Hillary Clinton Calls DOJ Investigation Threats An ‘Abuse Of Power’

[Cardinal]

That was a sarcastic comment. Should have marked it as such.

So you do think that's an abuse of power then.

 

[eohrnberger]

So you do think that's an abuse of power then.

Yes I do.

 

[Cardinal]

Yes I do.

Would you agree with that being an abuse of power even if the head of state was pretty sure the political rival might be guilty of something?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

ROTFLOL... Disastrous? No... it would be WONDERFUL.

Comey made the case against Criminal Hillary, then let her off the hook by using the word “intent”.

Many people convicted of crimes have claimed they did not intend to. Hillary intended to. Everyone knows she intended to. Like the scorpion is born to sting, behaving criminally is in her character.

Hillary coming out and opening her yap on this was the worst things she could have done in her defense. She generates little to no sympathy, and everyone knows she is a criminal who is the beneficiary of a 2-tier justice system.

Corrupt politicians need be locked up to deter future corrupt politicians, and because they are not above the law.

If Hillary was smart, she would shut her trap and ride off into the sunset. Even the democrat party now appears to be throwing her under the bus.

 

[eohrnberger]

Would you agree with that being an abuse of power even if the head of state was pretty sure the political rival might be guilty of something?

It isn't the president's purview to make legal decisions. It's not the role of his office. 'Pretty sure' doesn't cut it.

From my view, the president pretty much needs to hand the entire question over to AG and DOJ, and leave it alone after that. He might ask the AG and / or DOJ to look into something, but little beyond that. The president needs to allow justice to take its course unobstructed and uninfluenced by him.

 

[eohrnberger]

If Hillary was smart, she would shut her trap and ride off into the sunset. Even the democrat party now appears to be throwing her under the bus.

Agreed. If she were willing to do that, to retire from the public, never to be seen again, I'd even forego any further investigations and potential criminal prosecutions.

 

[Cardinal]

It isn't the president's purview to make legal decisions. It's not the role of his office. 'Pretty sure' doesn't cut it.

From my view, the president pretty much needs to hand the entire question over to AG and DOJ, and leave it alone after that. He might ask the AG and / or DOJ to look into something, but little beyond that. The president needs to allow justice to take its course unobstructed and uninfluenced by him.

So if he said to the DOJ, "I think my political rival might be guilty of something, maybe you could wiretap him just to be sure. Your call." then that would be fine.

 

[eohrnberger]

So if he said to the DOJ, "I think my political rival might be guilty of something, maybe you could wiretap him just to be sure. Your call." then that would be fine.

I suppose so.

But from where does a president become aware of possible illegality by this person? Doesn't / wouldn't the AG / DOJ / FBI be more aware of this before a president?

What sort of evidence of illegality would the president have that the FBI / DOJ wouldn't have? An FBI investigation doesn't get started just because someone wants one, even if they are president. FBI investigations are started when there is some evidence or suspicion of criminality, suspicion by the FBI or DOJ.

I'm pretty sure that there are proper legal process and procedures surrounding the initiation of FBI inquiries of this nature. Would seem appropriate to expect that those be strictly followed.

 

[Cardinal]

Agreed. If she were willing to do that, to retire from the public, never to be seen again, I'd even forego any further investigations and potential criminal prosecutions.

Which illustrates the principle behind abuse of power here. The driving motivation isn't justice, but to cow the political rival into not challenging the head of state through the electoral system or by exercising her free speech. That's the hallmark of a dictatorship.

 

[Cardinal]

I suppose so.

But from where does a president become aware of possible illegality by this person? Doesn't / wouldn't the AG / DOJ / FBI be more aware of this before a president?

What sort of evidence of illegality would the president have that the FBI / DOJ wouldn't have? An FBI investigation doesn't get started just because someone wants one, even if they are president. FBI investigations are started when there is some evidence or suspicion of criminality, suspicion by the FBI or DOJ.

I'm pretty sure that there are proper legal process and procedures surrounding the initiation of FBI inquiries of this nature. Would seem appropriate to expect that those be strictly followed.

It sounds like you're really not certain that what you accuse Obama of doing was illegal or abuse of power.

 

[eohrnberger]

Which illustrates the principle behind abuse of power in this here. The driving motivation isn't justice, but to cow the political rival into not challenging the head of state through the electoral system or by exercising her free speech. That's the hallmark of a dictatorship.

Its one thing for a private citizen, such as myself, to take this position, and quite another thing for a government or elected official to take this position.

In my post, I was speaking only about myself and my desire, shared by many on both sides of the political spectrum it would seem, for the Clinton's to retire into obscurity never to be heard from again. Over their long and soiled public 'service' (self service in the opinion of many), they've caused enough damage. I'd like to see the nation and US politics move on from them, and it appears to be happening, if you look at all the former political allies who are throwing them under the bus.

 

[Cardinal]

Its one thing for a private citizen, such as myself, to take this position, and quite another thing for a government or elected official to take this position.

In my post, I was speaking only about myself and my desire, shared by many on both sides of the political spectrum it would seem, for the Clinton's to retire into obscurity never to be heard from again. Over their long and soiled public 'service' (self service in the opinion of many), they've caused enough damage. I'd like to see the nation and US politics move on from them, and it appears to be happening, if you look at all the former political allies who are throwing them under the bus.

Your post illustrates that your driving motive has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with a political figure you don't like going away. An investigation into alleged crimes are the threat to achieving that end.

 

[eohrnberger]

It sounds like you're really not certain that what you accuse Obama of doing was illegal or abuse of power.

No, I do believe that the unmasking of US citizens, the use of national intelligence assets to surveil US citizens are both abuses of power.

While Obama has maintained a somewhat intact plausible deniability, various officials from his administration taking the blame for him, my suspicion is that he was neck deep in it.

I would be glad should he too also retire to obscurity, taking Jarrett with him.

 

[eohrnberger]

Your post illustrates that your driving motive has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with a political figure you don't like going away. An investigation into alleged crimes are the threat to achieving that end.

Which would equally apply to the swamp's initiation of Mueller's investigation?

I have no control over what anyone else does, let alone anyone in DC, so the musings of a powerless private citizen don't amount to much.

 

[Cardinal]

No, I do believe that the unmasking of US citizens, the use of national intelligence assets to surveil US citizens are both abuses of power.

While Obama has maintained a somewhat intact plausible deniability, various officials from his administration taking the blame for him, my suspicion is that he was neck deep in it.

I would be glad should he too also retire to obscurity, taking Jarrett with him.

Unmasking isn't surveiling, so I have no idea where that statement came from. And since Obama has, as you call it, "plausible deniability," there doesn't seem to be very much that you're certain of at all. Perhaps you'd like trump to "ask" the DOJ to open an investigation into Obama in order to make him go away as well?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

After one year of investigation there is no evidence of Trump collusion, including circumstantial evidence. Even if the evidence is still out there, the burden of proof is not being met. It is not as obvious as the sales pitch has been.

Say it was found out that Trump sold national resources to Russian interests. In this case, say Trump sold the rights to copper mining in the national parks, to Russian businesses with ties to Moscow. These businesses are willing to bribe and grease to get the rights. After it was all said and done, the Russians donate $150 million to the Trump foundation. This foundation is the only agency, both public or private, who makes any cash money on the deal. The tax payer gets nothing from the sale of the national treasure. Would Trump be allowed to slide, if Mueller found this out? The answer is no, since this is not right.

The bottom line is the Clintons and Democrats have desperately employed, the age old, blame someone else game, to take the heat off themselves. After Trump was elected and had control of power, the left felt very vulnerable, because of these Russian scams, they thought they could hide by controlling the reigns of power.

The game plan to set up a defense, was like an older sibling, blaming the youngest sibling, for something they did. This strategy can be affective, since the younger sibling is blindsided by the false accusation. The younger sibling is not a seasoned liar, due to being innocent and having no need to prepare a lie defense. Even if they are innocent, that can't necessarily make their innocence clear, under the pressure of the false accusations. The result is they can look guilty. It is only after there is no hard evidence, does the tide start to turn.

The older sibling, who is skilled at lying, keeps the heat on and tries to deflect any spot light off them. The problem is hard data is not easy to lie away, when objective people finally enter the room. This week, testimony will begin for the FBI agent, who had been gagged by the Democrats. He is now free to talk and provide tangible evidence, that will be made public. He is the neighbor, who will step forward, who recorded the broken vase on his cell phone.

What becomes of the accused younger sibling, who is now innocent, yet was victimized by almost everyone? He gets a lot of slack in the future. The way this is turning out, it almost seems like a play that was written in advance.

What are you talking about? Charges have already been brought against two Trump campaign officials and it's only getting started. Trump isn't guilty of anything until he's charged and convicted.

 

[eohrnberger]

Unmasking isn't surveiling, so I have no idea where that statement came from. And since Obama has, as you call it, "plausible deniability," there doesn't seem to be very much that you're certain of at all. Perhaps you'd like trump to "ask" the DOJ to open an investigation into Obama in order to make him go away as well?

Meh. Both are abuses of power. Obama had a penchant for surveilling a great many, reporters, congress, and foreign leaders for example. On the record, I believe.

I'm not going to ask Trump to do anything. He and his administration, the AG, DOJ and FBI have to make those types of decisions for themselves. That's what they've been elected or appointed to do.

 

[Cardinal]

Which would equally apply to the swamp's initiation of Mueller's investigation?

I have no control over what anyone else does, let alone anyone in DC, so the musings of a powerless private citizen don't amount to much.

Interesting. You believe investigations should be a tool for intimidating political rivals, so you're projecting that belief onto the motivation of Mueller in investigating trump. As with your reason for wanting Clinton investigated, justice and fairness don't enter into it for you.

 

[Cardinal]

Meh. Both are abuses of power. Obama had a penchant for surveilling a great many, reporters, congress, and foreign leaders for example. On the record, I believe.

I'm not going to ask Trump to do anything. He and his administration, the AG, DOJ and FBI have to make those types of decisions for themselves. That's what they've been elected or appointed to do.

You just said it's not an abuse of power if he asks the DOJ to do it.

 

[Fletch]

What are you talking about? Charges have already been brought against two Trump campaign officials ...

...for things unrelated to the campaign. Whenever anyone on one of these congressional investigation committees is asked if they have seen any evidence of collusion, they all answer no.

 

[eohrnberger]

Interesting. You believe investigations should be a tool for intimidating political rivals, so you're projecting that belief onto the motivation of Mueller in investigating trump. As with your reason for wanting Clinton investigated, justice and fairness don't enter into it for you.

That would be your flawed conclusion, not mine.

There is sufficient reason to have suspicion of Hillary with some of the events and actions that surround her. I'm by far not alone in this. Further, I still believe that she needs to be held to account, and justice to be served, for that mess surrounding her private email server and the bogus 'lack of intent' escape clause Obama / Lynch / Comey provided for her.

But again, that's just my opinion, and I'm not the AG, nor in the DOJ, nor an FBI director. We'll just have to wait and see how all this further unfolds, as I don't think that its done yet.

 

[eohrnberger]

You just said it's not an abuse of power if he asks the DOJ to do it.

Actually, my final post on that thought was

"I'm pretty sure that there are proper legal process and procedures surrounding the initiation of FBI inquiries of this nature. Would seem appropriate to expect that those be strictly followed."​

I'll just leave it there.

 

[Cardinal]

That would be your flawed conclusion, not mine.

There is sufficient reason to have suspicion of Hillary with some of the events and actions that surround her. I'm by far not alone in this. Further, I still believe that she needs to be held to account, and justice to be served, for that mess surrounding her private email server and the bogus 'lack of intent' escape clause Obama / Lynch / Comey provided for her.

But again, that's just my opinion, and I'm not the AG, nor in the DOJ, nor an FBI director. We'll just have to wait and see how all this further unfolds, as I don't think that its done yet.

Yes, we've already established that as a pretext in order to fulfill your real desire to see her go away.

 

[Cardinal]

Actually, my final post on that thought was

"I'm pretty sure that there are proper legal process and procedures surrounding the initiation of FBI inquiries of this nature. Would seem appropriate to expect that those be strictly followed."​

I'll just leave it there.

No when asked if it was not abuse of power if he asked the doj to open an investigation, you agreed that it was not.

 

[eohrnberger]

Yes, we've already established that as a pretext in order to fulfill your real desire to see her go away.

No when asked if it was not abuse of power if he asked the doj to open an investigation, you agreed that it was not.

Look. From all that I heard reported and read reported, my personal opinion and conclusion is there's something not legal and corrupt going on there with Hillary and Obama.

I will, just as every other private citizen, just have to let the elected and appointed officials, who are by far more expert in the applicable laws with information not made public, decide the most proper and prudent course forward.

As for my own opinion, I have a right to have it, same as you and your opinion, and we don't have to agree, and I doubt that we ever will on some things.