The problem is that Comey has twice stated there are no grounds to believe that a crime was committed. Certainly you could continue the WITCH hunt for political reasons but without fresh evidence from Trump's Russian allies or interference from that lying sack of shit Giuliani the result reached will be the same. Good times for demagoguery.
Putin/Comey win
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
O
OnTheWayOut
To me the whole matter of the emails should be put to rest. Wikileaks proved it was intentional and a lot more but there is no benefit to the country to pursue it. That would just prolong tension between the left and right with no gains. Yes, others have done less and went to jail but there are bigger problems and it could be viewed as Trump using his position to gain revenge now.
The Clinton Foundation however, is another matter. This is serious stuff and what CF did was a bigger threat to the US than emails. Wikileaks again proved that there was malicious intent by Hillary and CF to use her position for financial gain and subvert US security. Bill blatantly meeting with the AG, the Haitian theft of charitable funds, trading arms for "donations" knowing those arms would end up assisting ISIS, and so much more we have yet to learn. Obama was complicit in these actions and his refusal to allow the military to take out ISIS when they had the chance proves that. Since CF is already under investigation by the FBI and who knows what other agencies it is not Trump initiating anything. Let the investigation run it's course and the chips fall where they may.
I'm not sure if Obama can give blanket pardons for unspecified crimes but can he pardon himself? I'm convinced any REAL investigation into CF will come back to haunt him as well as Hillary and others in her circle.
The Clinton Foundation however, is another matter. This is serious stuff and what CF did was a bigger threat to the US than emails. Wikileaks again proved that there was malicious intent by Hillary and CF to use her position for financial gain and subvert US security. Bill blatantly meeting with the AG, the Haitian theft of charitable funds, trading arms for "donations" knowing those arms would end up assisting ISIS, and so much more we have yet to learn. Obama was complicit in these actions and his refusal to allow the military to take out ISIS when they had the chance proves that. Since CF is already under investigation by the FBI and who knows what other agencies it is not Trump initiating anything. Let the investigation run it's course and the chips fall where they may.
I'm not sure if Obama can give blanket pardons for unspecified crimes but can he pardon himself? I'm convinced any REAL investigation into CF will come back to haunt him as well as Hillary and others in her circle.
The perception of the same is yet another reason why for the good of the country President Obama should pardon her before leaving office.It will be a political trial where the law doesn't matter only destroying your opponent matters.
By the way due to the excesses of Senator McCarthy, it is easy to overlook the fact that Soviet penetration of the United States government in the 1930's and 1940's was massive.
I readily accept the fact Clinton was a flawed candidate who had no right to win. What I will never accept is that decency had to be sacrificed to do it.The problem is you guys on the Left cant accept the fact that you lost
We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.
Kurt Vonnegut, Mother Night
I disagree the country will never know what it is until they finish destroying her. No pardon.The perception of the same is yet another reason why for the good of the country President Obama should pardon her before leaving office.
By the way due to the excesses of Senator McCarthy, it is easy to overlook the fact that Soviet penetration of the United States government in the 1930's and 1940's was massive.
Excellent points, I entirely agree.To me the whole matter of the emails should be put to rest. Wikileaks proved it was intentional and a lot more but there is no benefit to the country to pursue it. That would just prolong tension between the left and right with no gains. Yes, others have done less and went to jail but there are bigger problems and it could be viewed as Trump using his position to gain revenge now.
The Clinton Foundation however, is another matter. This is serious stuff and what CF did was a bigger threat to the US than emails. Wikileaks again proved that there was malicious intent by Hillary and CF to use her position for financial gain and subvert US security. Bill blatantly meeting with the AG, the Haitian theft of charitable funds, trading arms for "donations" knowing those arms would end up assisting ISIS, and so much more we have yet to learn. Obama was complicit in these actions and his refusal to allow the military to take out ISIS when they had the chance proves that. Since CF is already under investigation by the FBI and who knows what other agencies it is not Trump initiating anything. Let the investigation run it's course and the chips fall where they may.
The consensus is that you cannot pardon yourself. Further although a conviction is not necessary, the crimes or possible crimes must already have occurred no preemptive pardoning.I'm not sure if Obama can give blanket pardons for unspecified crimes but can he pardon himself?
What is the point of that? A pardon is clearly in the national interest of the U.S.I disagree the country will never know what it is until they finish destroying her. No pardon.
You don't get to argue that point any more.The problem is you guys on the Left cant accept the fact that you lost
After Trump declared the system is rigged and he wouldn't accept the results, its open season on complaining about the system.
Or do you think Trump was lying when he said the system was rigged?
Trump also called for supporters to storm Washington, so its fair to call for anti-Trump supporters to storm Washington over the rigged system as well, isn't it?
There is no pardon needed, she was investigated by the FBI based on allegations made in a book by a Breitbart editor. No grounds for charges were found.Excellent points, I entirely agree.
The consensus is that you cannot pardon yourself. Further although a conviction is not necessary, the crimes or possible crimes must already have occurred no preemptive pardoning.
Trying to jail your opponents based on groundless and proven false allegations harkens back to totalitarian states.
So are you making a political point, are you speaking in the best interest of HRC, are you speaking in the best interest of the U.S.A.?There is no pardon needed, she was investigated by the FBI based on allegations made in a book by a Breitbart editor. No grounds for charges were found.
Trying to jail your opponents based on groundless and proven false allegations harkens back to totalitarian states.
Clearly it doesn't matter whether you or more importantly President Obama, believe that criminal charges might or might not be forthcoming in the next administration, rather to quote from President Lincoln's second inaugural address, the issue is "to bind up the nation's wounds," and that is best served through a pardon.
The best interest in the US is to reunite the country. Trump being pissy and trying to 'lock her up' despite the FBI clearing her will do the opposite.... are you speaking in the best interest of the U.S.A.?....
Clearly you believe she is guilty regardless of reality and will only be satisfied if she is behind bars for whatever reason.So are you making a political point, are you speaking in the best interest of HRC, are you speaking in the best interest of the U.S.A.?
Clearly it doesn't matter whether you or more importantly President Obama, believe that criminal charges might or might not be forthcoming in the next administration, rather to quote from President Lincoln's second inaugural address, the issue is "to bind up the nation's wounds," and that is best served through a pardon.
Jailing your opponents is so totalitarian.
The US used to follow the law, someone investigates based on allegations, like the FBI investigating Clinton based on a slandery book by Breitbart, and then decides whether to press charges based on if there was a crime and evidence of a crime. Apparently the FBI isn't good enough for you and you only the word of Trump is enough to declare guilt.
^ You really aren't paying attention Frankfooter. Again it doesn't matter what I believe about her guilt, nor do I know what a future administration will or will not do.
What I do know is I would certainly advise her to accept a pardon, and likewise I would advise the President to offer one. Not only because she would have to be an egomaniacal fool to take the risk of prosecution. But more importantly because she is an incredibly polarizing figure and a pardon would put all of that behind us.
What I do know is I would certainly advise her to accept a pardon, and likewise I would advise the President to offer one. Not only because she would have to be an egomaniacal fool to take the risk of prosecution. But more importantly because she is an incredibly polarizing figure and a pardon would put all of that behind us.
However the Clinton Foundation investigation is still ongoing. Further the President "owns" some of this, for him to say that he was unaware of her issues is to say that he was asleep at the switch through his first term.The best interest in the US is to reunite the country. Trump being pissy and trying to 'lock her up' despite the FBI clearing her will do the opposite.
A pardon is the best way to deal with this.
Question: Is there a political risk to the Democrats in having a Democrat president pardon a Democrat presidential nominee?However the Clinton Foundation investigation is still ongoing. Further the President "owns" some of this, for him to say that he was unaware of her issues is to say that he was asleep at the switch through his first term.
A pardon is the best way to deal with this.
To the party I wouldn't think very much of one. Did anyone hold Ronald Reagan responsible for Richard Nixon?Question: Is there a political risk to the Democrats in having a Democrat president pardon a Democrat presidential nominee?
Now would there be a certain Gerald Ford taint to Barrack Obama, probably, but as time went on I believe it would like the Nixon pardon, be seen as having been the right thing to do.
As to Hilary she would be a pariah, but it is already the case that she will never run for a national office again.
The optics would look a lot better if a GOP President (which I hope he would do) decides to stop pursuing a defeated candidate. The new President has a lot on his plate and needs to build his own legacy.To the party I wouldn't think very much of one. Did anyone hold Ronald Reagan responsible for Richard Nixon?
Now would there be a certain Gerald Ford taint to Barrack Obama, probably, but as time went on I believe it would like the Nixon pardon, be seen as having been the right thing to do.
As to Hilary she would be a pariah, but it is already the case that she will never run for a national office again.
^ In general I would agree with you. But what happens if in a new administration the FBI recommends prosecution for the going on involving the Clinton Foundation? A pardon would deal with that.
In that case President Trump will be the one to issue the pardon (I think he would). He has already spoke kindly of both Clintons. Also, I think President Clinton still has political capital as some (many, most?) people have fond memories of his presidency.^ In general I would agree with you. But what happens if in a new administration the FBI recommends prosecution for the going on involving the Clinton Foundation? A pardon would deal with that.
