Because it may be difficult to prove does not mean the FBI should ignore it.
The excuse that well... everybody does it, is also not acceptable. Perhaps that's why Washington DC is a **** hole and why our goernment works for itself instead of for the people it's supposed to represent.
If that's what it takes, yes... rebuke and jail offenders with an R or D, doesn't matter. Either they broke the law or they didn't, either they are guilt or they are not-guilty.
If we don't start taking down some of the high muckety-mucks, if we never send a message then the corruption continues unabated. Makes us little guys less willing to believe and work for and in the system. A major part of the agenda is, and was, "draining the swamp". Right? What better message and symbol of that, what a chill that will send if someone we know is guilty of violations of law in the email case actually, actually, actually goes down like they are supposed to go down.
....I don't think I'm diverting the topic, moderator nota bene
But really, it's an honest question. I want to know how open Trump supporters feel about these ongoing issues/investigations/trials regarding Trump. He may have various legal immunities as President, but that doesn't make any particular thing OK.
I am interested because I've heard so much over the years about how Bill should be jail for various things, about how Obama should be impeached, but not too much about how Trump should be held to account. I tend to doubt the integrity of posts demanding investigation of Clinton unless the myriad issues of her opponent are discussed. Especially so when the OP does no more than scoff at what the Clintons did "for partisan gain", as if that's some kind of unique sin Trump hasn't committed...........
I think some perspective must be employed.
Not needed -- the FBI is already investigating. If there's something worth pursuing, the FBI kicks it to the DoJ who assigns a prosecutor, who then takes it to a Grand Jury.
The money trail can be linked to actions, those actions can either be consistent or inconsistent with her long history as both Secretary of State or Senator from NY. If there's a direct correlation or indirect correlation it's up to a jury of her peers to decide if she did something wrong.
I'll stand by my previous statement about this which is politicians should be treated just like any other citizen. The law always strives to be blind and it should be done with Hillary or with any politician regardless position, standing, fame or accomplishment.
There are laws around contributions and those have to be followed. Now I agree that those laws are quite squishy and that's because the same people passed those laws as have to follow them and those laws should be more strict or in some cases, the amounts and types (super-pac's for example) should be made illegal. But that's another discussion.
| Moderator's Warning: |
 Then open up your own thread to discuss it. Stick to the topic or be booted out.
|