- Joined
- Sep 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,093
- Reaction score
- 341
- Location
- Nevada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Hillary is a criminal and has been using her political power for 30 years for personal gain. She lost the election. Finally, punishment enough. She has however left a trail of destruction with many questions still to be answered. In order to answer those questions I think it would be prudent for Trump to provide her immunity while pursuing the legal issues.
Can't we agree to once and for all determine whether it is appropriate for a Secretary of State, or any other government official, to set up a personal server and transmit classified information. Sure, we could generate a law to that effect, but would the issue be as clearly defined as it would be if the FBI pursued the current issue regarding Hillary's server? Do we want Trump's SoS setting up a personal server and eight years hence arguing some nuance as to why he/she feels it was legal? (Or in Clintonspeak, "not a prosecutable offence".)
Does anybody believe that future Secretary of Mars Exploration, Cher should be doling out contracts to Elon Musk to provide all of the Falcon 9 engines because Musk is a reliable donor to the Cher and Miley Foundation? Pursuing the investigation into the Clinton Foundation and the allegations of quid pro quo would provide considerable clarity here.
Believe me, I think Hillary would look charming in prison stripes. But if "we the people" are interested in getting to the truth and establishing precedent, we may have to compromise a bit. Provide immunity and, perhaps, if her cronies know they will not be putting her in jail they will cease pleading the fifth.
These are public issues and as voters we should care about them. These issues are not equivalent to the civil allegations against private citizen Trump. If Trump is caught committing improprieties in the oval office then we the people should investigate that. We have for instance already determined that semenizing and then demonizing the girl in the blue dress is worthy of impeachment but not removal from office, and the demonizer still gets to run for President.
Can't we agree to once and for all determine whether it is appropriate for a Secretary of State, or any other government official, to set up a personal server and transmit classified information. Sure, we could generate a law to that effect, but would the issue be as clearly defined as it would be if the FBI pursued the current issue regarding Hillary's server? Do we want Trump's SoS setting up a personal server and eight years hence arguing some nuance as to why he/she feels it was legal? (Or in Clintonspeak, "not a prosecutable offence".)
Does anybody believe that future Secretary of Mars Exploration, Cher should be doling out contracts to Elon Musk to provide all of the Falcon 9 engines because Musk is a reliable donor to the Cher and Miley Foundation? Pursuing the investigation into the Clinton Foundation and the allegations of quid pro quo would provide considerable clarity here.
Believe me, I think Hillary would look charming in prison stripes. But if "we the people" are interested in getting to the truth and establishing precedent, we may have to compromise a bit. Provide immunity and, perhaps, if her cronies know they will not be putting her in jail they will cease pleading the fifth.
These are public issues and as voters we should care about them. These issues are not equivalent to the civil allegations against private citizen Trump. If Trump is caught committing improprieties in the oval office then we the people should investigate that. We have for instance already determined that semenizing and then demonizing the girl in the blue dress is worthy of impeachment but not removal from office, and the demonizer still gets to run for President.