Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with everything except the above. While it may be true, I wouldn't be able to state it as certainty. I simply don't know.
I have a son who works as a prison guard in a super max facility. Spend an hour with him and you too, will agree that MOST (not all) belong there. Believe it or not, most of the murderers were impulse events, not serial. And believe it ornot, they aren't USUALLY as violent. It's the cheese punks who cause the most trouble. Ages 20-35.
There are some very, very bad people in society. Some that definitely belong behind bars. Racial mix of the prison? Roughly 15-18% white, 15% Hispanic and Asian. 70% black. All guilty of some of the most heinous crimes.
Most everyone agrees there is ample evidence of influence peddling..
No, they don't. And that of course includes law enforcement. Which is why she has never been charged with anything -- just "accused' of things by robo-calling partisan pap-peddlers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
...you don't go from flat broke to worth multiple hundreds of millions of dollars by being a senator & secretary of state.
Her income tax returns appear to tell a different story.
I understand the sentiment, but I don't think it would have the desired result.
She did nothing that would justify either further investigation, a prosecution, or a pardon. Nevertheless, the rabid Clinton haters, who have already appeared here, will be satisfied with nothing less than sending her to prison. This would be consistent with Trump's debate promise to send his political opponent to prison.
Anything that Obama does to get in the way of this will not calm the waters, but will further stir up the hatred we are already seeing here.
There are no untouchables. She won't be indicted because no indictable offenses were committed.
We won't know that unless a grand jury is empaneled and presented with the evidence.
What we do know is that the FBI investigated her, and though they did not recommend prosecution, they did have this to say:
[Statement by FBI Director James Comey, July 5, 2016]
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
[. . .]
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."
To me, this is sufficient grounds for a grand jury to investigate. And this doesn't even take into account anything having to do with the Clinton Foundation, or "pay to play," or her role in her husband's "bimbo eruptions," etc.
Whether it's politically expedient to prosecute Hillary Clinton or not, is debatable. But to uphold the principle of "equal justice under the law," it's the right thing to do. She should be investigated, and let the evidence determine a finding of guilt or innocence.
A pardon of any sorts is a major stain on ones reputation.
Despite election year hysteria and hyperbole about both candidates I suspect that reality will find Hillary left alone by the law when the dust settles.
On top of that, I would bet a fairly large amount of money that if it were to come to pass then Trump would pardon her so no point jumping the gun IMO.
Also, handing out pardons can really stain your legacy like what Bill Clinton did on his last day in office pardoning Marc Rich. Bush II was and I suspect Obama will be more careful about doling out last day pardons.
Now is the time to heal, and I think one thing that would help would be for President Obama to issue a Presidential Pardon to Hillary Clinton. The nation doesn't need to look any more into any alleged wrongdoings.
Does she really want a pardon? It would make her "seem" guilty while she insists she has done nothing wrong.
I think the rule of law requires that a crime, if it was committed, should be punished or at least brought to light. I don't think any prison time would do the nation any good, but people can't be "above the law".
The pardon of Nixon still leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many people, and it cost Gerald R. Ford the election in 1976.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
