disliked by the "establishment GOP", orchestrated fake inquiries, helped manufacture evidence (evidence including facts to which Hillary Clinton Herself has been made to admit), and somehow pressured the FBI into believing that Clinton and her department acted inappropriately. Is that it? It was all a sham, no actual wrongdoing occurred--there really was nothing to see there? Despite the facts we know, despite the plain actions of the people involved to hide evidence and thwart an investigation (one might say "obstruct justice..."), despite the admission of even many on the Left that the repeated and changing excuses of Hillary Herself do not hold up...despite all of that you truly believe there was nothing to any of it?
Honestly, do the people who are routinely prosecuted for mishandling classified material just not exist in your world?
Thank you, Brando
How did AprilApple get played? Based on her posts it sounds like she couldn't trust or stand either Trump or Clinton. Whoever she voted for (probably Trump) I doubt it was with any trust in them.
More questions ARM cannot answer.
I GOT PLAYED!
Brando said...
When did that change?
It didn't, but it wasn't a great set of choices. I could not be happier that the Clintons have gone and would have been perfectly happy to see them plagued with legal problems for the rest of their natural lives, if there had been any there there. As the Bob McDonnell case showed, it is apparently now impossible for a US politician to be declared legally corrupt. We are now officially a banana republic. Trump's ascension, with his mixing of business and politics, makes that clear to the rest of the world.
How did AprilApple get played?
Her sole motivation is hatred of the other side. This is some dumb shit, whether it is on the left or the right. The country has problems. Idiots like AprilApple make it harder to fix them. Hatred makes it easier for con artists to manipulate people. In April's case she genuinely believed the Lock her up bullshit. Sad.
AReasonableMan said...
11/22/16, 3:32 PM
Projection much? I don't think many of us had any illusions about Trump. Many of us, myself included were "Never Hillary" people. Not because we personally found her vile but because the office of the President deserves better than that lying, conniving, treasonous woman. I am just glad I did not have to crawl over broken glass (huge relief there) though I would have if it came to that. For me, Trump's greatest appeal was that he was not Hillary AND he drove (drives?) the left MAD! A two-fer...
According to the New York Times, Trump this afternoon said that he had not taken a Clinton investigation off the table.
ARM hardest hit.
Fabi, why would you trust the NYT? They have scuttled their own credibility.
I don't trust them at all, mockturtle -- they are contradicting each other on this very story. It's fun to watch them struggle without their usual spoonfed memes. I'd assess that no one knows for sure what he will do about Hillary at this moment. Certainly not ARM!
And now he says "hey maybe there is something to this global warming thing."
You all must be feeling really stupid about now.
Sorry, Fabi! I thought you were quoting them as a genuine news source. ;-)
Fabi said...
According to the New York Times, Trump this afternoon said that he had not taken a Clinton investigation off the table.
ARM hardest hit.
The problem isn't with any possible investigation of the Clintons. And there's no problem, for me, with investigating and charging the Clintons.
The problem is with Trump. And his surrogates. Talking about criminal charges as if they were picking new sites for a golf course, or locations to manufacture neckties. That ain't how it works. Talking about it, in Trump terms, is the stupidity. And the more Trump talks, the stupider it gets. It's always that way. For Trump to declare that he wished to do no harm to the Clintons, with whom he might be friendly outside of the campaign, is mind-numbingly stupid.
Trump is a public relations savant, and a legal nightmare. So he's gotten into civil fraud problems with Trump University, tax code violations with the Trump Foundation; his civil depositions are a complete trainwreck; he's got a long an laughable record in defamation litigation; he's promised lawsuits against the women who accused him of sexual harassment, a promise he'll never keep; he's got secret tax returns, and now he's got massive conflict of interest problems which might be federal legal problems in a matter of weeks. All of that, is probably just the tip of the iceberg. And with iceberg imagery, Trump is arguably the Titanic.
Sucked into the swamp. The swamp always wins, that's why it is the swamp.
"And now he says "hey maybe there is something to this global warming thing."
You all must be feeling really stupid about now."
Hahahahahahah! What a day!
Hahahahahahah!
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-visit.html
"The president-elect’s turnabout on the need for torture as a tool in the fight against terrorism, which he repeatedly endorsed during the campaign, was remarkable. Mr. Trump suggested he has changed his mind about the usefulness of waterboarding and other forms of torture after talking with James N. Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general, who headed the United States Central Command.
“He said, ‘I’ve never found it to be useful,’” Mr. Trump said, describing the general’s view of torturing terrorism suspects. He added that Mr. Mattis found more value in building trust and rewarding cooperation with terror suspects: “‘Give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I’ll do better.’” He added: “I was very impressed by that answer.’’
Torture, Mr. Trump said, is “not going to make the kind of a difference that a lot of people are thinking.”"
You morons still don;t get it. You think you're making points.
Let me explain it to you again.
Let it sink in.
It really doesn't matter what Trump says or does.
Hillary isn't President.
Get it?
The whole elevtion was to keep the Clintons out of the White House.
Mission accomplished.
Now go protest something.
Many of us, myself included were "Never Hillary" people. Not because we personally found her vile but because the office of the President deserves better than that lying, conniving, treasonous woman.
Some of us did find her vile, besides being that lying, conniving, treasonous woman.
Rusty, you are too stupid to respond to but here goes anyway. It matters, it most defintily matters that the person you voted for you own. You own the disaster that calls himself Trump. You can't distance yourself from him now. Get it dummy? You own whatever Trump does to this country, it's your fault, you voted for him.
I don't like the victor in an election using his new power against the person he defeated.
@Althouse, are there any other things you don't much like? Perhaps we can call a Constitutional Convention and update that document appropriately.
Ne pas nourrir le troll!
Unknown @ 6:18
You know. Reading comprhension isn't your long suit. I said I voted for him right? I said it really doesn't matter what he says or does, right?
You lost.
You're a loser.
Your ideas are bankrupt. They don't matter anymore.
And your virtue signalling reeks of hypocricy.
So goodby and have a nice life. Try not to grind your teeth. It leads to very expensive dentist bills.
And Oh by the way.
In the last week the DOW has made me enought pay off my daughters last two semesters.
Cheers.
I, too, am worried about the the appearance of the "tinpot dictator" who locks up his political opponent after an election being used to undermine the legitimacy of any president. However, I thought an interesting approach might be to have the President pardon both former Secretary Clinton and former President Clinton for any crimes that may have been committed in their roles as Secretary of State or as part of any alleged influence peddling at the intersection of the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. The the Congress and the DOJ then could investigate to their heart's content. Both Clintons would have immunity and could not invoke the 5th Amendment if a troublesome question arose. This would allow an explicit understanding of how our security was compromised (so it could never happen in this way again) and how access to government may have been peddled (so it could never happen this way again). Both of these investigations are within the Congresses' legitimate investigatory powers. An added benefit would be a very thorough investigation without any ability to claim the 5th Amendment, or arguably Executive Privilege, since it doesn't apply to criminal activity. An added, added bonus is that a failure to answer questions would then be contempt. Thus, a judge could order an incarceration and it would be neither Congress nor an alleged tinpot dictator putting a political opponent in jail, with the responsibility falling solely on the person who just won't answer a question.
Rusty, maybe this blog is too cerebral for you. Go work in your garage. That's more your speed.
Sez Charles Krauthammer:
That Trump crashed because of a sex-talk tape is odd. It should have been a surprise to no one. His views on women have been on open display for years. And he’d offered a dazzling array of other reasons for disqualification: habitual mendacity, pathological narcissism, profound ignorance, and an astonishing dearth of basic human empathy. To which list Trump added in the second debate, and it had nothing to do with sex. It was his threat, if elected, to put Hillary Clinton in jail. After appointing a special prosecutor, of course. The niceties must be observed. First, a fair trial, then a proper hanging. The day after the debate, at a rally in Pennsylvania, Trump responded to chants of “Lock her up” with “Lock her up is right.” Two days later, he told a rally in Lakeland, Fla., “She has to go to jail.”
Now she is no longer real in his solipsistic little mind.
Priorities require a pragmatic outlook. The principal issues are progressive wars, emigration reform, economic lethargy, domestic ghettos, unaffordable medical care, and "green" energy production.
And perhaps we could end the baby trials, and Planned Parenthood, which have been a blight on civilized society.
1. No prosecution of Clinton
2. No wall
3. No deportation force
4. Will not repeal Obamacare
5. Now believes in global warming due to human activity
6. No torture
7. Disavows alt right
8. Says Presidents are above conflict of interest laws
9. Fights twitter war with cast of Hamilton
You people voted for this doofus.
" 1. No wall.
2. No deportation force.
3. Will not repeal Obamacare
4. Now believes in global warming due to human activity
5. No torture.
6. Disavows alt right
7. Says Presidents are above conflict of interest laws.
8. Fights twitter war with cast of Hamilton"
And no Hillary! Mission accomplished.
As Althouse noted, it really isn't cricket to prosecute your election opponent in America. But you'd have to be one seriously deluded Democrat to think Trump won't use Hillary's crimes as a cudgel to beat her allies and enablers with. I'd also bet that the Clinton's will keep remarkably quiet during Trump's Presidency.
Don't forget, no prosecution of Hillary.
Post a Comment