Should we prosecute Hillary?
- Thread starter tsuke
- Start date
because they are ok with corruption as long as its one of their own?
Our leaders should be afraid of the people and not only every 4 years either.
No, it would be Congress's job or the Attorney General, not the president. The President is not legally entitled to bring charges against anyone. One of the things that got Nixon in trouble was when he kept firing Attorney Generals because they would not stop investigating him. Look up the Watergate controversy and Archibald Cox's roll.
Yes, he was pardoned. The Republicans, at the time, agreed with the quote in the OP.
because they are ok with corruption as long as its one of their own?
Our leaders should be afraid of the people and not only every 4 years either.
Of the people, yes. Not of their political opponent.
evince
Truthmatters
because they are ok with corruption as long as its one of their own?
Our leaders should be afraid of the people and not only every 4 years either.
fear is all you understand chickenshit
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
No they wouldn't. You forget the cost of complying with tons of FedCo regulations.
But you avoid the issue that I raised. At this rate, doubling the debt every 8 years, its not a question of if but when.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Yes it is. In this case the Senate is the court.
IT does not matter who the Court is, the President still does not bring the charges. ITs simply not how it works.
does the president appoint people who share his views and would most likely act in a certain way?
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy
bush sure did
On December 7, 2006, the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice ordered the unprecedented[1] midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.[2][3] The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees, under provisions in the 2005 USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization.[4][5][6] [7][8]
A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary", "fundamentally flawed", and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions".[9] In July 2010, the Department of Justice prosecutors closed the two-year investigation without filing charges after determining that the firing was inappropriately political, but not criminal, saying "Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias. The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."[10]
bush sure did
On December 7, 2006, the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice ordered the unprecedented[1] midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.[2][3] The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees, under provisions in the 2005 USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization.[4][5][6] [7][8]
A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary", "fundamentally flawed", and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions".[9] In July 2010, the Department of Justice prosecutors closed the two-year investigation without filing charges after determining that the firing was inappropriately political, but not criminal, saying "Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias. The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."[10]
Archibald Cox
I would agree. After all the shadiness surrounding this investigation, its worth having a special prosecutor look into it. There are a lot of unanswered questions. Why did Comey hold a press conference where he sounded like he was going to recommend indictment, then stop short? Why did Bill Meet with Lynch 2 days before Comey's announcement?
Why did the FBI force agents to sign non-disclosures. A "Rare" move said by many ASACs. Why were many of the SD's staff given immunity? Immunity for really no reason. Why is the FBI purging its own documents and not turning them over to congress?
Another institution falls. This is the transformed America Obama wanted.
How many Benghazi hearings did you morons need?