Donald Trump reversed a major campaign pledge today. An aide says Trump Won’t Push for Investigations of Hillary Clinton.
WASHINGTON—President-elect Donald Trump won’t push for prosecutors to investigate Hillary Clinton for her email practices or the operations of the Clinton Foundation, a top aide said Tuesday.
“I think when the president-elect, who’s also the head of your party, tells you before he’s even inaugurated that he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content” to others, Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway said on MSNBC.
Mr. Trump, during one of three debates with his Democratic rival, had said he would direct the attorney general to launch an investigation of Mrs. Clinton, whom he regularly referred to as “crooked Hillary.” He said repeatedly that she should be in jail, and his supporters often yelled “lock her up” at his rallies.
“If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation,” he said during a debate in October.
In the days after the election, he showed signs of wavering, telling The Wall Street Journal in an interview that he hadn’t decided how to proceed. “It’s not something I’ve given a lot of thought, because I want to solve health care, jobs, border control, tax reform,” he said at the time.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation probed Mrs. Clinton’s email practices, which involved the use of a personal server while serving as secretary of state, and didn’t pursue charges. It concluded she and her aides were “extremely careless” in handling sensitive information but that “no charges were appropriate.”
Mr. Trump repeatedly said on the campaign trail that Mrs. Clinton broke the law. During the second presidential debate, he said that she should be “in jail” and threatened to appoint a special prosecutor to look into her email arrangement.
It seems pretty clear that Trump never really intended to prosecute all along.
There is some merit in that decision, because it is highly questionable whether or not prosecution had any chance given flip-flops and the initial bad decision by FBI director James Comey.
On the other hand, numerous people are in jail for far less than what Hillary did. Also, people will start to wonder “what’s the next broken promise?”
Right or wrong, Trump decided to move along.
In other Trump news …
That prompted this accurate reply from John Hussman …
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Hillary not being elected is punishment enough for her, I support this decision. Let’s move on and never mention her again.
I don’t care if she is punished, but the facts need to be made plain in the way that a full investigation would make them so…It appears that she may be treasonous and the surrounding fact pattern needs to be played out for the record.
If she wants to flee to a private island, by all means…but the amount of thievery and deception that looks to have been perpetrated was at great cost to the rest of us, and we need to at least reconcile the facts.
We already know the facts, or at least the vast majority of them. It won’t change the opinion of her supporters.
I know quite a few liberal Hellary supporters, and I can tell you they do not know the facts.
When I try to educate them to the facts, they tell me, flat out, they don’t want to hear it.
Not surprised, specially after I found out how few of them know who George Soros is.
Perhaps because what YOU think are facts are not actually facts? [lol] That would not surprise me.
Like I said, and to expand it more, I found out that my in-laws, lifelong Democrats, had no idea who George Soros is. Neither did any of my teen children (liberals also) have any idea of his existence. If such basic facts aren’t known by them, what else is missing from their information sources? Oh, and my teens, who both believe Trump is a disaster, both hated Hillary as well.
And…if the ‘experts’ knew what they were talking about, how could they get the election results so wrong?
“Perhaps because what YOU think are facts are not actually facts? [lol] That would not surprise me.”
Here’s a fact for you: If I had done even a fraction of what Hillary & Co. did with respect to the gross mishandling of highly classified materials, my military career would have been over. At the very least, her security clearance should have been revoked which would have ended any chance of her of ever having any significant role in the fedgov… which is why that didn’t happen.
BS
Lady Justice is “supposed” to wear a blindfold. Meaning that ANYONE in our country who breaks the law should be investigated. What does this say really? It tells anyone high up in any administration that they can get away with breaking the law. It sets a horrible precedent. I am sick of crooked politicians getting away with crimes. I thought that is what the man I voted for thought too. I was wrong. Fool me once and that’s all.
@SMF said “Like I said, and to expand it more, I found out that my in-laws, lifelong Democrats, had no idea who George Soros is. Neither did any of my teen children (liberals also) have any idea of his existence. If such basic facts aren’t known by them, what else is missing from their information sources? Oh, and my teens, who both believe Trump is a disaster, both hated Hillary as well.”
========
Sounds like your family is not very well read or informed. You should discover what else they don’t know. It might be important to know.
USA has now become a Banana Republic
Politians can break the Law, they are above the Law
The common voter are their ants to step on
Trump you are a disgrace and liar Fk You
Hundreds of millions of people did not get elected either. It is up to the AG now, you cannot have a president elect seen to persecute his rival, his reasoning for stepping back is good as he was in direct competition with her, hence also his ability to take a unique stance with regards.
Crysangle – I agree, it is in the Attorney-General’s hands now.
Cos crook can’t charge crook.
There are very few things with a shorter life-expectancy than a campaign promise.
We won’t get fooled again.
Yeah right.
Keep voting!
The keys to keeping power and the keys to gaining power are not always the same. After a coup, look for the new leader to embrace some of those same corrupt keys as the old leader did, and in the bloodbath that follows, slaughter some of those keys that got him there, some of those keys that stood in the way.
Only, in a democratic Republic, those keys are likely to be campaign promises, not humans.
But the youtube video “Rulers for Rulers” probably still applies.
I would not call it a “campaign promise.” I watched the debate, and Trump was expressing a “sentiment” during a very emotional moment when he was frustrated with the rigged debates and everything else going on. At least Trump knows how to distinguish a sentiment from a promise, and that is what matters. With TPP, the Soros climate change scam, the Obamacare tax, regulations, etc., Hillary will soon fade as a concern. Hillary has already gotten part of her comeuppance in canceling her NYC fireworks display and losing the election, and more is on the way; best for Trump to move out of the way of her sinking ship. Even the Democrats are pillorying Hillary for losing, and moving more openly to Uncle Bernie’s pleasant-faced more extreme Socialist/Marxist position.
This is smart Trump politics, as many of the other comments have astutely deduced. The mainstream media is still the same stinking cesspool as before the election, still an Orwellian Big Brother bullhorn demanding political correctness of speech and furtherance of Marxist and crony capitalist agendas. Trump will continue being relentlessly damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. So, the smart thing for Trump to do is follow those gut instincts that won him the most GOP primary votes in history and a national election victory against the anointed Hillary. The election may have changed the White House occupant, but the same media cesspool is swirling around Trump with renewed and energized hatred. Trump may not be able to change the media, but by being true to himself he will achieve his visions. I think the Trump half of the nation understands this, even if the media does not.
James – it is not up to Trump to go after Hillary. The Attorney-General will do that.
Mish I think your analysis is off here.
“Donald Trump won’t push for prosecutors to investigate Hillary Clinton for her email practices or the operations of the Clinton Foundation, a top aide said Tuesday.”
Key words, “won’t push”…What Trump’s AG does has no bearing on this…
This statement serves Trump to look like he’s playing nice before the inaguration and he can distance himself when the hammer drops and say that it wasn’t his choice, but it looks like justice is being served.
Well said.
I hope you are right, craig. If Hellary turns out to be above the law after all, it will be a very bad start for The Donald, and faith in the government will remain low.
When Donald said in the 60 Min interview “the Clintons are good people”, that was a direct contradiction of everything he said about them while campaigning. As he would say, “very bad”.
Then again, this could all be a head fake so that Obama doesn’t feel the need to pardon Clinton. You all must be aware that, supposedly, there is an ongoing investigation of the Foundation; not difficult to prove in the long run that it was pay-to-play. Clinton and Hubby may still have their gotcha moment.
You can’t pardon someone who has not yet been convicted of something. D’oh.
Ford pardoned Nixon even though Nixon wasn’t convicted of anything. D’oh.
Not true.
O’Bama is entirely able to pardon Clinton.
The case law is quite clear on this point. In 150 Ex Parte Garland (1865), the Supreme Court considered a law that requiring a loyalty oath be recited by any Federal court officer affirming that the officer had never served in the Confederate government. It effectively barred former confederates from such positions, including Augustus Hill Garland (right), an attorney and former Confederate Senator from Arkansas. Garland had received a pardon from President Andrew Johnson and the Court ruled 5-4 that the law was a bill of attainder and an ex post facto law. The Court ruled:
“The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.”
Yes you can. (Nixon) Also, expressly permitted in the Constitution
apberusdisvet – this very well could be the case, yes.
also Kim Dotcom and or Wikileaks seem to have ample evidence of wrongdoing in her and hubbies extracurricular activities that does not bode well for the Clinton cesspit.
craigums – if Trump appoints someone like Trey Gowdy as his Attorney-General, the hammer will drop. Then Trump can say, “It’s out of my hands. The Attorney-General is in control, not me.”
It’s the smart and gracious thing to do. Grace whether internal or in the temporal universe as policy is always the best, smartest and most insightful solution.
By not going after her and her band of criminals it will empower this type of behavior. A true reformer would go after the status quo to stop and reverse the trend. Habeas corpus needs to be restored. Civil forfeiture laws need to be abandoned and liberties restored as well.
Trump’s AG will do the job.
Not. If Trump says don’t do something, then his “employees” are not going to do it.
This is the mistake the Dems made. Obama and Lynch should have told Comey in no uncertain terms to stand down on the email announcements during the last two weeks of the campaign. But they were too wimpy, as usual.
Had they made it clear to Comey to STFU, then Clinton might well be transitioning to president instead of Trump.
“Obama and Lynch should have told Comey in no uncertain terms to stand down…”
Obama and Lynch should have treated Clinton the same as anyone else would have been.
Really? So how are the Republicans doing investigating those STILL MISSING 22 million emails from Cheney and Bush?
A serious tactical error, especially since the Clinton Foundation MUST be shut down.
Why? They don’t have any influence to sell anymore. There will be no more tit for tat donations because the Clintons have no more tat. Maybe Chelsea needs to get into politics.
mainly because the funds should be seized. Also, IMO, an example should be made of this. 503c (or whatever it is) charities should not be able to call themselves such if they only give something like 10% of their donations to charitable causes. If that doesn’t change, I may as well start my own 503C – I can easily multiple all my charitable donations (plus that of any friends I can convince) by 10 for tax purposes (apparently)
Anonymous – yes, I agree, the funds should be seized, and I also agree that these charities are nothing more than huge wages and compensation for the people running them. That’s what they’re after. A licence to print money.
pyrrhus – as craigums keeps saying, the Attorney-General will handle this.
Nov 22, 2016 12:35 PM
I am not sure, of course, but in my opinion he has to play it very carefully because he has two hurdles to jump- one electoral college vote on Dec 19th. Two- inauguration day. After that he can start doing what he needs and plans to do. Right now, he is trying to make it to that point.
November 22nd 1963 12:30PM
Although I’m disappointed I understand Trump’s strategy. He doesn’t want to bog the country down on what would turn into a media circus. And there’s no guarantee that Trump would be successful in the prosecution. Most of the nation’s attention would turn to Hillary’s prosecution while all the critical domestic and international matters would go to the back burner.
This also tells me that Trump does not hold political grudges and is able to prioritize. Good God, he actually sat down with Romney TWICE since he was elected and rumors are discussed openings in his administration after all the nasty and derogatory comments that Romney made about him!
And who knows? Maybe Trump cut a deal behind closed doors with the Clinton’s with an agreement that the Clinton’s would not use their influence and money to try to bring the Trump administration down. It’s interesting to note that I haven’t heard jack from either of the Clinton’s (no trash talk) since Hillary got her ass handed to her.
It would be a terrible waste of Trump’s political capital to prosecute Hillary. Better he spends that capital on fixing the many ills of the nation.
I get it that people think that she should be prosecuted but IMO DJT has much, much larger issues in front of him that should take precedent over a potential HRC prosecution. For all intents and purposes, she’s finished politically so her prosecution, while most likely warranted, wouldn’t accomplish much other than expending political capital that he’ll need in the months to come. If you’ll forgive a tinfoil comment – what if they know how bad her health is (like something terminal) and as a result they determine that prosecuting an obviously ill elderly woman isn’t something that would be politically prudent.
Rich – Trump isn’t going to be expending political capital, but his Attorney-General will. It’s in their hands now.
I have no problem
But there better be guidelines preventing future pay for play Foundations.
The decision to continue Hillary’s investigations shouldn’t be a task for the President Elect to decide, rather the DOJ and FBI because her acts were a violation of federal laws.
Who ultimately report to the president via a dotted line.
Either we live in a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law or we don’t. The President does not have the power to decide the prosecution of any citizen. An impartial application of our laws should be the standard. The FBI should continue their investigation under a special prosecutor outside the administration to remove any hint of political involvement. Trump deciding whether a citizen should be prosecuted or not means we will be governed by a dictator. If he wants to pardon her and her aides, he has that authority. He does not have the authority to decide on prosecution.
Hate to break it to you Barbara, but Obama set a precedent for the President having the power to kill anyone, US citizen or not, anywhere in the world without due process on the authority of the President alone.
Please tell me more about this constutional republic thingy you mentioned.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
That and a lot more things the presidents have been doing lately needs to be challenged, to the SCOTUS. The new SCOTUS, that is, one that will not automatically approve of anything Obama did.
Barbara – good comments; I agree. It’s not up to Trump, except if he decides to pardon her should she be found guilty.
Reblogged this on The Most Revolutionary Act and commented:
*
*
The first (I suspect of many) broken campaign promises.
Oh, one of Trump’s objectives is to bring the country together. A Hillary prosecution would only further tear it apart and increase the the vitriol and the rhetoric against Trump and his administration. So this is sort of like Trump offering an olive branch to the other side. And it will likely increase his political capital.
While I believe that Hillary should not be above the law the disadvantages of a prosecution would far outweigh the advantages.
Besides, the greatest punishment to the Clinton’s was sinking their dynasty and sending Hillary to the cold showers. Her entitlement is gone forever. Like the wicked witch being doused with water. Imagine the head trip she must be going through.
“On the other hand, numerous people are in jail for far less than what Hillary did”
Errr no, this confirms the election was stolen and not only was the last minute story about emails bullshit, the entire email thing was bullshit, in fact the entire Clinton scandal thing was bullshit.
Listen, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, period. After Bill Clinton, you guys had 8 years of Bush. What excuse for a failure to mount any attempt to press any charges? Ohhhh yes Bush was part of the ‘establishment’ blah blah blah. Well I guess that line ain’t going to play anymore. What do you have now?
How about “losing the election is sufficient punishment”? Errr no. You press charges and prove your case in a court of law. That is how someone is found guilty of a crime. You don’t launch a bunch of fake Facebook headlines then declare there’s no need to ever prove anything. You either take an oath to enforce the law or you don’t
This was a character test for Trump, but his failure was expected. It’s also a character test for Trump’s supporters. The honest ones will be offended and feel betrayed, the dishonest ones knew it was bullshit from the beginning and will pre-emptively prepare the spin. I’ll leave it to you to decide which basket you sit in.
It’s difficult to prove anything in a court of law when the AG tells the FBI to stop investigating and refuses to prosecute.
The AG told the FBI to stop the investigation? Show me that order.
SMF previously commented: “We already know the facts, or at least the vast majority of them. It won’t change the opinion of her supporters.”
For anyone who doubts that, Brian just proved the ability of Hellary supporters to ignore facts. Brian is in an entirely different movie than most of the commenters here. In Brian’s movie, the election was stolen and the email scandal is all fiction.
No facts are known. In a court claims must be entered into evidence either by lawyers, who are officers of the court or by witnesses who are subject to cross examination and perjury if they lie. Do you have some blog or Facebook page to show me that uses similar or better procedures?
If not, then the fact here is there is no reason why, if there was a case, it could not be presented. Your side will never have it this easy. If you’re going to fall back on conspiracy or ‘establishment’ as the excuse, well might as well give it up now. If you’re not then explain to us why people shouldn’t be annoyed? Why should you be allowed to accuse people of crimes but never actually charge them even when you have the entire resources of the gov’t totally in your power to do so? It is YOUR side who claimed Hillary was not charged because she was being protected by Obama/the AG/the FBI director/etc. etc. Well if Trump will not prosecute then how could that claim have ever been valid?
Stop talking sense, Brian. The natives hereabouts get easily upset when someone introduces logic and actual facts into the discussion.
OK Brian and Joe, explain to me your reason why the Hillary campaign workers that admitted breaking numerous laws on camera (Veritas) have not been charged with those crimes. You seem to think if they were not charged by a politically biased corrupt AG that the crimes we can see on camera never happened.
CJ – and perhaps Brian and Joe can explain why the supposedly upstanding Lynch did not walk away from Bill Clinton when he approached her on the tarmac. When she did not, she should have immediately resigned. The FBI and DOJ are dripping in guilt. Let’s have an investigation and bring out all of the facts.
Comey worked on the Marc Rich’s pardon by Bill Clinton (on his last day in office). He also worked on Whitewater, and then Hillary’s emails. He’s a cleaner.
Yawn. If all these entities are dripping with guilt then why is your guy prepping his public for not a single prosecution? You talk a game (ohhh Bill C chatted up the AG on a plane!) but you can’t seal the deal. And you seal the deal by presenting a case in court using the rules of evidence and the penalty of perjury. Campaign workers on camera saying they broke the law? OK so you’re saying there’s even more evidence. Sounds like a very easy case to make. Ohhh you don’t want to make it in court? Because at the end of the day you have nothing. Go back and play on Facebook with your fake headline bots.
“Errr no, this confirms the election was stolen”
This is so rich.
…
You earlier:
“The question Trump was set up for was would he accept a clear loss (majorities in more than enough states to leave him the clear loser in the electoral college)? Or would he declare the vote was faked, that supposedly dead people were had voted, etc. etc. setting up a ‘stabbed in the back’ narrative. His campaign manager, daughter, and VP pick all asserted he would before the debate clearly setting up the answer for him and signalling he was on board, then he failed to follow thru with the ‘cute’ answer about ‘keeping us in suspense’.”
https://mishtalk.com/2016/10/19/trumps-best-debate-performance-you-would-never-know-it-watching-msnbcs-funeral/
Indeed, but then how was it not stolen? Email charge 2.0 was made at the 11th hour and retracted 15 minutes before midnight. Now your side won’t even attempt to press the case. At least if investigating was made one could say Trump and his supporters honestly believed there was something there. The only conclusion available now is that they all knew all along there was nothing there to begin with.
Is that stealing and election? Well I suppose not illegally stealing it but it nonetheless is stealing it on a level.
Brian E Considine,
Do you honestly believe:
Hillary Clinton did not email classified email unlawfully?
Hillary Clinton did not know she was emailing classified email unlawfully?
Significant numbers of Trump voters would have been Hillary voters if not for email talk?
Who are the “you guys” who had Bush?
How do you think Trump voters feel about Bush?
How do you think Trump voters feel about Hillary?
How do you think Trump voters feel about Trump?
What charges did Bush fail to make?
Bill C’s political career was over.
Hillary C had not been elected senator yet.
What was the state of the Clinton Foundation during that time?
What do you feel would be sufficient punishment for treating classified information as personal information?
What do you feel would be sufficient punishment for political influence peddling?
Would driving for the prosecution of a defeated and disarmed opponent demonstrate good character?
The answer to your first questions are yes, there is no clear law against emailing classified information nor running your own email server. But we now know there wasn’t anything unlawful here because there is no prosecution and conviction. As I pointed out before, the process to establish someone committed a crime is to charge him or her and win a conviction. Your guy talked a big game but has now pussied out.
“What charges did Bush fail to make?
Bill C’s political career was over.
Hillary C had not been elected senator yet.”
Yea ok here’s the other reason your claims were bs. All during the Clinton era there were accusations left and right ranging from halfway plausible (travelgate, Whitewater) to absurd (Vince Foster, a ‘kill list’) to somewhat trivial (trashing the White House, stealing silverwear and paintings) and they were made against both Bill and Hillary Clinton.
So where were the charges then? You hit your finger on it, “Bill C’s political career was over.”
But the rule of law is not about whether or not someone might come back to challenge you politically. Ford didn’t pardon Nixon because he wanted him to run for office again and a conviction would have ended his political career as an asset to the Republican Party. If Bush really thought Bill and/or Hillary broke the law in the 90’s his duty was to prosecute them then, Trump is taking an oath to execute the law…not micromanage the future political prospects of the Republican Party. The fact that all the charges of criminal activity disappear the moment the election ends demonstrates it was bullshit all along and those who cried loudest about it knew it from the beginning.
Quote:” there is no clear law against emailing classified information nor running your own email server. ”
WRONG on both counts. Dead wrong.
Classified documents of level “Top Secret” and above are not even supposed to leave the room where they are kept and moved to a different room *in the same building* without somebody signing them out. That’s how you are taught to handle them. Sign them out, never let them leave your possession, and sign them back in – or else you will lose your clearance.
You sure as hell do NOT put them on anything connected to the Internet, unless it is a government site or a Secured contractor site.
The private server was even a violation of the Freedom of Information Act, as there was no way for the State Department to archive those documents. She then deleted them, which violates that law in spades.
Right now the Russians almost certainly have a better record of Secretary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department than the State Department itself.
So much for the “most transparent administration ever” – our enemies now know more about our foreign policy decisions than our own government, much less our own citizens.
Kevin and Emanon – great points!
You sound very authoritative about the law. Strange it seems the only place your words can carry weight is on blog comments rather than actual court of law.
Mish Shedlock,
Does this mean the Clinton Foundation will keep running and Hillary and Bill will get to keep the hundreds of millions of dollars they pilfered through this criminal entity?
If so, that proves that the laws only apply to us peons and crime richly pays for people like the Clintons.
(And if you don’t think the Clinton Foundation is a criminal enterprise please read what Charles Ortel has written about it.)
Mish Shedlock,
Does this mean the Clinton Foundation will keep running and Hillary and Bill will get to keep the hundreds of millions of dollars they pilfered through this criminal entity?
If so, that proves that the laws only apply to us peons and crime richly pays for people like the Clintons.
(And if you don’t think the Clinton Foundation is a criminal enterprise please read what Charles Ortel has written about it.)
I understand that the FBI still has active investigation on the Clinton Foundation. Those investigations are completely independent of Trump. The latest statement that Trump would not press for a special prosecutor would not exclude the possibility that Trump’s AG would prosecute the Clinton’s IF the FBI found evidence of criminal wrongdoing. So let’s not jump to conclusions quite yet. Let this play out. But I think the hands-off approach by Trump is smart. The man is always thinking 3 moves in advance.
“The man is always thinking 3 moves in advance.”
He doesn’t need to think 3 moves in advance to outsmart his supporters, he promises them steaks and gives them a plate filled with crap and they pretend they just got the best meal of their lives.
I realize that you resent the fact that Hillary lost and Trump won. But you’ll get over it with time. Be patient.
I’m quite over it, the problem is you are getting over your guy betraying himself too quickly.
“(And if you don’t think the Clinton Foundation is a criminal enterprise please read what Charles Ortel has written about it.)”
Who the hell gives a crap what Charles Ortel has to say? In this country if someone is a criminal the way you establish that is charge the person with a crime and prove your case beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. If someone doesn’t want to press charges, then they don’t have a case, period. I get that some people commit crimes and are never charged. Maybe they are never caught or there’s simply not enough resources for police and prosecutors to charge them. Those excuses don’t fly here, you guys elected the most anti-establishment candidate possible who swore he would ‘drain the swamp’ and investigate and charge Hillary criminal acts. Failure to do that before he even takes office (I was going to give him two years, after all it does take time for lawyers to investigate, formulate their strategy and then press the case) indicates it was bullshit.
The Clintons and others associated with the foundation have done all they could to make sure this never reached a court of law and so far they have been successful.
The Clintons and others associated with the foundation have done all they could to make sure this never reached a court of law and so far they have been successful.
Was electing Trump president part of that grand conspiracy to make sure no case ever reached a court of law? I guess you’re laying the groundwork….”Donald Trump is really Hillary Clinton wearing a disguise, the MSM used CGI during the debates to con us into thinking they were in the same room!”…..going to the Scooby Doo phase of your political philosophy already are we?
God you’re a Hillary shill.
What did electing Trump have to do with the Clintons and the Obama Administration being able to keep Clintons’ crimes from being prosecuted?
Don’t be stupid. Obama and Hillary didn’t do anything to prevent any of the various accusations from ending up in court. The reason they aren’t going to court is because there is no case to be brought. If there was your guy wouldn’t be wussing out.
And I bet you believe Bill and Loretta were talking golf and grand kids on the tarmac there in Phoenix, you brainwashed Shillary sheeple.
I don’t gotta believe a single goddam thing about Bill and Loretta. I just have to ask has anything been proven in a court of law? Ohhh, no one wants to go to court? Then there’s nothing left to say about it.
That is because Obama and Lynch are thoroughly corrupt and made sure Hillary’s crimes would never make it to a court of law.
Hey Slick, tell me what exactly did Hillary and Bill tell Goldman Suchs and the rest of the Wall Street white shoe boys that was worth millions of dollars for a few speeches?
Now that she has no favors to hand out what do her and Bill’s speeches go for now?
She is a criminal and you are a brainwashed sheep.
That is because Obama and Lynch are thoroughly corrupt and made sure Hillary’s crimes would never make it to a court of law.
Hey Slick, tell me what exactly did Hillary and Bill tell Goldman Suchs and the rest of the Wall Street white shoe boys that was worth millions of dollars for a few speeches?
Now that she has no favors to hand out what do her and Bill’s speeches go for now?
She is a criminal and you are a brainwashed sheep.
Let the Attorney General do their job
Trump has more to lose than gain by going after the Clintons. If they’re brought to trial and exonerated, it will be a disaster for Trump. Also, he wants to set a precedence in case he’s in a similar situation as the Clintons 4 years from now.
Actually I disagree. First if the facts are as strong as people here claim he could very well win. If the conspiracy really runs that deep then not only could he win but he could expose a lot more shady stuff now that he will soon have access to the entire Executive branch.
Even if he lost, though, it could at least be a stand on principle. He could say he honestly believe there was corrupt stuff, he brought it to court and maybe it was a bad decision (like the OJ verdict) or maybe it was the right decision but at least he tried to do what he promised NOT EVEN 30 DAYS AGO!!!.
Your defense, however, is totally unworkable. Basically you’re saying it is ok that Trump lies and reverses anything and everything he says as long as at any point in time he has ‘more to win than lose’ by transforming into something totally new and different. How does that square with a campaign one of whose main messages as complaints about dishonesty and crookedness of the person he was running against?
This is a terrible mistake for the following reason:
The neo-progressives have not and will never concede defeat. They will continue to pursue an agenda of ‘the end justifies any and all means’ until they have brought this country to its knees and established control. The only effective way to stop this evolution (revolution?) is to use RICO statutes to uncover and prosecute the broad corruption that Wikileaks et al have begun to expose. If this expansive political corruption is not brought to an end or at least effectively checked, then this cancer will only grow until free speech is gone much as our free press has disappeared. If someone can suggest another way to control this rampant corruption , I’m all ears, in the meantime, ignoring it is the worse possible outcome.
DC
There will also be no wall that has been paid for by Mexico.
Get used to it.
Trump has already crawfished on immigration. At first he said he would send ALL illegal aliens back to their country of origin. Now he says only the hardened criminals will either be sent back or put in prison [prison expense will further burden citizen taxpayers.] It would not surprise me if Trump becomes another Reagan who gave amnesty to millions of illegals.
I want that wall so bad.
I happily welcome working Mexicans to America. Unable to readily distinguish Guatemalan, Peruvian, Brazilian, Honduran, Salvadoran, Panamanian, etc. from Mexican I always wonder where the INS is expected to send illegals. If they claim to be Catalan, does the INS buy them tickets to Spain?
I want the wall because federal America hasn’t produced something imposing in so long – Hoover dam, Mount Rushmore, (imported) Statue of Liberty, Lincoln Memorial.
Intolerance will pass in a few decades. The wall becomes a reason to visit the South West if constructed to the standard I imagine. Two thousand miles of tall wide bricks with a fifty foot tall bust of each US president frowning Southward, one every 40 miles.
Worlds most ambitious brick structure, greatest bike path on earth, better hike than the Appalachian trail.
Please, the wall.
Perhaps you forget (or never learned) that China once built a Great Wall to keep out the barbarians. But the wall didn’t stop them.
Unless you seal off the county with a force field from the Star Trek universe, the Spanish barbarians from the south will go through, over, under and around your wall.
Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it…
Read again. I don’t want to keep anyone out.
Politicians must hang together… or ….
At the GOP national convention the Governor of Arkansas compared Trump to the “art of the possible.” For those not familiar with that quote, it is it not a compliment. It was Bismarck’s way of describing the typical compromising politician. Or as Trump might say… making deals.
it sends a really bad message when the little people go to prison for committing lesser crimes than hillary did.
Especially when Trump himself over and over again said that Clinton gets a ‘get out of jail free card’ when others without political clout go to jail for lesser crimes.
If Trump does not seek to prosecute Clinton, then he is sending an intentional overt message to the “little people” who elected him that they don’t count.
The other day a FOX news panel was discussing the first 100 days. Someone suggested that Trump should only seek to pass his business tax cuts and wait to pass individual tax cuts. Someone else answered, then the individual tax cuts will never happen.
If Trump reneges on the individual tax cuts there may be a revolution. He has already crawfished and changed his own tax cuts giving the “little people” less of a tax cut. Originally Trump said the first $25,000 for single filers will not be taxed. Now it is the first $15,000. Trump changed his mind to move closer to the GOP House tax cut version which is $12,000.
It appears Trump prefers to make “art of the possible” deals with the DC swamp.
That nonsense derives from a lack of understanding of how the founders of the republic arranged it. All revenue acts (e.g. taxes) originate from the House of Representatives. That is the bottom line, and the only line. The President can express his wishes, just like he did with Nigel Farage as UK ambassador, but he cannot compel the outcome or introduce the necessary legislation. He can only accept or veto. Bowing to reality and following constitutional law is what this is called. Plenty of other reasons to disparage Trump from the pages of the mainstream media sewer stream, if you are so inclined. GOP mainstream has NEVER favored the individual middle income or self-employed taxpayer; even Obama’s 2% social security tax cut was allowed to expire by the GOP House. Ditto with Obamacare, the individual tax penalties remained while the business penalties were postponed indefinitely. Trump by himself cannot reverse those sentiments of Paul Ryan and company. Blaming Trump on individual taxes is misplacing the blame, which should be focused on the GOP House led by Paul Ryan.
But Trump voters expected Trump to wave his magic wand and make all the things he promised happen! There are going to be a lot of disappointed commoners when all is said and done by Trump.
That’s the Winner’s Curse. If you expect too much, you will be disappointed. From what I understand, Jesus’s closest followers were disappointed, too, as they expected the second coming to happen in their lifetimes. Not making a link between the two, but rather saying that the followers with the most Utopian dreams and desires are doomed to disappointment when they meet reality.
I blame Trump for making promises he didn’t intend to keep and has already reneged on… not just the tax cut numbers, but also immigration. As for the professional politicians who control the House… Trump also promised to pursue term limits.
It is sad commentary on a political system when the people expect their government officials to lie and work against them. Reminds me of the Soviet propaganda newspaper, “Pravda” [which means “Truth”], and how most Russians realized “Pravda” was full of lies.
This is a good judgement call. Far better to expend the time and effort disempowering those who made her crimes possible…. restoring a measure of fairness and transparent honesty to our financial, news. educational and justice systems.
From the Clinton sycophants at Slate:
Why Pardoning Nixon Was Wrong
Dec. 29, 2006
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2006/12/why_pardoning_nixon_was_wrong.html
Nor can the pardon plausibly be considered an example of the bipartisan spirit for which Ford is justly, if too extravagantly, praised by Washington insiders. The pardon may have had the long-term effect of tamping down partisan warfare between Democrats and Republicans over a possible criminal trial (obstruction of justice would have been the likeliest charge), but…
—-
Here’s what I think this is all about – a new prez doesn’t want the next prez and/or. possibly, the opposing party going after HIM when he leaves office. Plus, I think the incited riots have served their true purpose – a warning of violence if a worshiped criminal was truly brought to justice.
What you are saying is… America is an occupied nation ruled by a corrupt oligarchy who no longer needs to hide their crimes. And contrary to his campaign promises, Trump embraces their DC swamp.
.
Word.
“America is an occupied nation ruled by a corrupt oligarchy who no longer needs to hide their crimes”
That sounds about right.
On the second part, you have jumped the gun a bit, as Obama is still the president. Odd that Trump is already being criticized for his lack of actions, when he is not yet even president. More of the mainstream media chorus, damning Trump being the dominant theme.
Obviously you have not been paying attention. Trump began reneging on his earlier campaign promises even before he was elected and has continued to do so after his election.
I would love to be pleasantly surprised after Trump’s inauguration… but I am not holding my breath.
As I said on another comment. I went down that foolish primrose path with Putin.
Atossa – back off. He hasn’t even got his coat off yet!
Trump and Putin are like two peas in a pod… both are as nutty as March hares.
https://mishtalk.com/2016/11/23/build-me-up-trumpercup-question-to-doctors-is-trump-schizophrenic/
Never underestimate Donald Trump. Don’t forget – he never held elected office or worked for the government and handily defeated 16 GOP primary opponents – some of the biggest names in the Party – and then dusted off Queen Hillary who many thought was entitled to the POTUS throne.
This could be a Trump head fake to deter an Obama pardon to allow his AG to sink his teeth into Hillary.
Trump thinks differently than your ordinary career government bureaucrat. Don’t shortchange him.
Get ready for a very interesting and productive 4 years.
Sounds good. That was my initial excuse for Putin who I expected to do great things. But what I originally hoped was Putin’s “all things to all people” psy-op [to confuse his enemies], turned out to be his double-minded lifestyle.
OK old timer. Let’s say Obama issues no pardon for Hillary (and it’s unclear BTW that he could, in order to issue a pardon he’d need a specific crime, yet we don’t know exactly what a hypothetical criminal charge would be).
So then in about two years we should have charges on Hillary. If we don’t then the only artful ‘head fake’ Trump pulled off is on people like you, his gullible supporters.
One of the stupidest blunders in political history was the dems putting all their energy behind baggage laden Hillary for a White House run. The dems beat themselves. So instead of focusing all your angst at Trump turn your attention towards the true source of the loss: The idiots in charge of the DNC.
The smartest thing Trump could do is distance himself from the on-going Hillary investigation and let his AG (and the new DOJ appointees) do the dirty work. That way Trump can concentrate on making America great again and not appear like a big bully picking on a sick and frail old woman. He’ll still reach his planned objective but only in a roundabout way that’s not readily apparent to the commoner’s eye.
Trump didn’t defeat the establishment and both major political parties by being stupid.
LFOldTimer – great comments.
I respectfully disagree…..this is the wrong path! It will encourage continued curroption without recourse. Leaders should always be held to a higher standard and at minimum the same. Without ramifications the message sent is is simple……..why not! The answer is is also simple…..we have to be better! Endorsing any path that allows leaders the ability to say why not when confronted with an ethical disicion is complicent. Period!
Trump must not be planning to run for re-election.
People can’t even remember last week, let alone four years ago.
There is far more corruption in the Clinton Camp than the Clintons. bill and Hillary were a hub of that corruption, tying some of the other players together. There may be too many fish to go after and there is another big election coming up in 2018. if the scheme between the players is disrupted, it’s “Mission Accomplished” without the political footprint.
So “Lock her Up” really meant “disrupt her plans by winning elections for my side rather htan hers”.
And one of the actual themes of the campaign was that Hillary was too dishonest! How pathetic you guys are. You’re shitted on by your own guy and all you know how to do is smile and ask for more.
I’m not one of the guys, but that seems to be an accurate summation.
Reminds me of the sheep in Orwell’s book, Animal Farm, who are retrained to repeat a different mantra.
Atossa – yeah, I especially like this line from Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
Brian – no, “lock her up” really meant “lock her up”.
Mish
I think this is a major Mistake by Trump that he will come to regret soon enough. Here’a why:
The fact remains that Hillary is out there right now trying very hard to incite a revolution against Trump. So if Trump were to give her a free pass, do you think she would reciprocate and be nice to him? Will she ask her supporters to step back from the streets tomorrow? Nope she won’t. That’s who she is.
I think it was Simon Wiesenthal who said that after the Holocaust, the most important lesson he learnt was that when someone said they were going to destroy you, he said you better take them seriously.
Hillary wants to destroy Trump even if it means the country goes to hell. Why is Trump acting as if she is above the Law and should be given a free pass for her transgressions?
Big Mistake Hombre Trump! You are going to rherest it.
I haven’t heard Clinton say “boo” about Trump ever since she got her ass handed to her. What’s holding her back? So your claim that her intention is to “incite a revolution against Trump” makes little sense to me. Hillary knows that Trump is holding a hammer over her head. And the Statute of Limitations for her violations extend out for years.
Trump is in the driver’s seat. What you see is not necessarily what you get. Trump is a master strategist. He defeated the entire establishment. His net worth didn’t grow to multi-billions by being stupid. Give him a chance. The man hasn’t even moved into the White House yet.
I’m amazed that so many Trump supporters are taking this news blip at face value.
Stand down and observe with patience.
Yes. He has only started naming his cabinet. With only 52 R senators he may need some Ds for confirmation.
Let him get settled into the WH with a confirmed cabinet … and THEN see what he does.
I think Trump is crazy, alright …. like a fox.
Clinton doesn’t have to say “boo”… George Soros runs show and she is sidelined. The benefits that George Soros gained from Hillary and Bill’s influence are still effective in places like Qatar, which Soros can still take advantage. He makes money through political disruption, but I think his organization might face some huge headwinds as the tide seems to be turning against him. My bet is that he is one of the targets and there is enough info out there to get the big tunas. The Clintons were just in the right place at the right time back in the 80’s and 90’s to get involved in political crime and build up their power to where it is now.
Two weeks ago today, DJT single-handedly rescued our republic & wrested control of the government from the diseased, twisted hands of the Clinton death machine.
If he literally does nothing else for the remainder of his term, he will remain a true hero of the republic.
Less pantsuits
More Melania
The simple pleasures are often the best
The Clintons are basically crooks and grifters. I can understand there being no desire to prosecute her, the country as a whole will not glean any positive benefit from it. But, it should be made clear that the last 8 years should NOT set a precedent for this type of thing; that is, the politicization of law enforcement over King Putts’ two miserable terms will NOT become the norm . We need to restore the idea that “justice is blind” again and if Hillary Hickenlooper or Hillary Clinton violates the law, the treatment should be the same.
What Trump SHOULD have done here is demand a quid pro quo from her in return. He should have demanded she go out and address her many hysterical “supporters” that they stop rioting (they’re not demonstrating, they’re rioting) and ask that they give the new prez a shot. And it would be nice if she called out Obama and demanded he do the same. That should seem like a good deal both for her and the country at large.
What Trump should do is abide by the rule of law. If you think someone has committed a serious crime, you prosecute and prove your case in a court of law. If you don’t then you don’t accuse them of being a criminal.
The rule of law IS NOT you decide to prosecute someone if they are running against you or you try to offer let them get away with crimes if they will be your political ally. You are so freaking absurd. You can’t even pretend to be honest for the sake of appearances on the Internet
Brian seems like an educated type of guy: so why can’t he understand that Trump can not prosecute anyone. He can’t even ask for a prosecution yet except as a common citizen as opposed to President. Please stop trying to read more into this than is wise at this time Brian.
Bottom line is this.
There are two groups
YOU, the poor powerless little people
US, the rich oligarchs in control
Trump has already crawfished on his promises to the first group.
It would not surprise me if he turns out to be an oligarch wolf in populist sheep’s clothing.
As for the poor powerless little people… their loyalty can be fickle… especially when they are told to “eat cake” or something worse.
.
Atossa – are you paid by George Soros to stir up sh*t? Rile up the Trump supporters? Not working.
You are batting zero.
Trump reneging on his campaign promises should rile his supporters as it does me.
I voted for him twice [GOP primary and election.]
I doubt I am the only one who feels betrayed. But at least I expected it because I knew it was too good to be true.
Atossa – going by your posts, I highly doubt you voted for Trump. You see him as a lover of Putin, and you hate Putin. This colors all of your responses.
If you knew me half as well as you think you do, you would realize how ironic your post is.
As my second post on this topic reveals, instead of hating them, I am attracted to both Putin and Trump [most of the time against my better judgment.] But I refuse to be anyone’s “yes man” because I have a greater love for Christ and God’s White European Christ-bearing people and they are my main focus.
I wasn’t going to vote in this election at all… but I changed my mind and voted for Trump on the first day of the Texas GOP primary. Why? Ironically, I told others that since I couldn’t vote for Putin, I was doing the next best thing. I also voted for Trump on the first day of Texas early voting in the general election.
This is the truth… whether you believe it or not is not my concern.
.
Correction… see my first and second posts on this Mish topic
https://mishtalk.com/2016/11/23/build-me-up-trumpercup-question-to-doctors-is-trump-schizophrenic/
Atossa said:
November 23, 2016 12:47:04 at 12:47 AM
I have been down this primrose path before… with Putin.
I expected great things from Putin. And I received great things at least some of the time. But other times Putin said and did the exact opposite. Initially, I thought maybe Putin was playing a psy-op to confuse his enemies. But I was the one confused by his constant double-mindedness; and I couldn’t decide which Putin was the real Putin. 17 years later, I’ve come to the conclusion the Pentagon might be right when they said Putin is autistic.
In an ironic way… Trump and Putin may indeed be playing on the same team.
*
Atossa said:
November 23, 2016 12:56:16 at 12:56 AM
Now I worry why I am attracted to both of these double-minded men.
.
The information given is that Trump won’t do something Presidents are not supposed to do: order a prosecution of anyone. A better question is whether or not Trump will intervene to oppose a prosecution by the Justice Department of anyone, or whether he would tolerate a DOJ that is politicized against or in favor of prosecuting anyone? For example, Obama said that Wall Street prosecutions subsequent to 2008 could crash the economy, so his DOJ was not pursuing them. That was my principle concern, regarding the President. He, in a cagey way, allowed politics to color prosecutorial decisions, and the case of Clinton has presented that appearance.
“The information given is that Trump won’t do something Presidents are not supposed to do: order a prosecution of anyone.”
Actually he said in the debate and numerous speeches he would appoint a prosecutor to at least ‘investigate’. If you’re now going to say his back peddling is abiding by the Constitution what was he doing before the election?
It is likely Trump has more information now. Remember that the Clinton Foundation is under one FBI investigation, and a federal grand jury investigating Carlos Danger is seated and has the laptop with 650,000 emails as evidence in that case. If the grand jury sees that it has evidence in the emails of obstruction of justice by Hillary Clinton, will it not act? If indictments against Hillary Clinton are imminent, then Trump need do nothing more but stay above the fray. He could be wise to show personal magnanimity, but let the wheels of justice grind on their own and support the decisions of the professional prosecutors, in lieu of a special prosecutor. We are possessed of insufficient information to be certain, but I think it is likely something like that is occurring.
I can’t believe the Clintons will make a clean getaway from the miasma of corruption they have presented over the years. I was just pondering what sane arab sheik would write a multi-million dollar check to the Clintons, ostensively for future favors, unless it was really payment for services already rendered or a loan. And these donations were not unusual for them. If that is the case, then this onion will peel itself, given time. The Clintons owe too much to too many to get off scott free.
‘Carlos Danger’ is under investigation because his sexting habit may have gotten him chatting with an underage girl. The FBI has already said they couldn’t find anything on his computer that had any relevance to the Clinton email investigation. If they now turn around and say yes there’s all sorts of damming Hillary stuff there, then you have the problem of the FBI yanking the American publics chain back and forth right before a Presidential election. Fact is there’s nothing related to Hillary that’s going to produce an indictment from the Weiner investigation.
If Trump has ‘more information’ it is that there’s nothing he can charge Hillary with so now must backpeddle.
“I can’t believe the Clintons will make a clean getaway from the miasma of corruption they have presented over the years. I was just pondering what sane arab sheik would write a multi-million dollar check to the Clintons, ostensively for future favors, ”
See that’s the problem with you guys. “ostensively” Why would an Arab sheik give a charity a million? What do you think charities do? They play upon the upper class’s desire for status by taking their money. If you were to take a job at an upscale venue in DC, NY, London, and other global cities you would probably see one charity event after another where celebrities and other big wigs mingle with each other and they get in by writing million dollar checks.
This is why you can’t seal the deal. Because in a court of law you actually have to present evidence and prove your case. You can submit your actual evidence (sheik wrote check to charity) but you can’t submit connections that are produced by your imagination.
ALL I CAN SAY is that the Attorney General had best go completely investigate the Clinton Clan and their, so called, “Foundation.” PERIOD!!!
If my life was threatened I was reverse my promise too.
The people of the United States are (imho) ENTITLED to KNOW:
a/ Just what the hell went down in Benghazi, why it went down, whether the Secretary of State was acting in accordance with international law, and whether she lied to Congress and the American people.
b/ Whether funds obtained by the charitable Clinton Foundation had been used illegally by any of the Clinton family, and if so how.
c/ Whether any of the emails supposedly held and then deleted from the Secretary of State’s private computer were of a confidential nature and whether the security of the United States was compromised as a result.
I don’t know the answers to these questions. But they are not rocket science. They are not even politics. They are simple questions about a suspect potentially having broken the law and for the most part have a simple yes / no answer. The people should absolutely DEMAND these answers irrespective of what the President Elect might (or might not) think.
Greetings from England!
The people of the United States are (imho) ENTITLED to KNOW:
a/ Just what the hell went down in Benghazi, why it went down, whether the Secretary of State was acting in accordance with international law, and whether she lied to Congress and the American people.
b/ Whether funds obtained by the charitable Clinton Foundation had been used illegally by any of the Clinton family, and if so how.
c/ Whether any of the emails supposedly held and then deleted from the Secretary of State’s private computer were of a confidential nature and whether the security of the United States was compromised as a result.
I don’t know the answers to these questions. But they are not rocket science. They are not even politics. They are simple questions about a suspect potentially having broken the law and for the most part have a simple yes / no answer. The people should absolutely DEMAND these answers irrespective of what the President Elect might (or might not) think.
Greetings from England!
Not just A,B,&C but every minutest detail of everything. JFK. The FED. All the ABC agencies ops. Your company got bailout money? Well bend over. EVERY PHUCKING THING! Not just tax returns. Be all up in every public servant’s ass and anyone suckling on the government teat.
Roger and Alan – excellent points!
Clinton supporters and Clinton haters need a new shtick. This one ended on November 9th.
Surprise, surprise. One criminal showing professional courtesy to another.
Now, let’s move forward with the zio-agenda, Trump. Netanyahu has made the deal with Putin based on his multiple trips to Moscow in the past year and the low-key stand down by the Kremlin in Syria.
Next up should be some ‘catalyzing event’ to move on We the people. The 10 year rate has jumped 25-30% since Nov 8. Should we expect a crash?
While Rome burns the sheeple will fight amongst themselves about the right/left false dichomtomy.
Anyone that thinks Hillary will go quietly into the night does not know her or Bill’s Collectivist roots. I hope Trump realizes this and is simply employing his rope-a-dope strategy, which for Hillary has a dual meaning.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/2016-u-s-presidential-election/hillary-tells-supporters-to-effectively-revolt-against-trump/
Too old. This was the last shot.
Finish the job. Neutralize the threat. Only way to be sure.
http://buenavistamall.com/trumpliar.jpg
Obama can’t pardon Hilary because as of yet, she has not been convicted of a crime. pardons come after conviction. any lawyers out there?
I think Hilary came out smelling like a rose. she got to be a major candidate,so she will be in the history books. she did a great acting job.
she got all those donations from people who thought she could be bought and would win. now she has all the money and while the global economy tanks it will go on trump’s legacy. I suspect the ptb, set trump to be the fall guy to blame the global collapse on and Hilary played right along, so did trump.
I think Hilary outsmarted us all. that may irk some of you but give credit where it is due.
soon trump will be an insider. just think of all those “deals” he will have inside info on. all that money to be made.
let’s face it we’ve all been duped again by the elite. duped by both trump and Hilary. all of us have lost .
and mish I would love to see you write less divisive statements . how can you be against war when you sometimes fan flames of divide,by things you write. bring people together mish, that’s the task we all need to turn to.
“Obama can’t pardon Hilary because as of yet, she has not been convicted of a crime. pardons come after conviction. any lawyers out there?”
Ford pardoned Nixon before he was ever charged with a crime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon#United_States
I suspect a pardon has to list a specific crime or set of circumstances the pardon covers, not simply a blanket pardon for anything and everything a person might have done known and unknown at the time of the pardon. Complicating the issue is the fact that a pardon carries with a presumption of guilt so asking for or accepting a pardon is essentially pleading guilty to a crime (although you escape the punishment).
Here ya go, Beth!
In USSC 150 Ex Parte Garland (1865), the Supreme Court ruled:
“The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.”
Thus, Ford did not pardon Nixon for any particular, specific crime. See Ford’s pardon in (see “On Executive Clemency: The Pardon of Richard M. Nixon” Pepperdine Law Review
digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2255&context=plr), to wit:
“It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former
President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.
“NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard, Nixon for all offenses against the United
States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
Unfortunately Congress allowed the Independent Counse (Special Prosecutor) Statute to expire in 2000. That statute provided for three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals to appoint an independent counsel that runs their own criminal investigation using the FBI and traditional resources that don’t report to the attorney general in cases of clear conflict of interest where the target of the investigation is the president, the upper echelon of his cabinet, or head honchos within a party. The independent counsels had the right to stay and investigate as long as they wish. Kenneth Star [who investigated President Bill Clinton] was an independent counsel, Congress appropriates money for them; they are the ones who decide to challenge executive privilege.
This would be the only way the matter could possibly be laid to rest. Clinton, herself, should welcome an SP as the best way to clear her name. NOT doing so, however, allows her to continue to be the lady “that doth protest too much” which she no doubt prefers.
Should Trump’s AG not fully investigate, and thereby Clinton gets a free pass altogether, is the worst of all possbile outcomes for the people’s confidencce in the rule of law.
Hillary’s name has already been cleared. If she had won the election maybe you would have a point but not anymore. Republicans control all branches of gov’t AND the President swore during the campaign he would investigate her and prosecute her. His failure to do so indicates there was no case all along.
A special prosecutor wouldn’t ‘clear her name’. It would just be more months and years of headlines about a shady ‘investigation’ above the waterline and below the waterline more fake newsbot headlines making crap up. At then end when the SP decides there’s nothing to prosecute the story will either be buried and forgotten about or people here would just carry on about ‘secret deals’ or conspiracies or some masterful plan Trump has that requires him to keep Hillary ‘on his side’ somehow.
The ‘corrupt Hillary’ stuff has been demonstrated to be bullshit and its advocates have failed.
“Hillary’s name has already been cleared.”
By whom, where, by what showing?
“If she had won the election maybe you would have a point but not anymore. ”
Non sequitor? Please clarify.
“..the President swore during the campaign he would investigate her and prosecute her. His failure to do so indicates there was no case all along..”
The President-elect so swore. As he has not yet been inaugurated, he is not the President and cannot yet take action; therefore, “His failure to do so indicates there was no case all along” is an empty assertion.
“The ‘corrupt Hillary’ stuff has been demonstrated to be bullshit..”
By whom, where, by what showing?
While the CGI is worthy of the light of day being shone upon it in all its ramifications, the first felony prosecution ought to be for the “extremely careless… handling of very sensitive, highly classified information”. Comey’s assertion of no intention “to violate laws governing the handling of classified information” was/is irrelevant and bogus. 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) does not require or stipulate intent, but does state that gross negligence in and of itself is sufficient to “be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years”.
“Non sequitor? Please clarify.”
It’s very simple. A person is innocent until proven guilty. If the gov’t, as represented by Trump, does not even bother to press charges, then you are innocent.
You can cite all the laws and previous cases you want, don’t press any charges there is no guilt and at this point there is absolutely no reason charges couldn’t be pressed if there was a case.
Trump has better things to do than go after Clinton. Paul Ryan told Trump, “Dont bother yourself. We will take care of it for you.”
Lots of Trump supporters hate Paul Ryan.
If Trump allows Ryan to be the power behind the throne, the DC swamp planned it that way from the beginning.
.
Trump said his was not just a political campaign but a popular movement.
Trump could motivate his folowers, his movement, to accomplish just about anything. If he doesn’t motivate his popular base, it won’t happen and it will be because he didn’t want it to happen.
.
So while we are on the subject, when is Trump planning to release his tax returns? I recall the VP guy said in the debate he was going to do it before the election.
Trump should prosecute Hillary and Then pardon her…that would be fun
Almost right, Fagui –
Congress should appoint an independent prosecutor (see my reply to Beth and Brian above) and if Hillary is successfully prosecuted and found guilty, THEN let Trump have the albatross ung around his neck, whether to pardon or not.
However, the new Republican Congress won’t have the opportunity to re-enact an Independent Counsel Statue, because dollars to donuts, before the inauguration, Obama will pardon Hillary a la Ford’s pardon of Nixon.
Thus, Trump’s reversal, backing away from any further investigation or prosecution puts the onus squarely on Obama to pardon without any specification of a crime, permanently branding Hillary as was Nixon with “Why a pardon if there was no crime?”
Trump then gets away with clean hands, “Who me? I didn’t prosecute (persecute) her!”
Rikki – and Obama looks like an absolute clown.
How so?
Obama is in a logical cleft stick.
– If he does not grant such a blank pardon, the way remains open for prosecution on any potential offense(s).
– If he does grant it, his “legacy” will always be tainted as Ford’s or, were future revelations to demonstrate clear culpability on Hillary’s part, his “legacy” would be down the crapper further than Ford’s.
There are two sides to this: [1] the Rule of Law; [2] divisiveness for the body politic. Who thinks either of these are actually on Trump’s mind?