Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
So, Clinton is going to push for an amendment to allow her government to punish people whose only crime was advertising a film about her.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
Back in the Real World (you should visit sometime) the proposed amendment is intended to eliminate the flood of political money in federal, state and local elections that's damaging the remnants of USAian democracy.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The laws come with punishment for violating them.

Campaign finance laws are clearly a violation of the first amendment. They have no place in our society.
Click to expand...
Unless the people change those laws, hence the whole process for constitutional amendments...
What is it about this process that so terrifies you?
 
Darat said:
So the FBI director was made to lie to under oath and change the report to remove all references to criminal activity and so on because of a meeting Bill Clinton had what a week(?) before its release.

The power that man wields is incredible.
Click to expand...
Maybe Bill gave Loretta Lynch a huge bag of cash for her to split with Comey.
 
16.5 said:
what a hypocrite. There has been no candidate ever who has exploited that ruling more than Hillary. Look at her working with Brock's shady organizations hand in glove.
Click to expand...
Evidence for this claim of yours?
 
catsmate said:
:rolleyes:
Back in the Real World (you should visit sometime) the proposed amendment is intended to eliminate the flood of political money in federal, state and local elections that's damaging the remnants of USAian democracy.
Click to expand...


It does zero damage.
 
catsmate said:
Unless the people change those laws, hence the whole process for constitutional amendments...
What is it about this process that so terrifies you?
Click to expand...

I would be just as pissed if someone tried to amend the Constitution to reinstate slavery. I object to making it a worse country.
 
Tony Stark said:
Maybe Bill gave Loretta Lynch a huge bag of cash for her to split with Comey.
Click to expand...


Under normal circumstances, a lawyer would have their law license suspended for unethical acts of impropriety. However, Bill Clinton's law license had already been suspended. The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended his license in 2000, for lying while under oath during the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

Also, the FBI can only offer a recommendation -- James Comey is not a prosecutor. Ultimately, the final decision was made by Loretta Lynch, who should have recused herself due to the appearance of impropriety.

And Hillary Clinton was never exonerated. James Comey concluded that she had been "extremely careless." But so far, no one has been able to figure out what the difference is between "gross negligence" and "extremely careless." A crime by any other name would smell as foul, as Shakespeare would say.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Also, the FBI can only offer a recommendation -- James Comey is not a prosecutor. Ultimately, the final decision was made by Loretta Lynch, who should have recused herself due to the appearance of impropriety.
Click to expand...

Essentially, Lynch did. She said she would allow the FBI to make its recommendation and allow career prosecutors to follow that recommendation. The FBI made no recommendation to indict, and the DOJ followed that.

And Hillary Clinton was never exonerated. James Comey concluded that she had been "extremely careless." But so far, no one has been able to figure out what the difference is between "gross negligence" and "extremely careless." A crime by any other name would smell as foul, as Shakespeare would say.
Click to expand...

Actually, what Shakespeare would have said is "That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." It's from Romeo and Juliet. In this case, the application would be used to mean that no matter what adjectives FBI Director Comey used in the press conference, there is no criminal activity here, foul or otherwise.

But I do understand why you want to keep clinging to the life raft, despite the fact that a rescue ship has pulled alongside and keeps urging you to give it up.
 
RobRoy said:
Essentially, Lynch did. She said she would allow the FBI to make its recommendation and allow career prosecutors to follow that recommendation. The FBI made no recommendation to indict, and the DOJ followed that.
Click to expand...


Not "essentially." In fact, not at all.

Loretta Lynch never recused herself, despite the taint of impropriety.

So legally, any decision (one way or the other) still fell under her purview -- irrespective of the offhand and unbinding comments she made to the press.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Not "essentially." In fact, not at all.

Loretta Lynch never recused herself, despite the taint of impropriety.

So legally, any decision (one way or the other) still fell under her purview -- irrespective of the offhand and unbinding comments she made to the press.
Click to expand...

Yes, essentially. As she agreed to let her prosecutors handle it and to follow whatever recommendation the FBI gave—she removed the decision from her own hands.

That the decision was not the on you wanted hardly changes the facts of the matter.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Not "essentially." In fact, not at all.

Loretta Lynch never recused herself, despite the taint of impropriety.

So legally, any decision (one way or the other) still fell under her purview -- irrespective of the offhand and unbinding comments she made to the press.
Click to expand...
From the up is down playbook. Like Trump.
 
varwoche said:
From the up is down playbook. Like Trump.
Click to expand...

Slings and Arrows is absolutely correct. Loretta Lynch did not recuse herself, as I believe, the DOJ Code of Ethics required. Recusal means formal removal from consideration of a criminal case. Since she is the top dog at the DOJ, she should have appointed a deputy or, better yet, an outside counsel to make the final determination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom