Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again[W:292]

[Cardinal]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

I fail to see the relevance.

You're completely unable to state whether or not you believe the President should order the Justice Department to investigate his political rivals?

 

[Fishking]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

This is a dangerous red line we're crossing now. If this sets any kind of precedent, our standing as a Democracy will be in serious question.

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?

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

What's dangerous about prosecuting a criminal?

Naturally, a Banana Republic dictator is completely unable to use his justice department to persecute his political rivals by voicing a rationalization. Good one, fishking.

 

[Fishking]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

Uh. No. Read the OP. Also, read the full text of the post you just quoted.

Yes, that doesn't change anything. Trump hasn't ordered anything, admitted by your own link. Just like we'll never actually have an order from Obama to not move forward on Hillary.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is. How is this investigation going to end the former?

It's just like someone getting caught, and petulantly saying, "OH yeah? I'm friggin tellin' on you too."

The big deal is setting a precedent of incoming administrations ordering subordinates to try to put specific people in jail rather than letting the law enforcement apparatus just get on with its job.

Just look at all the fake constitution-lovers on DP who regularly announce that they just *know* Hillary is guilty (of....things...) and therefore she should be in jail.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

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.

Do you think that the DOJ should be used to protect political friends? Who, in the Obama AG's office, ever made the call to not prosecute Hillary (et al)? They announced, basically, that whatever the FBI head (alone?) recommended (which was known in advance) was going to be okay with them. That is not "standard procedure" for the AG's office and was surely not what they are doing for the Trump (et al) investigation(s).

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

Yes, that doesn't change anything. Trump hasn't ordered anything, admitted by your own link. Just like we'll never actually have an order from Obama to not move forward on Hillary.

If by "he hasn't ordered anything" you mean to say that he repeatedly and publicly told the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton, then yes, he's hasn't ordered anything. If you're too lazy to read the article in the OP, why even get out of bed?

 

[Winston]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

This is mildly bothersome. It smacks of desperation. It makes the Republicans look stubborn and petty. Since we've already been through this.

They're basically saying, "We don't trust the FBI, unless there's a Republican in office."

Kind of lame, very divisive for the country.

Now, if say, Trump has a primary opponent in 2020 and they are magically under investigation from the FBI, that is more of a red card, imo.

Carry on everyone.

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

Do you think that the DOJ should be used to protect political friends? Who, in the Obama AG's office, ever made the call to not prosecute Hillary (et al)? They announced, basically, that whatever the FBI head (alone?) recommended (which was known in advance) was going to be okay with them. That is not "standard procedure" for the AG's office and was surely not what they are doing for the Trump (et al) investigation.

Please cite Obama ordering the DOJ to prosecute his political rivals or to protect his friends.

 

[Fishking]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

Naturally, a Banana Republic dictator is completely unable to use his justice department to persecute his political rivals by voicing a rationalization. Good one, fishking.

Nice edit job, removing all of the real and factual information from the rest of my post that completely undermined the credibility of the "Obama-Justice Department" investigation. And that barely scratched the surface of all the issues, yet in itself is a deathblow to the credibility. That's not even getting into the destruction of evidence or lying to the FBI by Hillary or not taking statements under oath or Lynch telling them to call it a "matter" and not "investigation"....the list just goes on and on.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

Please cite Obama ordering the DOJ to prosecute his political rivals or to protect his friends.

I never made that claim so why should I be expected to back it up?

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

...

Do you believe that the President should use the Justice Department to prosecute his political rivals? Yes or no.

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

I never made that claim so why should I be expected to back it up?

So when you said, "Do you think that the DOJ should be used to protect political friends? Who, in the Obama AG's office, ever made the call to not prosecute Hillary" you were using the tactic of "just asking questions" as a stand-in for making an actual argument. Weak sauce, dude.

So basically, you have to deflect from the fact that the sitting President is ordering the Justice Department to investigate his political rivals by implying, through just asking questions, that some other similar thing might have happened, but won't go out on a limb by stating categorically that it did.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

Do you believe that the President should use the Justice Department to prosecute his political rivals? Yes or no.

Your hysterics do not a threat to "democracy" make.

Do you think people who are actually guilty of things should get a pass from prosecution because you consider them the "President's rival"? Yes or no?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

To head off the predictable response, an "Obama-Justice Department" decision does not equal an order from Obama.

A tweet citing "what many people in our country are asking" is not an order from the POTUS either.

 

[gdgyva]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

The big deal is setting a precedent of incoming administrations ordering subordinates to try to put specific people in jail rather than letting the law enforcement apparatus just get on with its job.

Just look at all the fake constitution-lovers on DP who regularly announce that they just *know* Hillary is guilty (of....things...) and therefore she should be in jail.

let me say without one speck of hesitation and doubt

if i had done what Hillary did in regard to top secret information while i was in the military

i would have spent a minimum of 10 years in Leavenworth

we were warned, counselled, and apprised of all the things that could happen to us if we mistreated the stuff we had access to

are there different laws for military and civilians? i know the civilians i worked with had the same clearances i had, and were just as paranoid about doing something even if by accident

 

[Fishking]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

Do you believe that the President should use the Justice Department to prosecute his political rivals? Yes or no.

If they are criminals or there is significant evidence of criminality, they should be prosecuted, yes. The President is responsible for upholding the laws of the land. It's why he's the executive. Btw...how is Hillary Trump's rival? Are you all the same people who say every day "Hillary isn't the President"? She lost, she's not running. She isn't in charge of the DNC or any other actual rival faction.

 

[Fishking]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

let me say without one speck of hesitation and doubt

if i had done what Hillary did in regard to top secret information while i was in the military

i would have spent a minimum of 10 years in Leavenworth

we were warned, counselled, and apprised of all the things that could happen to us if we mistreated the stuff we had access to

are there different laws for military and civilians? i know the civilians i worked with had the same clearances i had, and were just as paranoid about doing something even if by accident

That's the difference between you having access as a privilege and elites who hold high positions that have access to it as an entitlement. They will not, in many cases, ever get property training or take it seriously.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

So when you said, "Do you think that the DOJ should be used to protect political friends? Who, in the Obama AG's office, ever made the call to not prosecute Hillary" you were using the tactic of "just asking questions" as a stand-in for making an actual argument. Weak sauce, dude.

So basically, you have to deflect from the fact that the sitting President is ordering the Justice Department to investigate his political rivals by implying, through just asking questions, that some other similar thing might have happened, but won't go out on a limb by stating categorically that it did.

Leaving that decision up to Comey "officially" was the same thing. Simply a way for the AG to act while "officially" not having acting at all.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

The big deal is setting a precedent of incoming administrations ordering subordinates to try to put specific people in jail rather than letting the law enforcement apparatus just get on with its job.

Just look at all the fake constitution-lovers on DP who regularly announce that they just *know* Hillary is guilty (of....things...) and therefore she should be in jail.

No one has to "just *know*" she's guilty. Comey laid out specifically that she IS guilty of a crime which requires no intent, but said he doesn't recommend prosecution because she didn't have intent. He also said that someone other than Hillary Clinton may well have been prosecuted for the same thing. That's Comey saying all this, July, 2016.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

Do you think the President should be allowed to use the Justice Department to persecute his political rivals?

I don’t view prosecution for an actual crime to be persecution

We know for a fact Huma Abedin broke the law, better then even Hillary did as well. I mean your proposition is that once you climb high enough in politics you’re exempt from the law

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

If they are criminals or there is significant evidence of criminality, they should be prosecuted, yes. The President is responsible for upholding the laws of the land. It's why he's the executive. Btw...how is Hillary Trump's rival? Are you all the same people who say every day "Hillary isn't the President"? She lost, she's not running. She isn't in charge of the DNC or any other actual rival faction.

Good point. If she's indeed "the President's rival," then bringing her up is fair game.

 

[tres borrachos]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

Do you think that before I die I will see the day that Hillary Clinton isn't living rent free in the heads of Trump and his alt-right fan base?

Nobody cares about her anymore, except the people who get up every morning and the first thing that pops into their heads is "Hillary". Freaking sad.

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

Leaving that decision up to Comey "officially" was the same thing. Simply a way for the AG to act while "officially" not having acting at all.

So in other words, you can't cite a single example of Obama ordering the Justice Department to prosecute his political rivals or give his friends preferential treatment. As false equivalencies go, this is the worst example I've ever seen on this board.

 

[tres borrachos]

Re: Justice Department ‘Looking Into’ Hillary Clinton’s Emails— Again

No one has to "just *know*" she's guilty. Comey laid out specifically that she IS guilty of a crime which requires no intent, but said he doesn't recommend prosecution because she didn't have intent. He also said that someone other than Hillary Clinton may well have been prosecuted for the same thing. That's Comey saying all this, July, 2016.

No, Comey said that there was no criminal wrongdoing. He said she was careless. Being careless isn't a crime.