No news here - just more routine Clinton corruption

T

TreeFrogTrader

Time for Jeff Sessions to go. We don't need eight more years of not-looking at clinton corruption.

And yes, I know that Jeff is a good old boy - a fixture that cannot be moved out without pissing everyone everywhere off.

Move him out. Or he could go the other route, and start going on the offensive with the Clintons. Either way, get your fingers out of your arse and get going. He has no problem appointing a special counsel to take trump down but won't appoint a special counsel to look at the Clinton ATM Machine Foundation/State Department connection.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ment-exposed-in-new-emails-watchdog-says.html
 
I think Trump could get his new pals Chuck and Nancy to go along with shitcanning Sessions. Appoint Christie to AG and Sheriff Joe to run Homeland Security.

This administration is all about the entertainment value and I can virtually guarantee those appointments would cause exploding heads.

Sessions gave up his Senate seat, which for a politician is like tossing your favorite kid into a volcano, so people will feel for him. If he was a liberal, some big law firm or company would hire him at $10 mill a year to help him get over it. Of course that is never happening with a conservative. Maybe he should have thought about all that before he cucked out on us repeatedly.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Time for Jeff Sessions to go. We don't need eight more years of not-looking at clinton corruption.

And yes, I know that Jeff is a good old boy - a fixture that cannot be moved out without pissing everyone everywhere off.

Move him out. Or he could go the other route, and start going on the offensive with the Clintons. Either way, get your fingers out of your arse and get going. He has no problem appointing a special counsel to take trump down but won't appoint a special counsel to look at the Clinton ATM Machine Foundation/State Department connection.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ment-exposed-in-new-emails-watchdog-says.html
More...
The Clintons have already been investigated ad nauseam. You are surely aware of that, unless of course you are quite young. Let's move on, shall we, to greener pastures. Let's look at Donald Trumps Real Estate dealings and see if he correctly reported them on his tax returns.
 
Last edited:
piezoe said:
The Clintons have already been investigated ad nauseam. .
More...

No. Au contraire. It has clearly been established that a real investigation did not take place and there was political interference across the board.

In addition, the Clinton Foundation has never been investigated. And if it had, it would have been a sham too. But the Clinton Foundation and the public corruption connection to the State Department has been and still is a no-go zone.

You think if Mueller and his army of resources were assigned to get something on Clinton and the Clinton Foundation that he would have come up empty handed? I don't think so. It helps to have friends and a spouse out on the tarmac sometimes.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/...nton-email-probe-not-real-investigation-comey
 
piezoe said:
The Clintons have already been investigated ad nauseam. You are surely aware of that, unless of course you are quite young. Let's move on, shall we, to greener pastures. Let's look at Donald Trumps Real Estate dealings and see if he correctly reported them on his tax returns.
More...
You're right, she has been investigated ad nauseam. She needs to be prosecuted. There is ample evidence to do so and it's only her insider connections which have kept her from facing prosecution. She single handily destroyed the democratic party during the last election cycle. If not for her there is no president Trump, and that's just the simple truth. Any number of potential candidates, and probably even Sanders would have beaten Trump in 2016. She has committed many acts of criminal negligence as Comey listed, and should be prosecuted for them. If found innocent in the court of law, fine, but prosecution is justified and everyone knows it, which is why she lost the election.
 
CaptainObvious said:
If not for her there is no president Trump, and that's just the simple truth.
More...
Agreed. However bad judgement is not, per se, an actionable offense, is it?

While many people think Hillary should have been prosecuted for receiving classified email on her home server, most of them are not lawyers. In the end lawyers, i.e., experts in the law, made the decision that prosecution was not warranted, And we can only assume that means that they determined based on evidence, circumstances, precedent and applicable law, that successful prosecution was unlikely. Of course there is a large body among the general population that will easily buy into the charge that she wasn't prosecuted because of her political connections.

Personally I think the case was an extremely weak one, and those making the decision not to prosecute very likely made the correct decision. The decision was made far more difficult, of course, because of the politically charged climate surrounding the election campaign in which Hillary was the democratic candidate. Had she been prosecuted, it would have been an attempt to convict someone for bad judgement rather than an overt act, as in the Petraeus case. A conviction would have been unlikely, and then it is virtually certain the innuendo and dis-satisfaction among the public would have continued. In other words, it was a damned if you do, and damned if don't situation for FBI and DOJ.
 
Last edited:
TreeFrogTrader said:
It has clearly been established
More...
It think that would be the basis of our disagreement. I don't think innuendo is enough to "establish."

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like like a duck, then there is evidence it is a duck. But if there is only innuendo and no one has seen it walk nor heard it quack then I don't think it's been "established" that it's a duck.
 
Last edited:
piezoe said:
Agreed. However bad judgement is not, per se, an actionable offense, is it?

While many people think Hillary should have been prosecuted for receiving classified email on her home server, most of them are not lawyers. In the end lawyers, i.e., experts in the law, made the decision that prosecution was not warranted, And we can only assume that means that they determined based on evidence, circumstances, precedent and applicable law, that successful prosecution was unlikely. Of course there is a large body among the general population that will easily buy into the charge that she wasn't prosecuted because of her political connections.

Personally I think the case was an extremely weak one, and those making the decision not to prosecute very likely made the correct decision. The decision was made far more difficult, of course, because of the politically charged climate surrounding the election campaign in which Hillary was the democratic candidate. Had she been prosecuted, it would have been an attempt to convict someone for bad judgement rather than an overt act, as in the Petraeus case. A conviction would have been unlikely, and then it is virtually certain the innuendo and dis-satisfaction among the public would have continued. In other words, it was a damned if you do, and damned if don't situation for FBI and DOJ.
More...
"Agreed. However bad judgement is not, per se, an actionable offense, is it?"
It is if laws are broken. Is the drunk driver innocent because of his bad judgment? How about the construction safety manager who gives the okay to use the scaffolding and then it collapses, injuring people? There are countless examples where people are subject to prosecution and conviction who never "intended" for the outcome of their actions.
All I'm saying is that there is enough to bring her to a courtroom. It was not for Comey to decide. Nor should she be enduring trial by twitter, trial by media, trial by message board knuckleheads like us. Trial by jury in a court of law is where this belonged and still belongs.
Democrats need to cast her aside like a bad habit. She brings nothing to the table at this point, and is much more of a liability than an asset. The party and the people owe her nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top