Trump: As president, I would prosecute Clinton

[jimnyc]

Donald Trump said Monday night that he believes Hillary Clinton will likely get away with her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, but said that as president, it's only fair that he'd look to prosecute Clinton.

Fox News' Sean Hannity asked Trump in front of a live Nevada audience if his attorney general would go after Clinton should an investigation find she broke the law while serving in the Obama administration.

"You have no choice," Trump replied. "In fairness, you have to look into that."

"She seems to be guilty," he said. "But you know what, I wouldn't even say that."

"But certainly, it has to be looked at," Trump added. "If a Republican wins, if I'm winning, certainly you will look at that as being fair to anyone else. So unfair to the people that have been prosecuted over the years for doing much less than she did."

Hannity asked if Clinton might be running to help ensure that a Republican doesn't prosecute her for how she allowed classified information to be routinely sent around on her non-secure server, and Trump agreed that Clinton is running the race of her life for that very reason.

"So she's being protected, but if I win, certainly it's something we're going to look at," he said.

The self-funded candidate criticized how the government has gone after other leaders like former CIA Director David Petraeus for lesser crimes, but has not followed suit against Clinton.

The billionaire business mogul explained the statutes of limitations would still allow him to prosecute Clinton for any crimes she committed from 2009 to 2013.

But Trump said he wouldn't wait until January 2017 to begin his prosecution, motioning toward the summer and fall months as prime time for non-legal attacks on her, regardless of who wins the nomination.

"If I'm the nominee, this is not gonna be a subject that's gonna die down very easily," said Trump.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-as-president-i-would-prosecute-clinton/article/2583925

[glockmail]

He's got brass balls, this guy.

[jimnyc]

He's got brass balls, this guy.

I don't even care that it's Trump - I would be thrilled to hear ANY republican state as much, and they should!!

[NightTrain]

That gained him new supporters on both ends of the spectrum.

Hellary has to squirming already at the thought of facing him on stage... it's going to be brutal. She might consider donating to Rubio or Cruz at this point.

[Gunny]

Donald Trump said Monday night that he believes Hillary Clinton will likely get away with her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, but said that as president, it's only fair that he'd look to prosecute Clinton.

Fox News' Sean Hannity asked Trump in front of a live Nevada audience if his attorney general would go after Clinton should an investigation find she broke the law while serving in the Obama administration.

"You have no choice," Trump replied. "In fairness, you have to look into that."

"She seems to be guilty," he said. "But you know what, I wouldn't even say that."

"But certainly, it has to be looked at," Trump added. "If a Republican wins, if I'm winning, certainly you will look at that as being fair to anyone else. So unfair to the people that have been prosecuted over the years for doing much less than she did."

Hannity asked if Clinton might be running to help ensure that a Republican doesn't prosecute her for how she allowed classified information to be routinely sent around on her non-secure server, and Trump agreed that Clinton is running the race of her life for that very reason.

"So she's being protected, but if I win, certainly it's something we're going to look at," he said.

The self-funded candidate criticized how the government has gone after other leaders like former CIA Director David Petraeus for lesser crimes, but has not followed suit against Clinton.

The billionaire business mogul explained the statutes of limitations would still allow him to prosecute Clinton for any crimes she committed from 2009 to 2013.

But Trump said he wouldn't wait until January 2017 to begin his prosecution, motioning toward the summer and fall months as prime time for non-legal attacks on her, regardless of who wins the nomination.

"If I'm the nominee, this is not gonna be a subject that's gonna die down very easily," said Trump.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-as-president-i-would-prosecute-clinton/article/2583925

Well, there's ONE reason to vote for him. The Rosenberg's were executed for divulging classified material. As usual, the left is above the law.

[glockmail]

That gained him new supporters on both ends of the spectrum.

Hellary has to squirming already at the thought of facing him on stage... it's going to be brutal. She might consider donating to Rubio or Cruz at this point.

I don't think Hellery has the ability to feel shame or embarrassment. When faced with The Donald, she'll just play victim like she did with her debate with Rick Lazio. Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOySqutXC90

[pete311]

You guys are hilarious. Hilary has her problems, but Donald Trump... you guys are blind and delusional. Dude has said nothing of substance and changes his mind every other minute. I'm fairly convinced if DT was running as a democrat you guys would be turned 180 on him.

[NightTrain]

I don't think Hellery has the ability to feel shame or embarrassment. When faced with The Donald, she'll just play victim like she did with her debate with Rick Lazio. Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOySqutXC90


Agree with feeling shame or embarrassment... living decades under a perpetual cloud of wrongdoing would numb anyone.

The difference with Lazio and Trump is time... there's a lot more ammo out there incriminating her these days than in 2000. And there's the added benefit of all the other shit that she got away with before - that kind of thing isn't forgotten when the guilty skate away. That makes the LEO professionals extra motivated, as Capone, OJ, Gotti and others learned. And you can't tell me that an honest Judge isn't going to hammer a slippery one harder when he/she has a chance to, with obvious repercussion-free criminal behavior in the past.

She should have been hung back in the '90s, but the Good Ol' Boy Club saved her and Slick Willy more than once, along with talented hit men and bought Judges.

[glockmail]

You guys are hilarious. Hilary has her problems, but Donald Trump... you guys are blind and delusional. Dude has said nothing of substance and changes his mind every other minute. I'm fairly convinced if DT was running as a democrat you guys would be turned 180 on him.

I'd much rather have a ideologue like Cruz, but if Trump wins the nom, I'll vote for him. On domestic policy, he'd run the country like a business. His campaign, run very frugally, proves this. On foreign policy, I think our enemies would fear him, and he's already expressed support of Israel.

[Bilgerat]

I don't think Hellery has the ability to feel shame or embarrassment. When faced with The Donald, she'll just play victim like she did with her debate with Rick Lazio. Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOySqutXC90


Yeah, she got the "Victim" thing ready to layout



http://overpassesforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hillary-crying-300x273.jpg

[pete311]

I'd much rather have a ideologue like Cruz, but if Trump wins the nom, I'll vote for him. On domestic policy, he'd run the country like a business. His campaign, run very frugally, proves this. On foreign policy, I think our enemies would fear him, and he's already expressed support of Israel.

Sure, and maybe the US will be his 5th business to go bankrupt.

[revelarts]

Donald Trump said Monday night that he believes Hillary Clinton will likely get away with her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, but said that as president, it's only fair that he'd look to prosecute Clinton.
Fox News' Sean Hannity asked Trump in front of a live Nevada audience if his attorney general would go after Clinton should an investigation find she broke the law while serving in the Obama administration.
"You have no choice," Trump replied. "In fairness, you have to look into that."
"She seems to be guilty," he said. "But you know what, I wouldn't even say that."
"But certainly, it has to be looked at," Trump added. "If a Republican wins, if I'm winning, certainly you will look at that as being fair to anyone else. So unfair to the people that have been prosecuted over the years for doing much less than she did."
Hannity asked if Clinton might be running to help ensure that a Republican doesn't prosecute her for how she allowed classified information to be routinely sent around on her non-secure server, and Trump agreed that Clinton is running the race of her life for that very reason.
"So she's being protected, but if I win, certainly it's something we're going to look at," he said.
The self-funded candidate criticized how the government has gone after other leaders like former CIA Director David Petraeus for lesser crimes, but has not followed suit against Clinton.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-as-president-i-would-prosecute-clinton/article/2583925

we'll if you're protected that's how it works right.
And He's said several times over the years that he himself is good friends with Hillary and Bill.
In any other case i think that'd be enough grounds so that he'd have to excuse himself from any actions --good or ill-- concerning a legally investigation.
I suppose he could get the ball rolling with a word to an AG he'd appoint but after that what could he do? the only other thing he could do is order all the records into the AGs office from the State Dept.. which they... like the CIA and FBI do from time to time... might coincidentally loose or erase or accidentally destroy by mistake.

I won't would my breath waiting to see a Clinton in jail.. or court. Just like i didn't hold it for Bush, Chenney or Rumsfeild to see a court room over the actions that Obama, Hillary and Pelosi thought were so horrible. I think Jeb and W say Bill is like the 3rd Brother right?
I'm not sure who could push the right buttons to break the corrupt R&D racket long enough to jail real players.

[glockmail]

Sure, and maybe the US will be his 5th business to go bankrupt.You think he'd get us further into debt that The Obama?

[jimnyc]

You guys are hilarious. Hilary has her problems, but Donald Trump... you guys are blind and delusional. Dude has said nothing of substance and changes his mind every other minute. I'm fairly convinced if DT was running as a democrat you guys would be turned 180 on him.

And that says what about Hillary's illegal activities?

[jimnyc]

we'll if you're protected that's how it works right.
And He's said several times over the years that he himself is good friends with Hillary and Bill.
In any other case i think that'd be enough grounds so that he'd have to excuse himself from any actions --good or ill-- concerning a legally investigation.
I suppose he could get the ball rolling with a word to an AG he'd appoint but after that what could he do? the only other thing he could do is order all the records into the AGs office from the State Dept.. which they... like the CIA and FBI do from time to time... might coincidentally loose or erase or accidentally destroy by mistake.

I won't would my breath waiting to see a Clinton in jail.. or court. Just like i didn't hold it for Bush, Chenney or Rumsfeild to see a court room over the actions that Obama, Hillary and Pelosi thought were so horrible. I think Jeb and W say Bill is like the 3rd Brother right?
I'm not sure who could push the right buttons to break the corrupt R&D racket long enough to jail real players.

He wouldn't be involved in any investigations. If that were the case, presidents usually aren't involved in making legal decisions.

[jimnyc]

Sure, and maybe the US will be his 5th business to go bankrupt.

If he were able to make all of the debt that the democrats made just disappear, that would be great. Although, unlike Bernie and Shrillary, it would be best to just not go around offering the world for free anyway. And only idiots would state it was free, and only idiots would truly believe it's free.

Democraps always like to change the time and subject to avoid discussing the train wreck of the original topic/person.

[pete311]

You think he'd get us further into debt that The Obama?

There are more ways to ruin a country than just collecting debt...

[revelarts]

He wouldn't be involved in any investigations. If that were the case, presidents usually aren't involved in making legal decisions.

So just to be Clear Obama doesn't really have much of anything to do with Holder or the new AGs actions as well right?

Presidents can suggest investigations. but it seems to me other than that they are ... or should be.. out of the picture in the AG's office.

During the Bush admin the admin pressured several AG actions, some taken some not.
Clinton did the same.

[Gunny]

So just to be Clear Obama doesn't really have much of anything to do with Holder or the new AGs actions as well right?

Presidents can suggest investigations. but it seems to me other than that they are ... or should be.. out of the picture in the AG's office.

During the Bush admin the admin pressured several AG actions, some taken some not.
Clinton did the same.

Why does everything have to be about Bush with you? He hasn't been President for over 7 years and nothing he did has ANYTHING to do with Obama's decision-making (or lack thereof) process. Hillary is in violation of USC Codes 17, 19, and 21. Her offenses are punishable by law in criminal court. Bush has nothing to do with it.

Obama and Lynch DO have EVERYTHING to do with it. Simple math. Tell John Walker, his brother in law and his son who have been in prison since the 80s otherwise. Or perhaps you can bring the Rosenberg's back to lfe and explain it to them.

You sound like a Dem. Always blaming Bush.

[revelarts]

Why does everything have to be about Bush with you? He hasn't been President for over 7 years and nothing he did has ANYTHING to do with Obama's decision-making (or lack thereof) process. Hillary is in violation of USC Codes 17, 19, and 21. Her offenses are punishable by law in criminal court. Bush has nothing to do with it.
Obama and Lynch DO have EVERYTHING to do with it. Simple math. Tell John Walker, his brother in law and his son who have been in prison since the 80s otherwise. Or perhaps you can bring the Rosenberg's back to lfe and explain it to them.
You sound like a Dem. Always blaming Bush.

I mentioned Obama, Bush and Clinton didn't I?
the current and the 2 former what's wrong with that?

Jim says --what seem to me like--- Trump can't really do much as president to influence legal action. I agree in general that that is as it should be but i've noticed that many people have a lot of problems with Obama and the AG's actions or inactions. and blame him directly. as you have.

so i just wonder if every president is judged to have the same options of influence on the AG.
and the same level of blame if XYZ is or isn't done.

[Black Diamond]

So just to be Clear Obama doesn't really have much of anything to do with Holder or the new AGs actions as well right?

Presidents can suggest investigations. but it seems to me other than that they are ... or should be.. out of the picture in the AG's office.

During the Bush admin the admin pressured several AG actions, some taken some not.
Clinton did the same.
Holder and Lynch belong to Obama a lot more than Ashcroft belonged to Bush.

[Gunny]

Holder and Lynch belong to Obama a lot more than Ashcroft belonged to Bush.

Holder and Lynch are nothing more than puppets. As is every person on Obama's staff. It's his way or the highway.

[Black Diamond]

Holder and Lynch are nothing more than puppets. As is every person on Obama's staff. It's his way or the highway.

Amazing how one man wields so much power.

[Gunny]

Amazing how one man wields so much power.

He's given it to himself and no one will oppose him. He isn't supposed to have that much power, but one of the basic tenets of Congress has been ignored for years. Vote for what you think is right, not along partisan lines. Everything is partisan now. On the left. If the right would get that partisan notion in their heads there'd be no Dems to speak of.

Our 3 branches of checks and balances is out of whack and no one wants to fix it.

[revelarts]

Holder and Lynch belong to Obama a lot more than Ashcroft belonged to Bush.
I'd agree with that . Ashcroft had his own mind. And in general was decent guy IMO.
but Gonzalas is another story.
he was like that Wormtougue from Lord of the Rings.

https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http:%2F%2Fwww.scifimoviezone.com%2 Fimagefantasy%2Flotrtt019.jpg&sp=64f56e44caf1ecdecd616b824924b301

https://s5-us3.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth% 3Fid%3DOIP.M9461204dc039c19f9bbd0a61cf7bee7bo0%26p id%3D15.1%26f%3D1&sp=bc571cb4097946fa909ac3f143baa47d


http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20070710&t=2&i=1081299&w=644&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=1081299

https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http:%2F%2F38.media.tumblr.com%2F6d f024a35a7e9fcf5aeb7b6589322b76%2Ftumblr_inline_no9 l3nHVIG1sgy1fz_500.gif&sp=47ac90da9cb58fe31614a8412b7e10aa

[Gunny]

Is THAT what is wrong with you? Lord of the Rings? Back away from the tube in the basement, dude.:laugh:

[pete311]

If he were able to make all of the debt that the democrats made just disappear, that would be great.

It would be great to ride a unicorn too. I watched his interview with O'Reilly about his debt plan. Guess what, he has none. Even O'Reilly can see through Trump.

btw, one of Trump's business is being investigated for fraud. Apparently Trump University scammed thousands of students. What a great business man he is...
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/with-gop-nomination-looming-trump-slated-to-take-191550876.html

[NightTrain]

It would be great to ride a unicorn too. I watched his interview with O'Reilly about his debt plan. Guess what, he has none. Even O'Reilly can see through Trump.

btw, one of Trump's business is being investigated for fraud. Apparently Trump University scammed thousands of students. What a great business man he is...
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/with-gop-nomination-looming-trump-slated-to-take-191550876.html


Wow! Now that's some hard-hitting journalism by... a blogger. On Tumblr, no less.

[pete311]

Wow! Now that's some hard-hitting journalism by... a blogger. On Tumblr, no less.

So.............. you're claiming the lawsuits aren't real? What exactly are you arguing here?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/ny-attorney-general-trump-madoff_n_3824869.html

[jimnyc]

It would be great to ride a unicorn too. I watched his interview with O'Reilly about his debt plan. Guess what, he has none. Even O'Reilly can see through Trump.

btw, one of Trump's business is being investigated for fraud. Apparently Trump University scammed thousands of students. What a great business man he is...
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/with-gop-nomination-looming-trump-slated-to-take-191550876.html

I don't care what O'reilly has to say, I don't watch or listen to any pundits. But career financial analysts seem to think his plans are solid.

[pete311]

But career financial analysts seem to think his plans are solid.

Links?

[jimnyc]

In any other case i think that'd be enough grounds so that he'd have to excuse himself from any actions --good or ill-- concerning a legally investigation.


So just to be Clear Obama doesn't really have much of anything to do with Holder or the new AGs actions as well right?

Presidents can suggest investigations. but it seems to me other than that they are ... or should be.. out of the picture in the AG's office.

During the Bush admin the admin pressured several AG actions, some taken some not.
Clinton did the same.

Let's save a lot of writing. I replied based on your comment about him having to excuse himself. He's not a lawyer or judge, so a "president" wouldn't be excusing himself from anything. The best he can do is push things, advise and such - and no, he wouldn't need to excuse himself from such.

Holder or a different AG - that's different, they are attorneys involved in the actual prosecutions. And yes, Obama can recommend that they don't prosecute Clinton. And no, he wouldn't have to somehow excuse himself either, just because he worked closely with her in his cabinet.

[NightTrain]

So.............. you're claiming the lawsuits aren't real? What exactly are you arguing here?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/ny-attorney-general-trump-madoff_n_3824869.html

The PuffHo. I guess that's a little better than a blogger.

Has Salon or DU weighed in yet?

I'm saying, Petey, that I don't quote you Limbaugh or Savage or Levin or find some blogger to quote. Usually I stick with AP, even though it's still pretty slanted to the left... but what's a mother to do?


At any rate, we'll soon find out the particulars. I have to say though, you libs are getting pretty desperate to find some dirt on Trump. Surely there's juicier dirt than a failed business venture?

[glockmail]

There are more ways to ruin a country than just collecting debt... Granted, but I ax'd you specifically about debt. And you seem to be running away from having to answer...

[jimnyc]

The PuffHo. I guess that's a little better than a blogger.

Has Salon or DU weighed in yet?

I'm saying, Petey, that I don't quote you Limbaugh or Savage or Levin or find some blogger to quote. Usually I stick with AP, even though it's still pretty slanted to the left... but what's a mother to do?


At any rate, we'll soon find out the particulars. I have to say though, you libs are getting pretty desperate to find some dirt on Trump. Surely there's juicier dirt than a failed business venture?

Trump puts his name on something, and he gets sued for shit that happens there. I suppose that's correct, as the law is the law - but it's not like he was there scamming folks as Pete tries to imply. The story is true, that he is being sued, but solely because of his name as owner, pure and simple.

[pete311]

Surely there's juicier dirt than a failed business venture?
Hmm scamming 10000 students is not juicy?

[pete311]

Trump puts his name on something, and he gets sued for shit that happens there. I suppose that's correct, as the law is the law - but it's not like he was there scamming folks as Pete tries to imply. The story is true, that he is being sued, but solely because of his name as owner, pure and simple.

You put your name on something, you are responsible. Guess Obama wasn't responsible for Obamacare. You think you designed any of it?

[jimnyc]

Hmm scamming 10000 students is not juicy?

Can you show a direct link that Trump himself scammed people?

[NightTrain]

Hmm scamming 10000 students is not juicy?

Sounds like you've got your torches all warmed up and ready to roll!

How many pitchforks in your mob?

[jimnyc]

You put your name on something, you are responsible. Guess Obama wasn't responsible for Obamacare. You think you designed any of it?

ANd that's fine, hence him going to court - but HE did not scam anyone.

[pete311]

Granted, but I ax'd you specifically about debt. And you seem to be running away from having to answer...

Trump is not a conservative. So yeah he'd keep racking up debt.

[jimnyc]

Sounds like you've got your torches all warmed up and ready to roll!

How many pitchforks in your mob?

It's hilarious watching the left become more rabid and rabid by the day as Trump grows! :laugh:

[pete311]

ANd that's fine, hence him going to court - but HE did not scam anyone.
That is for the court to figure out. You have no idea what role he had in it. Either way, it's on his watch.

[jimnyc]

That is for the court to figure out. You have no idea what role he had in it. Either way, it's on his watch.

Oh well, not worried about it in the slightest bit whatsoever.

But if an interest in Trump and his role in a "scam" - why the lack of interest in Hillary and her crimes? Are you all aboard for her being prosecuted and hopefully jailed if it IS found out that she fucked up with confidential information?

[pete311]

But if an interest in Trump and his role in a "scam" - why the lack of interest in Hillary and her crimes? Are you all aboard for her being prosecuted and hopefully jailed if it IS found out that she fucked up with confidential information?

What lack? She's been constantly in the news about it. If she has been found guilty. Then she pays the price.

[NightTrain]

Trump is not a conservative. So yeah he'd keep racking up debt.

Well, can we pencil you in for a Trump vote, then?

[glockmail]

Trump is not a conservative. So yeah he'd keep racking up debt. Do you have evidence to support this allegation of "racking up debt"?

[jimnyc]

What lack? She's been constantly in the news about it. If she has been found guilty. Then she pays the price.

I meant from YOU - and others from the left. IF you have been on here and spoke out that Hillary deserves to be prosecuted - then I apologize. Most lefties, or those leaning left, couldn't care less about any crimes she may have committed, and will gladly vote for her, knowing that she is likely a criminal who could have harmed our country in some manner with her disregard for confidential information.

[pete311]

Do you have evidence to support this allegation of "racking up debt"?

Google "trumps debt reduction plan". Nothing but how it would increase.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/12/23/Trump-s-Tax-Cuts-Would-Add-245-Trillion-Debt

[pete311]

I meant from YOU - and others from the left. IF you have been on here and spoke out that Hillary deserves to be prosecuted - then I apologize. Most lefties, or those leaning left, couldn't care less about any crimes she may have committed, and will gladly vote for her, knowing that she is likely a criminal who could have harmed our country in some manner with her disregard for confidential information.

I don't speak for "lefties", only myself. Has she been found guilty? If she does I would support her prosecution. I have no affinity for her.

[jimnyc]

I don't speak for "lefties", only myself. Has she been found guilty? If she does I would support her prosecution. I have no affinity for her.

So "mums the word" from the left on her endless confidential emails - at least until she is found guilty? You know what I mean and you're going in circles. YOU, and the left, are mostly ignoring Hillary's email scandal and FBI investigation - while having no problem calling out folks on the right for various things.

With the information we have at hand, that has in fact been released about this investigation - do you think Hillary committed a crime with her server? Or how about with the various increasing levels of confidentiality in the emails that passed through and were sent from her email server?

[glockmail]

Google "trumps debt reduction plan". Nothing but how it would increase.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/12/23/Trump-s-Tax-Cuts-Would-Add-245-Trillion-Debt

From your link:
Trump’s tax-cut plan could add as much as $24.5 trillion to the national debt over the coming 20 years unless it is accompanied by steep cuts in spending and entitlement programs, a new analysis finds. [emp mine]

That's a pretty big "if", dontcha think?

What makes you think that huge cuts would not be made?

[glockmail]

So "mums the word" from the left on her endless confidential emails - at least until she is found guilty? You know what I mean and you're going in circles. YOU, and the left, are mostly ignoring Hillary's email scandal and FBI investigation - while having no problem calling out folks on the right for various things.

With the information we have at hand, that has in fact been released about this investigation - do you think Hillary committed a crime with her server? Or how about with the various increasing levels of confidentiality in the emails that passed through and were sent from her email server?

If she's found guilty, then he would support prosecution. Isn't that backwards?

[pete311]

From your link: [emp mine]

That's a pretty big "if", dontcha think?

What makes you think that huge cuts would not be made?

Maybe because he hasn't anything about what cuts...

[Gunny]

Do you have evidence to support this allegation of "racking up debt"?

Of course he's going to waste money. Which politician doesn't? It's as simple as wanting a vote in Congress and passing their little pork barrel projects to get it. Trump isn't exactly on the A list of responsible people where money is concerned.

What I want to hear is a plan to cut spending and pay off the debt without increasing personal taxes. We could start with the space program. How many billions have we spent to plant a flag on the Moon in 1969? Otherwise, we can duplicate space here on Earth for all their little experiments.

How is Trump going to pay for his wall? Mexico isn't going to, regardless his talk. They save more money by wetbacks earning US dollars here and spending hem there than they do anything else.

He's talked a big game. I want to see him play it. Going to charge Hillary? I'll hold him to it. There's no statute of limitations on disclosing classified information.

[pete311]

If she's found guilty, then he would support prosecution. Isn't that backwards?

Yes, I mean I would support punishment, whatever that is. I'm not a lawyer.

[pete311]

So "mums the word" from the left on her endless confidential emails - at least until she is found guilty? You know what I mean and you're going in circles. YOU, and the left, are mostly ignoring Hillary's email scandal and FBI investigation - while having no problem calling out folks on the right for various things.

With the information we have at hand, that has in fact been released about this investigation - do you think Hillary committed a crime with her server? Or how about with the various increasing levels of confidentiality in the emails that passed through and were sent from her email server?

hmmm I pretty much hear something about clinton's email scandal everyday, not sure it's been ignored. When she is found guilty, I'll support punishment. What more do you want from me? Should I start a private investigation?

[Gunny]

Yes, I mean I would support punishment, whatever that is. I'm not a lawyer.

The point is this. It looks like we're stuck with him. like him or not. While that may make some giddy, you can rest assured I'm not part of that crowd. What I DO know is dipstick that he is, he's preferable to to a criminal or a commie. If I was the left I'd let him win. Would be a shoe-in for the Dems in 2020.

But I'll get out and vote for his one-term stupid ass just to get a break from the past 7+ years.

[pete311]

he's preferable to to a criminal

Let's be honest. Both just have really good legal teams. No one in both their shoes get to where they are without doing some illegal and unethical things.

[jimnyc]

Of course he's going to waste money. Which politician doesn't? It's as simple as wanting a vote in Congress and passing their little pork barrel projects to get it. Trump isn't exactly on the A list of responsible people where money is concerned.

What I want to hear is a plan to cut spending and pay off the debt without increasing personal taxes. We could start with the space program. How many billions have we spent to plant a flag on the Moon in 1969? Otherwise, we can duplicate space here on Earth for all their little experiments.

How is Trump going to pay for his wall? Mexico isn't going to, regardless his talk. They save more money by wetbacks earning US dollars here and spending hem there than they do anything else.

He's talked a big game. I want to see him play it. Going to charge Hillary? I'll hold him to it. There's no statute of limitations on disclosing classified information.

I don't think he ever planned on sending Mexico a bill for the wall, but rather make money from them in other manners to pay for it. I believe he has spoke of all kinds of fees to help make up for the cost, and tariffs as well. He's released several different plans on how he states he can make up the money for the wall, and Mexico being the one paying of course.

And I agree, I'll sure as hell hold him to that as well, and won't be forgetting. I think ANY of the candidates should be speaking similarly. It's far too long now that this witch is involved in scandals and just walks away - without even being questioned!!

[jimnyc]

hmmm I pretty much hear something about clinton's email scandal everyday, not sure it's been ignored. When she is found guilty, I'll support punishment. What more do you want from me? Should I start a private investigation?

Only go against if proven guilty? Why not support prosecution before she is found guilty? Do you not care about what she did with the server, and the now thousands of confidential emails that have been found to have passed through? But you'll just bury your head in the sand and hope they never find her guilty or charge her.

When judging things from folks on the right - do you wait until a court finds out if they are guilty or not?

[pete311]

Only go against if proven guilty? Why not support prosecution before she is found guilty? Do you not care about what she did with the server, and the now thousands of confidential emails that have been found to have passed through? But you'll just bury your head in the sand and hope they never find her guilty or charge her.

When judging things from folks on the right - do you wait until a court finds out if they are guilty or not?

If there is a case, then she should be tried. I am not a lawyer. Apparently it may not be so clear cut
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499

I however no doubt wouldn't be surprised if all this is being smoothed over because of her campaign. Of course that is happening.

[jimnyc]

If there is a case, then she should be tried. I am not a lawyer. Apparently it may not be so clear cut
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499

I however no doubt wouldn't be surprised if all this is being smoothed over because of her campaign. Of course that is happening.

There should be a case NOW, not a hidden investigation that we all know will likely end with a cover-up. We KNOW she had the server, which is a no-no - so they should be transparent with it now, just as they were with Petraeus and others with similar cases.

[pete311]

There should be a case NOW, not a hidden investigation that we all know will likely end with a cover-up. We KNOW she had the server, which is a no-no - so they should be transparent with it now, just as they were with Petraeus and others with similar cases.

In a non campaign year maybe she would be tried. I don't know.

[jimnyc]

In a non campaign year maybe she would be tried. I don't know.

Then if she can avoid prosecution in a campaign year, then folks shouldn't be upset when a SC justice isn't nominated in a campaign year.

[pete311]

Then if she can avoid prosecution in a campaign year, then folks shouldn't be upset when a SC justice isn't nominated in a campaign year.

It's fine to be outraged by both

[jimnyc]

It's fine to be outraged by both

Sure, except one is within the rights of what their jobs entail, and the other is avoiding criminal prosecution. Legal versus illegal.

[Kathianne]

Hmmmm

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSMTZSAPEC2O2MGLXL


Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:31pm ESTSpy agencies say Clinton emails closely matched top secret documents: sources
U.S. spy agencies have told Congress that Hillary Clinton's home computer server contained some emails that should have been treated as "top secret" because their wording matched sections of some of the government's most highly classified documents, four sources familiar with the agency reports said.


The two reports are the first formal declarations by U.S. spy agencies detailing how they believe Clinton violated government rules when highly classified information in at least 22 email messages passed through her unsecured home server.


The State Department has already acknowledged that the emails contained top secret intelligence, though it says they were not marked that way. It has not previously been clear if the emails contained full classified documents or only some information from them.


The agencies did not find any top secret documents that passed through Clinton's server in their full version, the sources from Congress and the government's executive branch said.


However, the agency reports found some emails included passages that closely tracked or mirrored communications marked "top secret," according to the sources, who all requested anonymity. In some cases, additional classification markings meant access was supposed to be limited to small groups of specially cleared officials.


Under the law and government rules, U.S. officials and contractors may not transmit any classified information - not only documents - outside secure, government-controlled channels. Such information should not be sent even through the government's .gov email network.


...

[jimnyc]

With information like that already out there, I can't figure out why she hasn't been charged already? Are they really going to let this go on forever? Will they wait until after the election? Just prior? Lynch has already stated that she has not been asked to do anything. Why not?

In a perfect world it would be great if she was charged and saw some bars, perhaps maybe in August or September. But the longer this goes on, the longer I start to convince myself that she can commit such crimes in front of the entire world and walk away from it, or worse, become president after doing so. :(

[Gunny]

With information like that already out there, I can't figure out why she hasn't been charged already? Are they really going to let this go on forever? Will they wait until after the election? Just prior? Lynch has already stated that she has not been asked to do anything. Why not?

In a perfect world it would be great if she was charged and saw some bars, perhaps maybe in August or September. But the longer this goes on, the longer I start to convince myself that she can commit such crimes in front of the entire world and walk away from it, or worse, become president after doing so. :(

Since when has anything stuck to a Clinton? Or anyone on the left? Obama was a proven liar and the left still voted for him. Time for the right to wake up and get these assclowns out of Dodge.

[Kathianne]

With information like that already out there, I can't figure out why she hasn't been charged already? Are they really going to let this go on forever? Will they wait until after the election? Just prior? Lynch has already stated that she has not been asked to do anything. Why not?

In a perfect world it would be great if she was charged and saw some bars, perhaps maybe in August or September. But the longer this goes on, the longer I start to convince myself that she can commit such crimes in front of the entire world and walk away from it, or worse, become president after doing so. :(

Related?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/02/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-prosecution-219733


<header style="box-sizing: border-box;">Lynch non-committal on Clinton email prosecution</header><footer class="meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0.5em;">By JOSH GERSTEIN (http://www.politico.com/staff/josh-gerstein)
02/24/16 12:32 PM EST
</footer>

<header style="box-sizing: border-box;"></header>

Attorney General Loretta Lynch declined Wednesday to discuss how she would make a decision about whether to prosecute Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over classified information found on her private email server.


However, Lynch did say the investigation and the Justice Department's review of the matter would follow the usual process and procedure for such matters.


"This will be conducted as every other case and we will review all the facts and all the evidence and come to an independent conclusion as to how to best handle it," Lynch said during a House Appropriations Committee hearing Wednesday morning.


Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) told Lynch that some of his constituents wanted him to raise the issue with her because they were concerned that the probe might be tainted by politics.


"If the FBI makes the case that Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information and put America's security at risk, will you prosecute the case? Do you know of any efforts underway to undermine the FBI investigation," Carter asked.


Lynch didn't say anything new about the inquiry, except to confirm that she has yet to receive any request from her staff to act one way or another on the case.


"With respect to our investigation into how information was handled by the State Department, how they handled classified information, as I'm sure you know that matter is being handled by career, independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents as well as the career, independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence. They look at the law. And they'll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate," Lynch said.


Lynch said concerns about improper pressure on prosecutors or agents were unfounded, at least to her knowledge.


"I'm also aware of no efforts to undermine our review or investigation into this matter at all," she said.

It's unclear what pressure Carter may have been alluding to, but after President Barack Obama commented last fall that he saw no evidence that the email situation endangered national security, some FBI agents said the president's comments were inappropriate because they appeared to predict the outcome of an ongoing investigation.


...

[jimnyc]

Related?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/02/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-prosecution-219733

Yes, that's the exact article I read that was in my mind, you're a mind reader!! :)

[glockmail]

...No one in both their shoes get to where they are without doing some illegal and unethical things.

That is a belief that is not grounded in logic or fact.

[glockmail]

Yes, I mean I would support punishment, whatever that is. I'm not a lawyer.

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that probable cause warrants evidence gathering, and when the evidence of a crime is available then a prosecution is warranted. Since there is ample evidence that HRC committed crimes, she should be prosecuted (put on trial) where her defense team will do whatever they can to discredit the evidence. If the prosecution is successful and she is convicted, then she should be punished in a way that fits the crime.

What part of this do you disagree with?

[glockmail]

Maybe because he hasn't anything about what cuts...

I know it seems rather odd, but I've always found it useful to look at the candidate's own website for these type of details:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

[Jeff]

Sure, and maybe the US will be his 5th business to go bankrupt.

NO maybe about it if Hillary gets in.

[namvet]

she can wait


http://i68.tinypic.com/2akgvsx.jpg