Sessions refuses to prosecute Hellary
- Thread starter Scataphagos
- Start date
Before you prosecute a former presidential candidate and wife of a former president -- you better have a completely documented case. I don't believe Sessions has enough information to drive a successful prosecution. Should the Justice Department fully investigate the Clinton Foundation? Yes. Even then I believe it will be hard to tie "pay-to-play" unless overseas contributors come to the U.S. to testify (they won't).
The most likely case against Hillary involves using her Clinton Foundation as a pay-to-play vehicle. Do many people think the foundation was used in this manner? Yes. Would it be difficult to prosecute? Yes. Would a case likely to be successful? No. Would it be worth the time of the Justice Department to pursue considering the other priorities and huge cost? No. Would it be worthwhile to have the government apply pressure to simply close down the Clinton Foundation instead? Yes.
The most likely case against Hillary involves using her Clinton Foundation as a pay-to-play vehicle. Do many people think the foundation was used in this manner? Yes. Would it be difficult to prosecute? Yes. Would a case likely to be successful? No. Would it be worth the time of the Justice Department to pursue considering the other priorities and huge cost? No. Would it be worthwhile to have the government apply pressure to simply close down the Clinton Foundation instead? Yes.
that would be a nice round up, if you were telling the truth.
Comey found more than enough evidence for prosecution...
remember intent is not part of the some of the laws for which she could be prosecuted. so his excuse was garbage. lynch is partisan crook who met with clinton when she should not have...
as far as chaffetz and gowdy... you misrepresent things...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/7/jason-chaffetz-i-do-believe-hillary-clinton-broke-/
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said he believes Hillary Clinton “broke the law” through her private email setup, although he praised FBI Director James B. Comey ahead of Mr. Comey’s trip to Capitol Hill on Thursday.
“I do believe that she broke the law, and that’s what we want to ask,” Mr. Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said on NBC’s “Today” show.
Mr. Chaffetz called Mr. Comey a “man of integrity,” but said he’s interested in hearing about the director’s findings in the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use. Mr. Comey said on Tuesday that although she was reckless, he would not recommend criminal charges in the case.
“If you listen to the fact pattern laid out by the director, I’m mystified — there seems to be a double standard,” Mr. Chaffetz said.
and I saw gowdy say similar things...
Comey found more than enough evidence for prosecution...
remember intent is not part of the some of the laws for which she could be prosecuted. so his excuse was garbage. lynch is partisan crook who met with clinton when she should not have...
as far as chaffetz and gowdy... you misrepresent things...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/7/jason-chaffetz-i-do-believe-hillary-clinton-broke-/
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said he believes Hillary Clinton “broke the law” through her private email setup, although he praised FBI Director James B. Comey ahead of Mr. Comey’s trip to Capitol Hill on Thursday.
“I do believe that she broke the law, and that’s what we want to ask,” Mr. Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said on NBC’s “Today” show.
Mr. Chaffetz called Mr. Comey a “man of integrity,” but said he’s interested in hearing about the director’s findings in the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use. Mr. Comey said on Tuesday that although she was reckless, he would not recommend criminal charges in the case.
“If you listen to the fact pattern laid out by the director, I’m mystified — there seems to be a double standard,” Mr. Chaffetz said.
and I saw gowdy say similar things...
Last edited:
if you understood the law chaffetz just told you he did provide more than enough evidence of a violation of the law...
.
the standard in some of the classified material handling laws is not intent but reckless. that is why he discussed reckless and the double standard in the article.
you have to stop arguing like an ignorant moron.
you know damn well the standard in some the classified materials laws is reckless.
you may argue that you don't think that what she did was reckless...
but don't be so stupid on purpose...
Last edited:
Well you know, it all depends on how the issue/question is framed.
If you state- as you did- that it would be difficult to prosecute and get a conviction on Camp Clinton in all of its various iterations then I agree with that.
But, if you ask me whether I think that you could find prosecutable crimes against Hillary if you unleashed an independent prosecutor with full resources and staff with nothing to do but hunt her down- ie. a full Meuller Witchhunt- then by Jesus I am going to say that - yes- you can find all that you want- by the barrel load- and plenty are known already. No way she would have gone unscathed if a real investigation and prosecution were every done on her.
Also, I agree that the clinton foundation is a target rich source of clintoncrimes to look at but do not agree with any suggestion that you would need to find some new stuff to find criminal activity on her part. If her last name had not been Clinton, she would be in prison now.
Theory meets reality. I live in Realville.
The AG has traditionally been someone the president had absolute political trust in. For JFK, it was his brother. For Reagan, longtime associate Ed Meese. For Bill Clinton, political hack Janet Reno. For Obama, fellow race hustlers/affirmative action heroes Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.
Trump is saddled with a guy who is either compromised somehow, a wimp or intimidated by the career, ie Obama, staff.