Trump Authorizes Congress To Pursue Criminal Charges Against Hillary

a reply to: 727Sky

Yes I did. I even read the link, which includes this:

Chaffetz told members:

“President Trump visited Philadelphia when we were at our planning and strategy session.

I went backstage with the President here’s what he said:

‘You do a great job. Listen, I understand I’m the president and you have a job. You do the oversight. Don’t slow down. Go after everything you want to go after. You look at everything you want to look at.’

If you sat there and heard what he said to me about pursuing oversight and government, you would be inspired. And for him to convey a message of ‘don’t slow down,’ I think was a good message.”

Like I said in my post, Congress doesn't need approval from the President to do investigations or inquiries. If it did, they never would've been able to hold any on Benghazi or Hillary's emails during Pres Obama's time in office.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Like I said in my post, Congress doesn't need approval from the President to do investigations or inquiries. If it did, they never would've been able to hold any on Benghazi or Hillary's emails during Pres Obama's time in office.

Good then we are in agreement. The oversight committee does the fact finding and turns the results of their investigations over if there is reason to prosecute..With Tray Gowdy and and others who have publicly complained of lies and cover ups coupled with a new revamped DOJ it will be interesting to see where all this goes..

a reply to: redhorse

What in the world could she be locked up for?

At a minimum they should at least investigate the allegations of "pay to play" through the flow of foreign money thru the Clinton foundation in exchange for favors under Hillary Clinton's state department. And how she may have knowingly compromised national security by using a private email server, and then conspired to eliminate evidence.

If there is substantial evidence, given the criminal nature of the allegations not going forward with this sends a message that some people are indeed above the law.

who really think the clintons can be touched. even after amounting evidence, its still in an 'authorization' process to maybe hold her accountable....

would anyone else not have been indicted since Benghazi?
i mean, proof of her dealings were made public... while running for president, still. does that sound like someone who can be touched?
she's the equivalent of a 'made man'.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: redhorse

What in the world could she be locked up for?

Hi, I'm Earth. Have we met? You realize that the dissemination of any sort of classified information is a high crime of office and a felony offense, correct? You are aware that she did all of that and more, correct? Not calling her out on those things while vilifying the other party for the same thing is called "a logical inconsistency", also known as having a double standard or being a hypocrite.

Seriously, the denial and lack of principle from the left isn't even cute anymore, it's utterly pathetic, as partisan as it gets, and shows the lack of character and principles. I damn well know that if it was Trump or Bush engaging in this behavior, every single charge would be listed, repeated ad nauseum, and annotated with sources. The hypocrisy is astounding.

BE CONSISTENT AND TRUTHFUL. Clinton broke laws and under any metric of Justice she should be in jail forever. Her party is irrelevant, her views are irrelevant, your like or dislike for her is irrelevant. TRUTH is literally the only thing that matters in all of this, and that applies to every party and every politician, not just the ones you disagree with.

The whole point I'm trying to make here is that anybody who blindly trust or goes along with their party or candidate without asking hard questions is a fool. These people are paid liars whose job is to deceive you into voting and acting against your own interests to enrich themselves and their buddies. I know it's nice and cozy and warm sitting in your confirmation bias and not allowing anything that conflicts with your worldview, but it's intellectually dishonest and destroys your own credibility. This isn't the friggin MLB, this isn't a game, you're not supposed to root for teams!

Jobs?

a reply to: 727Sky

Here you go. Right from your OP:

While on the other hand if she is exonerated it will be just one more nail into the coffin of anything we read from either political party.

a reply to: StrizzMatik

The whole point I'm trying to make here is that anybody who blindly trust or goes along with their party or candidate without asking hard questions is a fool. These people are paid liars whose job is to deceive you into voting and acting against your own interests to enrich themselves and their buddies.

And I could only give you one star......

a reply to: StrizzMatik
You almost had it...did fine till you got to the punchline. I realize the Repugnicans have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding when it comes to their job; do you really think if there was something there Gowdy/Chaffetz/et al wouldn't have found it by now? C'mon most of those idiots are LAWYERS! Inept, but still...

Fact is, it's more fun and easier to play video games, otherwise known as holding witch hunts the media eats up like handfuls of skittles, than doing the jobs they were sent to Washington to do...make laws, and govern! That's the first part of the word ya know? "GOVERN-ment". I'm all for laws being enforced, but at some point you have to give up on whether the jaywalker was inside or just outside the "walk" lane at the intersection. Crimes are committed every day - Trump is a classic example - that go unprosecuted because they have money. Trump has admitted he runs small businesses into the ground by outlasting them in court, over the "quality" or finished product of their work (that piece of crap was supposed to be 24K gold plated, it was only 18K!) Boo-fing Hoo... Really think laws are subjective, not objective...legal is in the eye of Liberty - who has a blindfold on...

a reply to: hellobruce

The Congressional Committees have proof she lied under oath.

That's what will be exposed soon.

a reply to: 727Sky

The congress of the US does not send people to jail...However, a GOP congress might try

originally posted by: damwel
You have to do something to go to jail. Right wing media brainwashing the public into believing you did something will not put her in jail. I guess we will see then.

It could do the opposite.

It could exonerate her.

originally posted by: Annee
It could exonerate her.

Let's be real here. There will be only one verdict accepted in this investigation. Anything else will just come with labels of corruption all so they can use that as a pre-text to ignore double jeopardy. No one calling for Hillary to be put on trial cares about a fair trial. Otherwise they would have accepted Comey's decision last year that there is nothing to indict Hillary with.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: 727Sky


While on the other hand if she is exonerated it will be just one more nail into the coffin of anything we read from either political party.

So the FBI investigating wasn't enough? Nor the many different congressional fishing expeditions?

Look at how long they kept up the Benghazi nonsense. Even after the GOP investigations showing nothing wrong they kept bringing it up to cover their own screw ups. Donnie's popularity is dropping like a rock now so they need to being up something to make it look like hes doing something for the rubes.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Annee
It could exonerate her.

Let's be real here. There will be only one verdict accepted in this investigation. Anything else will just come with labels of corruption all so they can use that as a pre-text to ignore double jeopardy. No one calling for Hillary to be put on trial cares about a fair trial. Otherwise they would have accepted Comey's decision last year that there is nothing to indict Hillary with.

You mean when Comey flat-out admitted that she broke the law but basically refused to prosecute because reasons? People want her on trial because we know she broke the law and because she deserves to be in jail and if it was anybody else - yes including Trump - I would ask for the same thing. Too big for jail is not acceptable anymore, and Clinton herself is only the tip of a very ugly dirty iceberg.

a reply to: StrizzMatik

I mean when Comey said that there isn't enough evidence to indict Hillary and it would be a waste of time and money to try.

People want her on trial because we know she broke the law and because she deserves to be in jail and if it was anybody else

You know this but you aren't a lawyer and don't have access to all the information surrounding this case. Sounds like you are judging someone in the court of public opinion. That isn't a constitutionally valid. So no, she doesn't deserve to be in jail, because no one has proven that she has done anything jailable.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Annee
It could exonerate her.

Let's be real here. There will be only one verdict accepted in this investigation. Anything else will just come with labels of corruption all so they can use that as a pre-text to ignore double jeopardy.

There is so much crap out there targeting Hillary - - is it even possible to get to the real truth.

Let's face it, she was intentionally, and viciously "Swiftboated".

People say to me: "Hillary is corrupt, a criminal, etc" - - and I say: "How do you know?"

There is a poster on ATS who is from the Benghazi area. He posted what he said was the real truth. And he said it was the arrogance of the ambassador that got everyone killed. That Hillary had nothing to do with it.

Problem is - - - the anti-Hillary's don't want the truth. They want a bon fire.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Otherwise they would have accepted Comey's decision last year that there is nothing to indict Hillary with.

That's not what he said:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

emphasis mine

He also said:

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

again, emphasis mine

fbi.gov

There was (and still is) evidence of violations and that a reasonable person should have known not to do what she did. So we are left with the conclusion that Hillary either did not know better (even though she was read in on the statutes) or that she did know better and chose to ignore the statutes.