Based on my experience with Teflon: sure, things don’t stick at first - but if you keep the heat somewhere between medium-low and high for 30+ years, keep throwing stuff in, and you only have THIS to show for it?
Maybe you’ve been throwing in tap water this whole time.
You’ve produced a whole lotta steam (looks like smoke at first, but dissipates quickly) and some scummy residue; but overall, you’ve just ruined the coating on a perfectly nice non-stick pan. Which could’ve cooked a nice, bipartisan omelette.
In Alabama, the Attorney General has ruled that guns are allowed in polling places unless the polling place is located in a building that otherwise bans guns.
The Indiana Secretary of State says that guns are allowed in all polling places except for private buildings where the owner bans guns. Indiana has a law that prevents local governments from enforcing their own bans on guns (except in schools and courthouses), so guns will be allowed in most public buildings.
If Trump threw Clinton in Guantanamo she wouldn’t have the best case for release among the other political prisoners. Folks are quick to forget that the president can assassinate American citizens without due process, it’s not a stretch for a president to toss someone in jail. Now if Trump were president there may be some political movement away from the all-powerful executive, but real damage has been done by Bush and Obama to restraining institutions.
TRUMP: “…and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. OK, thanks, John. Eric, you’re the new acting Attorney General. Call that rat fuck Comey and tell him that if Hillary isn’t behind bars in 48 hours, he will be.”
GENERAL CASE #2:
TRUMP: "Director Comey, like millions of Americans, I listened to your speech about Secretary Clinton with disbelief. It seemed to boil down to a statement that while some federal laws might have been broken, we have never before prosecuted anyone unless we could show some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, indications of disloyalty to the United States, or efforts to obstruct justice. Because you found none of those present, you were recommending no prosecution.
"However, my administration does not share that view. I believe that the law is what Congress says it is, and should not be shaped by prosecutorial dilettantes of the past; the mere fact that we have never before prosecuted clearly illegal conduct does not mean we should never do so. Accordingly, I am directing the new Attorney General and each US Attorney’s office to review cases in which the FBI has chosen to recommend non-prosecution even when the elements of a federal crime were found to exist, with Secretary Clinton’s being first among many due to the intense publicity surrounding your public statement.
“Do you have any questions?”
Now, I agree that approaches under General Case #1 are illegal.
I am curious to hear what legal or constitutional barriers anyone believes exist for General Case #2.
They get mad when you call them deplorable though.
Considering the laundry list of felonies Trump has been accused of, he really lives in a delusional narcissistic bubble where he thinks Hillary is the criminal.
I wonder if anyone has been supposing you are the slightest bit objective on this point. Your drooling over the leaked “emails” in the other thread suggests otherwise.
My only other point here is going to be that Ken Starr, for all his efforts, found nothing against the Clintons in the Whitewater investigations. Nothing.
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
The Clintons themselves were never prosecuted, after three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land deal,[6]
[/QUOTE]
There was also Travelgate:
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
In 1998, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr exonerated Bill Clinton of any involvement in the matter.
[/QUOTE]
And Filegate:
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
In 1998, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr exonerated President Bill Clinton as well as the First Lady of any involvement in the matter.
[/QUOTE]
And Vince Foster’s death:
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
Foster’s death was concluded to have been a suicide by inquiries and investigations conducted by the United States Park Police, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the United States Congress, Independent Counsel Robert B. Fiske, and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
[/QUOTE]
When Starr couldn’t find anything else, he finally turned to Bill Clinton’s personal conduct in the White House, where he struck pay dirt. This was, however, pretty far away from his original task. One might think that he had been told to “get” Clinton for something, anything, that could possibly lead to some kind of indictment. Unfortunately, Clinton cooperated enough to get himself impeached (but not convicted).
Not to re-hash the past too much, but some of our younger friends might not be aware of some of these details when they hear about all the Clinton “scandals.”
Considering that this is Donald Trump we are talking about, I am curious as to what chance you give your second scenario of being possible, let alone true.
I read a comment from someone who worked with him to the effect that if you do something to him, he won’t pay you back equably, or even a few times worse. He will do something 10 or 20 times worse. This is exactly like a corporate psycho I had to work with. He will go apeshit when he loses.
At least be fair. He said he would appoint a special prosecutor. Actually Hillary should want that considering the perceived favoritism from the FBI investigation and the clear breach of ethics* with the AG privately meeting with her husband. Trump appoints special prosecutor and just like Travelgate it looks bad but no real crime so she is in the clear and no one can argue the decision.
*FTR the breach of ethics really was on Bill. What was Lynch supposed to do when an ex-President wants to talk with her? Yes she should have said no but Bill should have never put her in the position of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
ETA: Did he actually say he would put her in jail or is that an interpretation of what he said? With my son talking I may have missed that part if he said it.
The “dangerous even to suggest that such a step ought to be taken” is holding her up to the law like any number of people before her have been, that did much less, and have been held to much stricter and destructive punishment for their actions.
It’s only because of her power and position that she gets a pass and avoids what anyone else would face.
Only with a Clinton.
I believe he is referring to the drone strike on an American citizen in Pakistan. Tried, convicted, and executed by one man. No due process whatsoever.
In the extremely unlikely chance that Trump wins, Obama could issue a blanket pardon to the Clinton’s at 1 second to midnight on his last day of office. IMO he would be justified in doing so because it’s obvious that the appointment of any such special prosecutor would be politically motivated.
Now Trump’s minions could try and come up with some way to overturn a Presidential pardon, but it would certainly cause the whole thing to end up in the supreme court and unless the Trump camp had full control of the supreme court, thats where it would end. Supreme’s rule against him, Clinton’s walk free.
Bill Clinton went pardon happy with his friends and accusers when he left.
I don’t think Obama is much of a friend as Bill wants him to be. But Obama surprises me to this day, so you never know. I’ll go 50/50 odds.
Despite the constitution that says a president can pardon anyone they want whenever they what when in office, the she’d be held accountable and take to trial is laughable - the Clinton’s have a rich history of making things go away before any type of trial can take place.
Scenario 2 is just scenario 1, dressed up. It’s still trying to prosecute your opponent, and contrary to the basic principles of democracy. It’s just adding trumped up reasoning to excuse it.
There’s a reason Ford pardoned.Nixon. And that Obama did not go after the Bush administration as some wanted him to.