Sitka Mountain Gear
"I would indict Hillary Clinton"
Community
Contributors to this thread:
Spike Bull 08-Nov-18
JTV 09-Nov-18
TD 09-Nov-18
Spike Bull 09-Nov-18
Woods Walker 09-Nov-18
Your fav poster 09-Nov-18
HDE 09-Nov-18
Bentstick81 09-Nov-18
AZOnecam 09-Nov-18
Two Feathers 09-Nov-18
JTV 09-Nov-18
HDE 09-Nov-18
Your fav poster 10-Nov-18
08-Nov-18

Spike Bull 's Link
"Don Surber

Thursday, November 08, 2018

New attorney general: "I would indict Hillary Clinton"

President Trump's new attorney general will enforce the law. Washington is shocked.

In July 2016, he took Jimmy the Weasel to task in a column for USA Today, headlined, "I would indict Hillary Clinton."

The new general, Matthew Whitaker, wrote, "According to FBI Director James Comey’s statement on Tuesday, former secretary of State Hillary Clinton could have been charged with violating several different code sections, and he detailed the evidence that supports bringing criminal charges.

"Yet, Director Comey’s judgment was that 'no reasonable prosecutor' would bring the case. I disagree. I believe myself to have been a reasonable prosecutor, and when the facts and evidence show a criminal violation has been committed, the individuals involved should not dictate whether the case is prosecuted."

Wow. In Washington that is crazy talk. In Washington, there are two sets of laws, one for Republicans and one for Democrats.

Drive drunk and kill a lady? No problem, Ted Kennedy. Not being able to run for president next year is punishment enough. You can run nine years later.

Scooter Libby lies to a special counsel over something unrelated to the assignment the prosecutor was given? Six months in prison.

Whitaker wrote, "The facts also show it was gross negligence when she removed the information from State Department security. Secretary Clinton made the decision to use a personal email system, one that had inferior security to the State Department’s or even another commercial vendor’s email service.

"A reasonable prosecutor may ask, if on numerous occasions, an unknown State Department employee had taken top secret information from a secured system, emailed that information on a Gmail account, and stored the information on a personal server for years, would that individual be prosecuted? I believe they would."

I think we have the attorney general we need."

From: JTV
09-Nov-18
where was this guy when we needed him .. if he's going to be a strong AG and not a weasel like Sessions was, why not leave him in there ..

From: TD
09-Nov-18
There may very well have been people that died directly because of her unlawful use of personal email instead of official (and entered in record) email channels. Leftists of course could give a rip.

And that's not even going into destruction and tampering of evidence.

Bottom line...... at best (not assuming criminal cover up) their balls shriveled up at the thought of indicting a Presidential candidate, much less the presumed winner of said election.

09-Nov-18
The Demons will do whatewver it takes to run out the clock on the statute of limitation on all their crimes so we need someone who understands the tools he has and uses them unmercifully.

From: Woods Walker
09-Nov-18
Nothing will ever happen to Hillary because we no longer have the rule of law in America. Someone being able to do what she did and suffer NO repercussions from it make that reality glaringly obvious. The ruling class uses ANY means necessary to keep control, and they will continue to do so as long as we let them.

09-Nov-18
For crying out loud. The GOP is in charge of the DOJ. If they were going to indict, then do it! They’re in charge of the Senate and had the House. So appoint a special prosecutor and investigate as if the last 50 investigations produced anything.

Indicting someone is easy. But yet the GOP led DOJ has done nothing. Why do you think that is?

From: HDE
09-Nov-18
The USA already indicted her when they handed her a "sorry, loser" in Nov 2016.

From: Bentstick81
09-Nov-18
"as if the last 50 investigations produced anything." Well people that were going to testify against hillary either came dead mysteriously or pleaded the fifth. If they actually HAD to testify against her, and the others didn't die mysteriously, hillary would be behind bars. Only idiots like you would think anything differently.

From: AZOnecam
09-Nov-18
WW - spot on.

From: Two Feathers
09-Nov-18
He's temporary. I expect him to be replaced by a female.

From: JTV
09-Nov-18
yea, Judge Jeanine Pirro .. ;0)

From: HDE
09-Nov-18
^^^^ O yeah!

10-Nov-18
She testified for 11 hours under oath. Willingly and without subpoena.

Would trump do that? We all know that answer already.

  • Sitka Gear