The reason killary hasn't been charged...

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Yes, you're right, they could charge her. However what I was driving at was, I think it is highly unlikely, and at that point it would be even more difficult to make charges stick. Even Bill's two charges didn't stick...he was acquitted in the end of all of them, even the perjury charge, which was pretty obviously justified. No...that's not going to happen.

They wouldn't work so hard to make sure she's elected only to turn around and allow her to be indicted. They've got bigger plans for her, which is why she was not charged in the first place. You'll see why soon enough.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: tigertatzen

Ok, I'm confused...we were talking about her ability to serve as a supreme court justice if she were to be disbarred, weren't we? And in the OP's hypothetical, she would lose the election, get indicted, subsequently get a pardon from Obama before he bails, and then he would appoint her to the supreme court. Plausible? Yes. So that would be the pardon you mentioned.

Now...as far as her security clearance and this umbrella that you alluded to...presumably the one Comey said he was sure she still retained...the POTUS and all of Congress are not required to obtain a security clearance. The fact that they were elected by the people exempts them from that. And the POTUS is really who decides what is classified and what is not. So he or she automatically holds the highest security rating, simply by virtue of the office.

Does any presidential nominee automatically have that same clearance? No, they don't even get a clearance because they don't need one. So I'm not clear on why you assert that she is still under that umbrella...she's a private citizen, and according to the director of the FBI, she might still have her clearance anyway. So unless he got his wish and it has been taken, that umbrella doesn't matter one whit in this case.

Now if you're referring to after she completes her term in office and at that point leaving the safe umbrella, I think she's protected there too...she's automatically "pardoned".

Other than those obstacles, in order to require a pardon at all, she'd have to be convicted of a crime. The official government decision has already been made that she was not guilty of anything, which Comey stated himself.

So...they would have to open a new investigation and bring new charges against her, and they'd have to get it past a judge for indictment. Then they'd have to prove the new charges at trial.

It's always within the realm of possibility that she could lose the election, and someone out there would have another go at her once she was considered to be fair game. Personally, I don't see it happening.

If none of the above are what you were getting at, please elaborate...sorry, but I can't readily discern what you meant.

Once she is out of the protective executive umbrella.
She CANNOT hold a security clearance anymore ,without a pardon.
Anyone who TRIES to brief her as result can be prosecuted for it.

a reply to: Edumakated

That's kind of where my thoughts lie on this particular matter. Every criminal prosecutor I know...from various political stances, including Dems...says that the outcome of that investigation was very odd and more than a little sketchy, from their legal perspective. Somebody didn't want this to do anything but cause polarity, which it has, and didn't let it go too far because that would have ended up implicating Obama and others, and they didn't want that.

I personally do not believe that this was done to protect the country. It was to protect the power of TPTB. If I make a concerted effort to suppress my cynicism, it does make an interesting plot twist, however.

a reply to: Puppylove

Oh, so glad you posted this...I was just telling someone I thought that was true. I think once she takes office, she's pretty much going to be untouchable...and remain that way from there on out. The only way she won't is if they successfully bring new charges against her after the fact.

Considering that the vast majority of rabid Hillary bashers seem obsessively fixated on her wealth and political power, and often cite that as a justification to continuously rage at the fact that she was not charged with a crime despite being, in their view, utterly guilty...I'd say the chances are, according to that premise, pretty slim that anyone would want to take on such a fearsome, omnipotent individual.

Now, if they concede that she is simply a normal human being like everyone else, and that it wasn't any special influence or power...she simply was not charged with anything because there was no proof that she did anything to deserve being charged. That too, is possible, but it would require people to put aside their favorite method of demonizing her...after all, there's nothing threatening about normal, ordinary people who have no power over anyone.

Holy schnikes...this whole situation is starting to resemble that magic hat trick where you pull out one scarf and each time you think you're done, another one comes out of the hat. Am I right? How are people not just sick to death of this already??

a reply to: tigertatzen

Negligence IS guilt in the NSA regs.

There have been a few people here that have suggested for various reasons that she is pretty much untouchable and wont be prosecuted. While a agree with that at the moment, I believe as I stated. The reason is not for fear of her or that the charges wont stick. It is because there are enough people who want them to stick that they are intentionally waiting until the chance of her getting pardoned is gone. To move before then is to guarantee failure.

This is speculation, with a touch of educated guess, and a pinch of conspiracy on top...for flavor...

The added speculation that if she loses the election she will end up on the supreme court is just a nod to the obvious imo.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Unfortunately, the law in this case declined to agree. It's quite obviously sketchy, and not a happy decision, judging by Comey's demeanor during his announcement...but it's done. They're not going to go after her, no matter what anyone says. Somebody wants her in that office, and they don't care what it takes. Whatever this is, it is way bigger than Hillary. She's simply a means to an end.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Why the Supreme Court? I'm having trouble understanding why that would be obvious. I have a hard time believing that serving as a justice would be any kind of an acceptable consolation prize for someone who has already been Secretary and is currently in line for the Presidency...that would be more like a slap in the face for her.

Justices don't even have to have a law degree to serve. She'd be better off to take the hypothetical pardon and go back to private practice or mediation or consulting. Or hell, just retire, for that matter.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Well...he wouldn't need any magic pen to appoint her to the supreme court. She could be disbarred in all 50 states and still qualify as a justice. Fun fact.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Supreme court is a very powerful position, one that few people ever receive. That is what killary likes - power and being special. Not to mention, she could do a lot of damage from that position. It may be a consolation prize, but it is one I think she would embrace. She could literally re-write the rule book, something she has been itching to do for a long time.

Oh me me. I know I know ...
because she didn't commit a crime!

Ding ding ding
Winner winner winner winner winner winner winner

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Mountains of evidence.
Mountains of it.
Apparently none of it relevant or applicable I guess.
Mountains of apparently unusable useless doesn't apply evidence.
Mountain ranges of it. None of it any good.
But there's mountains of it.

Someone get some plastic bags please...

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

She hasn't been charged but she's on the docket in the court of public opinion every day since the 90s.
A weaker person would have said forget it a long time ago. Walked away and said stuff it.
The Clinton's apparently think the work they do is more important than how people feel about them. They keep putting themselves out there.

I think Hillary's mother's story has a lot to do with it.

a reply to: Edumakated

Implicating Obama in what exactly?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

The house won't seat Merrick Garland and he's been waiting six months. How in hell would Obama get her approved for a seat on the supreme court?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

What would the charges be again???
She has NOT COMMITTED ANY CRIMES.

God almighty.

a reply to: tigertatzen

YOU think they'll take Trump out as well,pretty overt AND unfortunately for "them" a dead giveaway.
They started with JFK now we come to their end game.
Welcome to the 2nd civil war lady.
I'm not telling JOKES here either this SJW crap has us all fired up THEY want to see what happens FINE .
DON'T EVEN try to blame any vet for WHATEVER atrocity we perform on them.
WE can take them but it will be uglier than YOU can believe, 50 years of fighting battles and winning to these SCUM surrendering.
THE AMERICAN people will have their tons of flesh.
Ill spoken semantics and an impulsive nature will NOT dissuade a thing.
WE see the security risk rather clearly,she won't cut it.
This is a fascinating election.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Hillary won't be arrested until after she wins the election. But before she raises her hand.

a reply to: Sillyolme

You just keep believing that...

BTW, the subject of thread is the idea that she hasn't been charged for the MANY crimes she has committed because doing so while obama is in office would be a waste of time. Why charge her now when she will just get pardoned? Wait until obama is out of office, then charge her for the MANY crimes she has already, and continues, to commit.