What a bunch of cry babies

[Hook#3287]

I don't know Rob, your opinion, that appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the ex Secretary of State, or the principal of a supposed charity organisation, is persecution because she lost an election, is 
flawed. 

If we let her get away with her alleged crimes for that reason, what's to stop a criminal from running for office to get out from under scrutiny?

She needs to be vetted or prosecuted.

[Jess from VA]

I will be VERY surprised if Obama doesn't pardon her before he clocks out...

Despite his campaigning, it's my understanding they have no like for each other at all, beyond their socialist orgasmic tantra dreams.  He may not pardon her, esp since all his work for her went for naught, and his supposed legacy will go in the crapper with a Trump presidency.  Unless a pardon was part of the deal they made when he got on her bandwagon only late in the game.  He already paid her once with the SecState position, and look what that got him.  

Even if pardoned, let a full and fair investigation be completed, publish the results, explain the rational and reasonable charges, then lay it on the Zero that she gets a walk.

But lets be clear on an investigation, get it done and get it out (or forget about it).  No one wants this to drag on and on and on, like Ken Star and Bill and Whitewater with congressional hearings and TV yaking heads.  It's like being condemned for eternity to watching one old re run episode of the Andy Griffith Show.  No matter how good that show was, the 500th time you watch it, it's sucky and terrible.    

[G-Man]

Every administration could be CHARGED with an illegal act. Reagan's Iran/contra affair, Cheney's secret meetings with the Energy companies, etc. It's not a way I want our changing of leadership to happen.

I agree, COULD.  Not Charging and either finding guilty or not, has resulted in the "they won't do that to me attitude that exists in DC today.  There are a lot of people in prison doing hard time that have done and benefited less from their crimes than the Clintons allegedly have.  Bring the truth out.

So we slide even further down into the stinking, rotting cesspool of our corrupt politics. Setting a precedent of imprisoning the losing candidate does nothing to deter corruption. It just makes it worse.

   If I'm ever in trouble, I want a liberal jury with you as foreman

As I see it it's a completely different set of circumstances for the democratic changing of our leaders than a common crime. I'm not saying its perfect, but when we start imprisoning the losers of the election we are no longer a functioning democracy.

How about imprisoning a convicted criminal, who just happens to have lost an election???

She did wrong.  She should be tried.  If convicted, she should be punished.

You talk as though it's out of retribution.  It's not.  She did wrong.  The election has nothing to do with it.

If we don't punish those who do wrong, what's to stop the next one from doing a little more wrong?  Then even more wrong?  And then even more?  Is there a level of wrongness that would be OK to punish, even though they lost an election?  What would THAT say about us being a functioning REPUBLIC (we are NOT a democracy) if we allowed corruption to take place, just because it happened around election time?



 

[Wizzard]

Every administration could be CHARGED with an illegal act. Reagan's Iran/contra affair, Cheney's secret meetings with the Energy companies, etc. It's not a way I want our changing of leadership to happen.

I agree, COULD.  Not Charging and either finding guilty or not, has resulted in the "they won't do that to me attitude that exists in DC today.  There are a lot of people in prison doing hard time that have done and benefited less from their crimes than the Clintons allegedly have.  Bring the truth out.

So we slide even further down into the stinking, rotting cesspool of our corrupt politics. Setting a precedent of imprisoning the losing candidate does nothing to deter corruption. It just makes it worse.

IMHO it has nothing to do with "candidates" It has to do with "criminal activity" and they all should be prosecuted. We give them a pass and it just gets worse. Something has to stop this snowball rolling down a hill as its getting more serious all the time. People are now dying because of it.

[Rams]

Despite his campaigning, it's my understanding they have no like for each other at all, beyond their socialist orgasmic tantra dreams.  He may not pardon her, esp since all his work for her went for naught, and his supposed legacy will go in the crapper with a Trump presidency.  Unless a pardon was part of the deal they made when he got on her bandwagon only late in the game.  He already paid her once with the SecState position, and look what that got him.  

Even if pardoned, let a full and fair investigation be completed, publish the results, explain the rational and reasonable charges, then lay it on the Zero that she gets a walk.

But lets be clear on an investigation, get it done and get it out (or forget about it).  No one wants this to drag on and on and on, like Ken Star and Bill and Whitewater with congressional hearings and TV yaking heads.  It's like being condemned for eternity to watching one old re run episode of the Andy Griffith Show.  No matter how good that show was, the 500th time you watch it, it's sucky and terrible.    

I whole heartedly agree.   Her position as the loser of this election is only an excuse IMHO.   I would fully expect an impartial investigation and judgement that is not influenced by any political group.   If she's clean, then so be it, if guilty, then equal justice under the law.    This is more about special treatment for the powerful than some will willingly admit to.    Blaming an investigation on political crap is just that, crap.   

[Hooter]

I don't have to agree with, or disagree with anyone. There are some good points here on both sides such as just let her go away,  if she would? If something is to be done, something also has to be done with the funds in the Clinton Foundation? Give it to the disabled vets or some other good organization, childrens cancer foundation?  Also, I  think if Trump is going to do anything he needs to wait before doing something, not immediately. I'm hearing if he does something with Clinton that it sends a bad message to the world?  What does it say to all if nothing is done?

 Would it look bad for him and if so in what way? There are bigger fish to fry other than her at this time. Something does need to be done.  This shouldn't just be swept under the carpet. If any one of us even committed a smidgen of what she has, we'd be wearing an orange jump suit.

One thing I did enjoy was watching a little of the Today show. Those very obvious Clinton supporters from the beginning were very sheepish  this morning over the Trump win.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

Guys, she was investigated by your guys for 2 years. Enough already. It was said it has nothing to do with the election. BS, there was a constant mantra by the President Elect and his supporters "lock her up". Where was all this outrage when Republicans steered afoul ? You want to bring this country together and "make it great again" then do it. You won the Senate, the House, the Presidency. Get on with governing. If you feel the Clinton Foundation went afoul of the law then fine let the proper authorities investigate it. But to try to "lock her up" for what you think she did with Benghazi, the email server stuff, etc. that has been investigated for years already is not going to serve your party or the country well.

[PAVALKER]

I will be VERY surprised if Obama doesn't pardon her before he clocks out...

Can you pardon someone that has not been convicted yet? Don't think so.   Let's wait for Trump to get the "Special Prosecutor" in action, and hopefully he follows thru with that.

[Serk]

I will be VERY surprised if Obama doesn't pardon her before he clocks out...

Can you pardon someone that has not been convicted yet? Don't think so.   Let's wait for Trump to get the "Special Prosecutor" in action, and hopefully he follows thru with that.

Yes, the president can pre-pardon someone, as decided by Ex Parte Garland SCOTUS case in 1866:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Garland

[Oss]

precisely why I suggested to let the dust settle then start with IRS investigation

for a techie nerd you catch on fast sir serk   

[Jess from VA]

I will be VERY surprised if Obama doesn't pardon her before he clocks out...

Can you pardon someone that has not been convicted yet?  Don't think so.   Let's wait for Trump to get the "Special Prosecutor" in action, and hopefully he follows thru with that.

Yes, the president can pre-pardon someone, as decided by Ex Parte Garland SCOTUS case in 1866:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Garland

I thought not, and previously said so.  I was wrong.

Remember,  Ford pardoned Nixon right after his resignation, before anything else happened (and that was that).  I had forgotten about that.

It really does not make good legal sense, in that what if an unknown but subsequently discovered murder was discovered (or something equally bad), so the pardon goes well beyond what was intended.  But it is what it is.   Of course, a skillful DOJ could craft a pardon... only as to specific things, and no more.  But if he does it at all, I bet he does a whole enchilada type pardon.  After all, he loves being king, and is giving out pardons willy nilly right now.

In any event, this is a good reason for Trump and the R congress to just keep entirely quiet about it until after the handover.  Don't telegraph your punches, whatever they are.

Another reason for Zero NOT to pardon, is of course the obvious implication that he is complicit in some of her misconduct.  On the other hand, if he is indeed complicit with her, in any way, a full pardon kills any further investigation of her..... (and anything discovered against him in that investigation). 

I'm fairly sure he cannot give himself a blanket pardon. 

[MP]

I see Willow's point.   However, alleged illegal acts no matter when, who, how, where, should be subjected to investigations and charges brought, judged, and final determination.  we are not a banana republic and it's not revenge, it's the rule of law and it should be applied equally.

Every administration could be CHARGED with an illegal act. Reagan's Iran/contra affair, Cheney's secret meetings with the Energy companies, etc. It's not a way I want our changing of leadership to happen.

When was Hillary's administration? Thought she lost??

[f6john]

Guys, she was investigated by your guys for 2 years. Enough already. It was said it has nothing to do with the election. BS, there was a constant mantra by the President Elect and his supporters "lock her up". Where was all this outrage when Republicans steered afoul ? You want to bring this country together and "make it great again" then do it. You won the Senate, the House, the Presidency. Get on with governing. If you feel the Clinton Foundation went afoul of the law then fine let the proper authorities investigate it. But to try to "lock her up" for what you think she did with Benghazi, the email server stuff, etc. that has been investigated for years already is not going to serve your party or the country well.

     But investigated by who? People and officials as corrupt as her, if you can't see the fix was in you are as blind as you were on the election. If .this were a third world country she would have been handcuffed and hauled off as soon as the election was called. She should answer for her actions the same as you or I would have

[The emperor has no clothes]

Guys, she was investigated by your guys for 2 years. Enough already. It was said it has nothing to do with the election. BS, there was a constant mantra by the President Elect and his supporters "lock her up". Where was all this outrage when Republicans steered afoul ? You want to bring this country together and "make it great again" then do it. You won the Senate, the House, the Presidency. Get on with governing. If you feel the Clinton Foundation went afoul of the law then fine let the proper authorities investigate it. But to try to "lock her up" for what you think she did with Benghazi, the email server stuff, etc. that has been investigated for years already is not going to serve your party or the country well.

     But investigated by who? People and officials as corrupt as her, if you can't see the fix was in you are as blind as you were on the election.

Have it your way. Good luck governing in that situation. But you are right, what do I know. 

[Pete]

As many have said and you failed to understand or listen to is that she is not being subject to anything for running or loosing the election.

She is being subjected to an investigation for potential crimes.

Being a politician should not give anyone a free pass on criminal behavior.

[Moonshot_1]

The Democrats had options. They picked the worst one.

Nearly anyone else the Democrats had would have likely won the election. The constant hammering by the media against Trump didn't work because the Democrat's option was fundamentally worse by factors of extraordinary magnitude.

There were a couple easy options for the Democrats.

They could have selected someone with far less baggage and appearances of criminality.

Or they could have had Hillary pick a woman for her VP choice. Someone far more dynamic than Kaine.

Either one of those and Trump, with the unbelievable barrage of media attacks, could not of likely pulled this off.

 

[art]

She did her protest and just like the woman in the street goes home in her Rolls Royce. What a joke.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3918926/Hollywood-starts-panic-results-aren-t-going-Clinton-s-way.html

Those people don't count. No one with any brains gives a crap what they think. They should get together get a tramp steamer and leave . They won't be missed.

[Rams]

Guys, she was investigated by your guys for 2 years. Enough already. It was said it has nothing to do with the election. BS, there was a constant mantra by the President Elect and his supporters "lock her up". Where was all this outrage when Republicans steered afoul ? You want to bring this country together and "make it great again" then do it. You won the Senate, the House, the Presidency. Get on with governing. If you feel the Clinton Foundation went afoul of the law then fine let the proper authorities investigate it. But to try to "lock her up" for what you think she did with Benghazi, the email server stuff, etc. that has been investigated for years already is not going to serve your party or the country well.

She was investigated by a Obama administration FBI,  once you understand that, maybe you'll see the light.   Don't even think the FBI is above or beyond being intimated into falling into the fold. 

No, I don't believe political power doesn't reach that far.

[Rams]

The Democrats had options. They picked the worst one.

Actually, they picked the "one" candidate who couldn't beat Trump.   Almost any other candidate had a better chance.   That should tell you how much Dems think of the American voter.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

I  think a real investigation needs to be done. We have to know how deep the corruption in our government goes and make sure everyone involved is thrown out of government forever. Was Hillary's employee killed for leaking info to wikileaks? Were injuries caused to people by the hired violence inciters? Was US policy changed because of money donated to the Clintons? Who else in Government was involved in it?

Could a grand jury be called after obama is out of office with the authority needed to get to the bottom of it? A grand jury who would find out what was said on the plane by Mr. Bill. A grand jury of "ordinary citizens" who have no political axe to grind?

The other thing is "voter fraud". Obama encouraged illegals to vote in an interview I saw just days before the election. We need to make examples out of each and every case of voter fraud. As in, if dead people mysteriously voted, if illegals and other non citizens voted, if people voted multiple times we need to put the responsible people in jail for a long enough time to scare the hell of those who might try it next time.

[Rams]

I  think a real investigation needs to be done. We have to know how deep the corruption in our government goes and make sure everyone involved is thrown out of government forever. Was Hillary's employee killed for leaking info to wikileaks? Were injuries caused to people by the hired violence inciters? Was US policy changed because of money donated to the Clintons? Who else in Government was involved in it?

Could a grand jury be called after obama is out of office with the authority needed to get to the bottom of it? A grand jury who would find out what was said on the plane by Mr. Bill. A grand jury of "ordinary citizens" who have no political axe to grind?

The other thing is "voter fraud". Obama encouraged illegals to vote in an interview I saw just days before the election. We need to make examples out of each and every case of voter fraud. As in, if dead people mysteriously voted, if illegals and other non citizens voted, if people voted multiple times we need to put the responsible people in jail for a long enough time to scare the hell of those who might try it next time.

I'm of the opinion that "People of Power" see themselves as above the law, regardless of political affiliation.   But, I do think this runs rampant more so among Dems.   Could be wrong but, I "think" history backs me up on this.

[Warlock]

I hope that Hillary Clinton and other Dems are not prosecuted.  It would set a very bad precedent for America.  We have seen other countries in which an election was followed by the persecuting and imprisoning of the losing side.  We don't like the atmosphere of those countries.  

The best thing that could happen at this point is for Hillary Clinton to simply disappear from public view.  The good news is that her age and health will likely prohibit her from seeking the office again.  

So it's ok for them to get away with it. So many lies, bodies and no one held responsible. I disagree with you on this.
David

[billyjakester]

word of the day - Hubris: noun - excessive pride or self-confidence

quote of the day - "As a result of the election, there's not enough crap in the world to feed all those who will have to eat it today"

Criminal prosecution is not the same as political persecution.  If jail was good enough for Martha Stewart's actions.......Hiliary and your minions should also face the music.

[Serk]

I'm fairly sure he cannot give himself a blanket pardon. 

I'm just a geek with an uncanny knack for Google-Fu, and won't claim to trump the real lawyers here (See what I did there?) but from what I've been able to turn up, that's kinda a grey area leaning towards "yes, they can... Maybe"

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/11/03/can-a-president-self-pardon/

Personally, I'd be all in favor of granting the Clintons a blanket pardon on the condition that they renounce their citizenship, leave this country and never return.

[Jess from VA]

The president’s pardon authority is spelled out in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, which states: “The President shall…have power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”  

So it is debatable, and possible.

Of course he could not be impeached after leaving office.

He could be charged under State or local laws, since the constitution only talks about federal laws (either his home state of record, or DC for personal jurisdiction purposes).  And nothing says the Feds couldn't run the prosecution, even in a federal courtroom, just using state criminal laws, and every state has all the laws you would need)

Wouldn't that be the final stellar moment of Zero's presidency to issue himself a blanket pardon on the eve of his departure?

While he has the fifth amendment right against self incrimination like everyone else, I can think of no more self damning action than to issue yourself a pardon, since it is certainly tantamount to an admission of guilt to criminal conduct.  For what innocent president would give himself a pardon from any and all uncharged crimes?

I'm good with the Clinton deal, so long as they are gone before the investigation is completed.  If not, no deal.

[DirtyDan]

Just the criminals

Dan

[..]

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/2/donald-trump-holds-high-flag-gay-equality/

[Skinhead]

Every administration could be CHARGED with an illegal act. Reagan's Iran/contra affair, Cheney's secret meetings with the Energy companies, etc. It's not a way I want our changing of leadership to happen.

I agree, COULD.  Not Charging and either finding guilty or not, has resulted in the "they won't do that to me attitude that exists in DC today.  There are a lot of people in prison doing hard time that have done and benefited less from their crimes than the Clintons allegedly have.  Bring the truth out.

So we slide even further down into the stinking, rotting cesspool of our corrupt politics. Setting a precedent of imprisoning the losing candidate does nothing to deter corruption. It just makes it worse.

Imprisonment for losing?  That would definitely be wrong.  Imprisonment for breaking the law, treason, income tax evasion, influence pedaling, improper handling of classified information, conspiracy, election tampering, inciting to riot, disturbing the peace?  Lock them up if found guilty, but no get out of jail free card.

[Skinhead]

Guys, she was investigated by your guys for 2 years. Enough already. It was said it has nothing to do with the election. BS, there was a constant mantra by the President Elect and his supporters "lock her up". Where was all this outrage when Republicans steered afoul ? You want to bring this country together and "make it great again" then do it. You won the Senate, the House, the Presidency. Get on with governing. If you feel the Clinton Foundation went afoul of the law then fine let the proper authorities investigate it. But to try to "lock her up" for what you think she did with Benghazi, the email server stuff, etc. that has been investigated for years already is not going to serve your party or the country well.

And fought disclosure of or destroyed evidence that most likely would have convicted her.  She should have been disqualified as ineligible to hold federal office based on her mishandling of classified information, then this whole imprison the loser thing would not have been a concern.  THE CORRUPTION MUST END!

[Gavin_Sons]

although i think she needs to be locked up, i have a feeling this lose will weigh on her much heavier than being in a cell. a 30 year veteran of political office lost to a man with no experience.  Like i tell my boys, what goes around comes around.

[3fan4life]

although i think she needs to be locked up, i have a feeling this lose will weigh on her much heavier than being in a cell. a 30 year veteran of political office lost to a man with no experience.   Like i tell my boys, what goes around comes around.

It has occured to me that she could be found with a bullet to the back of the head.

Of course it would certainly be ruled a suicide.  

[3fan4life]

Prosecuting her would be a double edged sword.

However, prosecution when done correctly and fairly isn't persecution.

She needs to be investigated properly.

There are people doing jail time over mishandling of classified material and they did much less than she.


I think that a thorough, impartial investigation done without fanfare is in order.

Then if she is charged and found guilty, let the chips fall where they may.

[The emperor has no clothes]

although i think she needs to be locked up, i have a feeling this lose will weigh on her much heavier than being in a cell. a 30 year veteran of political office lost to a man with no experience.   Like i tell my boys, what goes around comes around.

It has occured to me that she could be found with a bullet to the back of the head.

Of course it would certainly be ruled a suicide.  

Wow 

[Varmintmist]

No, it sends the message that we are no better than any of the countries that do that. I find myself on the opposite side of Willow many times. But we are in agreement here. She needs to just fade away never to heard from again.

The differance is that she wont be locked up for having a different opinion, she would be locked up for committing crimes that were crimes before the election.

I dont think she should be locked up however. I think that it wasnt animus that was in her mind when she messed with classified information, as in a intent to sell or trade or give info to our enemies, it was arrogance. It needs to be dealt with as such and she should have a lifetime ban from any classified information, just like everyone else who has done it.

[John Schmidt]

I have mixed feelings about prosecution of Hillary, I kinda go along with Willow's comment because it reminds me a bit of the Kennedy/Nixon fiasco. Many of you aren't aware of the corruption of the Democratic ticket in the Chicago area back during that election. It turned out to not be the only problem area in the country, but it was the major swing state at the time....still is to a point. After Kennedy won, which was based a lot on Illinois' results, it was found the results were corrupted big time and if corrected via court action, would probably have cost him the election.

Here's the kicker.....Nixon was pressed to bring charges but refused. The nation was highly divided at the time, much like now. Nixon refused to press charges which would have caused a huge Constitutional problem and much more turmoil in the country. Nixon's reasoning was quite simple....he felt the country needed to come together and heal the chasm that had been created, rather than extend that turmoil for who knows how much longer thereby keeping the country divided still.

To an extent, I feel much the same way about Hillary. I'm not suggesting she walk free, but an investigation done quietly might be in order and if found guilty, subject to a huge fine and being barred from any office at any level for life...something probably not necessary anyway. And, if the "foundation" is found to be at odds with the law, I again would suggest a huge fine, all funds confiscated that were tied to her term as SOS, and all actions taken by her during that time be made null and void. I think hitting the Clinton Crime family in the wallet would send a strong message. The above actions could possibly receive a vacated sentence so there would be a public record of it, even if neither had to spend time making license plates. Just an opinion, nothing more. I'm fairly certain none of the above will actually take place but who knows? (the Shadow knows  )

[3fan4life]

although i think she needs to be locked up, i have a feeling this lose will weigh on her much heavier than being in a cell. a 30 year veteran of political office lost to a man with no experience.   Like i tell my boys, what goes around comes around.

It has occured to me that she could be found with a bullet to the back of the head.

Of course it would certainly be ruled a suicide.  

Wow 

What a short memory you must have.

You have obviously forgotten about the trail of bodies that are connected to her.

At least one of which was found to be shot in the back of the head and was ruled to be a suicide.

Hence the use of 

You really need to get a sense of humor, not everything in this world is meant to be taken seriously.

[The emperor has no clothes]

although i think she needs to be locked up, i have a feeling this lose will weigh on her much heavier than being in a cell. a 30 year veteran of political office lost to a man with no experience.   Like i tell my boys, what goes around comes around.

It has occured to me that she could be found with a bullet to the back of the head.

Of course it would certainly be ruled a suicide.  

Wow 

What a short memory you must have.

You have obviously forgotten about the trail of bodies that are connected to her.

At least one of which was found to be shot in the back of the head and was ruled to be a suicide.

Hence the use of 

You really need to get a sense of humor, not everything in this world is meant to be taken seriously.

Didn't realize you were trying to be funny. I'm a neophyte when it comes to forums and communicating on them.
I thought these  were meant to be evil or smartass. I thought these    were meant to be funny.
Oh and yeah, I've heard the stories of all the murders the Clintons have committed.  (I think that emoji conveys "you are welcome")

[3fan4life]

I tend to use this one  for good natured smartass ribbing alot.

[..]

More from the peaceful, safe space, gun free, therapy loving dem/lib/progs

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/11/10/die-whites-die-anti-trump-rioters-vandalize-nola-monuments/

[..]

More



MoveOn.org released the following press release Wednesday afternoon:

    Americans to Come Together in Hundreds Peaceful Gatherings of Solidarity, Resistance, and Resolve Following Election Results

    Hundreds of Americans, dozens of organizations to gather peacefully outside the White House and in cities and towns nationwide to take a continued stand against misogyny, racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia.

    Tonight, thousands of Americans will come together at hundreds of peaceful gatherings in cities and towns across the nation, including outside the White House, following the results of Tuesday’s presidential election.

    The gatherings – organized by MoveOn.org and allies – will affirm a continued rejection of Donald Trump’s bigotry, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and misogyny and demonstrate our resolve to fight together for the America we still believe is possible.

    Within two hours of the call-to-action, MoveOn members had created more than 200 gatherings nationwide, with the number continuing to grow on Wednesday afternoon.

    WHAT: Hundreds of peaceful gatherings of solidarity, resistance, and resolve nationwide

    WHEN / WHERE: Find local gatherings here. Major gatherings include in New York City’s Columbus Circle and outside the White House in Washington, DC.

    RSVP: Please email press@moveon.org to confirm attendance.