If Manafort can be tried so can Hillary

I've heard many outlet's and from people in my personal life say that, Because of the age of the "alleged crimes" Hillary and friends can no longer face charges. Well, I think today proves that not to be true.

Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information is getting another look with the release Thursday of a Justice Department inspector general report scrutinizing the FBI's investigation into whether she committed crimes using a private email server as secretary of state. Although it would be controversial, the Justice Department is able to reopen the Clinton email case, and experts say President Trump's 2016 adversary arguably could be charged until March 2025 — after Trump would leave office even if he wins a second term.

Because of the passage of time, it’s possible Clinton cannot be charged under the gentler statute. She left office in February 2013, and the law’s specific wording covers when someone "knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain" them — written in such a way that the clock may begin when removal happens. “I think that under this statute, the proscription is on the removal and it would run from removal,” prominent defense attorney Barry Pollack told the Washington Examiner. But under the harsher law, the 10-year countdown arguably started in late March 2015, when tech aide Paul Combetta had what he told the FBI was an “oh #” moment and deleted stored emails using the software BleachBit, after forgetting to do so months earlier. Under the tougher law, "I would think its statute [of limitations] would not start to run as long as the person has the documents,” Pollack said. “It has a ten-year limitations period, not five.”

One law, 18 U.S. Code § 1924, forbids “unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.” It carries up to five years in prison, with a five-year statute of limitations. Former CIA contractor Reynaldo Regis pleaded guilty in May to violating the law by taking home about 60 notebooks with classified information. There's no allegation he shared them.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

May Justice Prevail

I believe there is a pecking order all planned out for who will be taken down next. Can't wait until ole HRC's turn to go gitmo.

a reply to: CADpro

Pecking order in the prosecution for certain, Charges can be filed before then. She basically wear's a jumpsuit everywhere now anyway.

a reply to: Sabrechucker


With the precedent set by the Manafort conviction, Hillary's crimes dating back to 2005 are now FAIR GAME.

a reply to: carewemust

Yes they are. and thanks for giving me this idea

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
a reply to: carewemust

Yes they are. and thanks for giving me this idea

I've been shouting it over and over ever since Manafort's trial started. I'm glad a FORWARD THINKING and WISE ATS family member appreciated the gravity of the "Manafort precedent".

a reply to: carewemust

Careful what you wish for. No crying now when the door swings back

Works for me.

We now know law offices are open game.

Raid Perkins Coie!

a reply to: neo96

We should, I'ts been all one way. This "Manafort Precedent" may have shifted the balance

a reply to: Sabrechucker

The last two years have showed just how far we get to go when we don't like a president or the people that use to work with them.

a reply to: Sabrechucker

Oh, I'm sure, we're all sure the Clinton's are guilty as charged BUT why isn't Trump doing anything about it? He often deflects to the Clinton's in his many ranting tweets but it always ends there. Now, many conservatives believe in online anonymous fairly tales told to them by someone named Q but so far there is no evidence that tale is at all anchored in reality. If you believe in such things time will either be your champion or your bucket of cold water called reality.

Trump would have no problems targeting and imprisoning his political opponents so why hasn't he at least begun some kind of investigation?

a reply to: Swills

I wouldn't say nothing's being done...

Justice Department May Have Something Big in the Works: Over 9,000 Sealed Indictments
www.theepochtimes.com...

And this was from January.. It's now up to over 45,000

I didn't say she Would be charged, I said she could and definitely should

a reply to: Sabrechucker

That's a whole of lot of nothing but some guessing of what could be but anyone can use such a source and make their own fantasies about it.

No, there's nothing going on.

a reply to: Sabrechucker


You seal an indictment, and that person's alleged crime is "locked in" for possible prosecution at any time. It doesn't expire, or is subject to time limitation statutes.

itt: internet lawyer circle jerk

Wasn't it one of trumps campaign promises to indite "crooked Hillary"?

I think Hilldog has some Lolita Express knowledge on trump. Trumps sacred of clinton!!

It's been 2 years....nada

Word has gotten around and even mainstream media now agrees:

The countless crimes of Hillary Clinton: Special Prosecutor needed now

#LockHerUp

a reply to: Sabrechucker

You mean If Manafort can be convicted so can Hillary. Last I heard was a guilty verdict on 8 out of 18 charges. The other 10 are still to be determined. 5 were for tax evasion, I'm note sure what the other 3 convictions were for.

a reply to: Sabrechucker

The statute of limitations on financial crimes are goofy. Statute of limitations actually start when the last criminal transaction occurred. All one has to do is establish a pattern and link the crimes to other financial crimes and you are within the limitations for prosecutions.

As an example the Clinton Foundation is just a bigger operation of ADFA while the Clinton's were the first family of Arkansas. They set up and used the Arkansas Development Finance authority as a money laundering operation. Just as they are using the Clinton Foundation and the DNC as money laundering fronts.

I suspect you will have to come up with something better than emails, child sex rings or Benghazi if you want to send Hillary Clinton to jail because those have all been investigated to death and found to be nothing burgers. The problem is you want to send her to jail but you can't seem to find a valid reason except for political retribution and we don't allow the political opposition to be jailed simply because you didn't agree with them.