• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It's time for Congress to pass The Hillary Laws... and...

Yeah, but if that's the case Federal judges answer to the President as well, right?
No, they only are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Beyond that these Federal Judges, the Article III judges [ include all U.S. Supreme Court justices, Appeals Court justices, international trade judges and district court justices] can only be removed through impeachment by the United States Congress.

So no, they do not answer to the president.
 
Trump said he is not going to prosecute...

Not what he said.

1. He will not prosecute. He isn't a prosecutor.

2. The FBI will go to the DoJ. They may prosecute.

3. Congress may not be done with this yet.

These are serious crimes being investigated. Just because she was candidate of the Socialist of Amerika Partei (SAPs), does not allow her a get out of free pass.

Equal protection under the law.

A nation of laws.

Trump was smart with his answer... he also said "he did not want to harm them". The problem is "they" harmed themselves and the nation.

The Clinton Crime Machine better hope Trey Gowdy doesn't run the DoJ.
 
Last edited:
No, they only are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Beyond that these Federal Judges, the Article III judges [ include all U.S. Supreme Court justices, Appeals Court justices, international trade judges and district court justices] can only be removed through impeachment by the United States Congress.

So no, they do not answer to the president.

And you're right, it's not unprecedented for the President to use his office to influence the US Attorneys...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

He might not be able to direct them but he can fire them if they piss him off.
 
And you're right, it's not unprecedented for the President to use his office to influence the US Attorneys...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

He might not be able to direct them but he can fire them if they piss him off.
In the case of Hillary, Trump needs to avoid even the appearance of being involved.
If his attorney general looks into Hillary's questionable activities and finds enough evidence to present
to a grand jury and gets an incitement, that is a different matter.
This one really needs to be by the book, otherwise it sets a very bad precedent.
 
And you're right, it's not unprecedented for the President to use his office to influence the US Attorneys...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

He might not be able to direct them but he can fire them if they piss him off.
Yes, exactly again.

But just so we are both on the same page, the prosecutors, or attorneys, are not the judges and the judges cannot be influenced by the executive branch other than through the method of original appointment by the pres and approval by Congress.

And these US attorneys are in the DOJ, which you mentioned earlier, and therefore under the supervision of the Attorney General. So, the president can influence the AG and the AG can, in turn, influence the US Attorneys.
 
Since when can the President prosecute anyone? I thought one reason for the three branches was to keep the President's fingers out of the judiciary?

The President controls the Justice Department because he is Chief Executive and it is part of the Executive Branch. Justice Dept. lawyers are constantly prosecuting cases in the federal courts.
 

The article makes it sound like a witch hunt, and that guilt is pretty much assumed. I can even understand how that would be some peoples attitudes. But my impression is that many, if not most, just want to see her face an honest investigation and fair trial if appropriate. The Email business is small potatoes, it calls her judgement into question, which is big if you're running for POTUS, but now that that ship has sailed, the server itself isn't going to send her to prison. The juicy stuff is going to be foundation related. Now that the threat of her presidency is no longer looming, no one should be afraid of finding something they're afraid to report or prosecute. According to those links, the foundation investigation is still ongoing. If it can just proceed without being influenced, without her people derailing it from the inside, or the over zealous from trying to force an unsupported guilty verdict, I'll be happy with whatever the findings are.

I'd also like to see a serious look into perjury and destruction of evidence chanrges, between the deleted emails, those that were discovered after she supposedly gave them all over, destruction of devices, etc. But again, fair and honest, not something out of Monty Python.
 
What is to stop the Marxist liar who continues to disgrace the White House from granting his fellow Marxist liar, who almost got the chance to disgrace it, a pardon for any crimes she may be found to have committed?
 
The article makes it sound like a witch hunt, and that guilt is pretty much assumed. I can even understand how that would be some peoples attitudes. But my impression is that many, if not most, just want to see her face an honest investigation and fair trial if appropriate. The Email business is small potatoes, it calls her judgement into question, which is big if you're running for POTUS, but now that that ship has sailed, the server itself isn't going to send her to prison. The juicy stuff is going to be foundation related. Now that the threat of her presidency is no longer looming, no one should be afraid of finding something they're afraid to report or prosecute. According to those links, the foundation investigation is still ongoing. If it can just proceed without being influenced, without her people derailing it from the inside, or the over zealous from trying to force an unsupported guilty verdict, I'll be happy with whatever the findings are.

I'd also like to see a serious look into perjury and destruction of evidence chanrges, between the deleted emails, those that were discovered after she supposedly gave them all over, destruction of devices, etc. But again, fair and honest, not something out of Monty Python.
I disagree, the email server would send almost anyone with TS clearance to prison.
She was the custodian of the data, and as such had a legal responsibility to ensure safe storage of the classified material.
 
What is to stop the Marxist liar who continues to disgrace the White House from granting his fellow Marxist liar, who almost got the chance to disgrace it, a pardon for any crimes she may be found to have committed?



there is no marxist in the white house. you dont know what a marxist is. more right wing ignorance.
 
The Email business is small potatoes, it calls her judgement into question, which is big if you're running for POTUS, but now that that ship has sailed, the server itself isn't going to send her to prison.over, destruction of devices, etc.

I strongly disagree. Mr. Comey in effect acknowledged that she violated section 793(f) of the Espionage Act by mishandling government information in those emails. That's not small potatoes in my book.
 
Here's my question: How long before Hillary kicks Bill to the curb?

Probably that will be the other way around, if at all.

But why bother? They haven't functioned as a married couple for years.
 
Trump said he is not going to prosecute...

No, that's not what Trump said...

Trump, in his 60 minutes interview, was deliberately Vague and diplomatic, on the issue.

He could pursue prosecution in March 2017... or not, based on his most recent comments.

You figure it out.

-
 
... for a Democrat to be hired as special prosecutor.

Congress has to go through the entire Clinton Crime Machine setup at State, The Clinton Slush Fund & Foundation... and close these holes, so it doesn't happen again.

For 240-years we didn't need this stuff, but... you put shady characters in positions of power... and laws have to be created to prevent the criminality from reoccurring.

This collection of legislation should forever be known as The Hillary Laws.

She deserves recognition for her deeds for many, many decades to come.

Life comes at you fast.

Trump Backs Off Promise of Special Prosecutor for Clinton: "They're good people."
 
Back
Top Bottom