- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 106,580
- Reaction score
- 98,349
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again
Post #2
Post #2
Do you think the President should be allowed to use the Justice Department to persecute his political rivals?
Considering past history, I'd rather not say.
In other words, failing for even a whataboutism post, you're unable to demonstrate that the Obama ordered the DOJ to go after his political rivals or give preferential treatment to his friends.
Do you believe that the President should be able to order the DOJ to investigate his political rivals? Yes or no.
Oh thats rich. Obama ordered his DOJ to do the exact opposite, to exonerate a Political ally, but since it was Hillary and it was done in the interest of the Democratic party, you people didnt seem to mind
Sessions reopening a investigation that was clearly compromised ? Now thats crossing the line.
Wow, the level level of arrogance it took to follow through with what was so obviously a show trial.
Hell, James Comey was tweeting about " ethical leadership ", he was quoting the bible just a couple of weeks ago. The sheer arrogance, these people deserve everything thats coming their way
Oh thats rich. Obama ordered his DOJ to do the exact opposite, to exonerate a Political ally,
I'm uninterested in the Clinton's anymore because they are out of power. I believe they should be held to the same standard as regular folk, but their personal lives and private lives are of zero consequence to this country anymore.
My paraphrase was accurate. The bolded, in context, shows that I was absolutely right to say that he indicated that the other cases contained aggravating factors not present here, and that - not "recommended charges" vs "prosecuted - is the heart of my point:
Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:
In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
So what's the next move in your game-playing? To claim you still "won" something because I thought he'd said "recommended" when instead he said "prosecuted"?
Play games elsewhere. FFS, it is tiring.
Yes, because people feel great about challenging an incumbent or candidate who will open investigations into them if they lose. That is definitely an identifying hallmark of a modern Democracy. Your pro-autocratic sympathies are depressing, though no longer surprising.
If they have nothing to hide, it shouldn't matter to them.
Given what the story actually says, explain exactly how "democracy" is threatened.
To explain the obvious , third world tin pot dictators use the military and the police to destroy their political rivals. Does that put things into clearity for you?
So are you moving straight ahead to "Yes, it's fine for the President to use the justice department to go after his political rivals"?
Absolutely amazing. And I'm not sure if trump supporters understand how absolutely dangerous this kind of behavior is. If Trump would have won the election, appointed some good people in to places in the judicial branch, and they saw evidence to go after Clinton, then so be it. If they could provide facts that prove she broke laws, so be it. Get her.
Instead, what has happened, is Trump won and immediately started squelching the whole "lock her up" fervor that he helped to start. He came right out and said "that plays well before the election but not after". He essentially said out loud that this was just campaign banter. And it wasn't brought up again... until Trumps ass was on the burner. Everytime a trump surrogate is indicted or pleads guilty, or every time a new lie is found by trump officials, or every time a new fact comes out, they respond by attacking the person that he beat and is no longer in charge of anything. It's as plain and clear as it gets. This is a diversion. No more, no less. If Trumps presidency were going swimmingly they would never even mention Hillary's name.
This is the equivalent of Obama waiting 8 months in to his presidency, it turning out to be a boondoggle of epic proportions, and then announcing that they are starting an investigation in to war crimes on the Bush administration and that's where the real crimes are.
This is officially over. People have no more excuses. Trump is tweeting nuclear threats across the globe without a second thought, against the advice of every expert and general in the country. He's not well. He's dangerous. This will not end well.
Do you think the President should be allowed to use the Justice Department to persecute his political rivals?
If you think this is a demonstration of irony, then please cite an example of a previous President telling the Justice Department to investigate his political rivals. We'll wait.
What's dangerous about prosecuting a criminal? Hey, maybe they can get the verbiage changed back to what it was rightfully stated as "grossly negligent" from "extremely careless." that the compromised Hillary sycophant, Agent Strzok, had changed from the original report. Eh? Wouldn't it be amazing to actually have an elite held accountable like the rest of us plebs?
More like: how will they blow it? Telling folks that their paychecks are not really any bigger after the tax cuts for the rich, that the economy was ruined by Trump even if their 401Ks are growing, that the rich (except any rich demorats) are robbing them blind, the KKK is backing the republicant NAZIs, police are killing thousands of unarmed black chillrens every day (and blaming it on thugs) or that "free" medical care, "free" college and a middle class "living wage" from a part-time McJob are guaranteed if they vote for the one with a vagina are all possibilities.
Allright, what's the actual quote - not snipped from any surrounding context - that you're characterizing as some kind of order to exonerate?
Either the FBI and DOJ under Obama were rogue which means he was a terrible leader and just couldnt be bothered, or the order to set up a show trial that was always meant to exonerate Hillary came from him.
Either the FBI and DOJ under Obama were rogue which means he was a terrible leader and just couldnt be bothered, or the order to set up a show trial that was always meant to exonerate Hillary came from him.
If you see it that way, fine. But that's not the statement I replied to. I dislike attempts at "in other word" gotchas, so please don't.
Oh I think he's definately found something.
The NYTs made that pretty clear when they ran that Papadopolis article over the weekend.
It was a ridicilous attempt at revisionism that tried to minimize the influence the dossier played in the investigation and the Left ran with it.
We are supposed to forget everything thats been reported on Carte Page over the last year, forget the CNN article from April which tied the dossie to the FISA request and shift our focus to a manufactured narrative that involves a drunken Papadopolis and a Australian diplomat
The NYTs thinks their readers are morons apparently. That article shows just how toxic the dossiers become
To explain the obvious , third world tin pot dictators use the military and the police to destroy their political rivals. Does that put things into clearity for you?
Obama's decision to sic the IRS on Conservative Americans was text book banana republic intimidation, but he didnt stop there.
Just going through the motions here because obviously you won't be able substantiate that claim and everybody here knows it, but care to link to that decision?