Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-23-2016, 02:25 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,862 posts, read 46,821,204 times
Reputation: 18523

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
As I've already stated clearly and you've either ignored or missed completely:

If there's actually evidence of criminal activity, then:

1. press charges
2. hold a trial
3. get a conviction
4. sentence her

It's a procedure that's been in place for centuries. Most Pubs in high office have law degrees. They should be able to handle the task.

Unless they've got nothing. Well, political name-calling (which is all they've ever done) isn't exactly nothing. But cheerleading the "lock her up" chants leads all the Trumplings to believe that there'll be some action instead of empty words.

Ask yourself, "Self, what are they so afraid of?"

Don't hold your breath.


Comey said himself she committed many crimes... There is no denying that. What he also said and is the key here is, she didn't intend to...... so we are not going to pursue this further.

It isn't closed. The crimes are still there, without a term of limitation.
Lynch may not have sent it to a Grand Jury, but nothing can stop Sessions, who has a beef with the corruption in Washington and Steve Bannon telling him to stay cool or we are going to lose her.


Best she can hope for, after she is found guilty, is for Trump to pardon her.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-23-2016, 02:29 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,862 posts, read 46,821,204 times
Reputation: 18523
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
You first have to prove his interests are counter to the countries. Only then can I comment.

If any business person became President and improved the economy, while his business he let his kids run while he serves the people, made more profits, it would be a conflict of interest. They would have to tank the economy not to be a conflict of his business interests.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 02:29 PM
 
2,405 posts, read 1,455,201 times
Reputation: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdxMIKEpdx View Post
You are making a fool of yourself. Again.
I am?

You're entitled to your opinion. If, on the other hand, you think it's a fact, then you should be able to prove it. Can you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 02:33 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,862 posts, read 46,821,204 times
Reputation: 18523
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
I hope Trump is just keeping his powder dry until Obama leaves office, so Obama will no longer be able to pardon her. And then give the green light to continue the investigation into the Clinton Global Initiative, and toss those fools in prison.

We need to drain the swamp and start the process of cleansing the poison from our nations corrupt politics, starting with the Clintons.

Bannon is screaming, poker face and hold your ACES.

I cannot express enough, Steve Bannon is advising Trump. Steve Bannon, is not going to let the people that killed his buddy Andrew Breitbart off the hook that easy. That guy has blood in his eye and knows they will crawl back in their hole, to attack later, if he doesn't kill them now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 02:39 PM
 
2,405 posts, read 1,455,201 times
Reputation: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
If any business person became President and improved the economy, while his business he let his kids run while he serves the people, made more profits, it would be a conflict of interest. They would have to tank the economy not to be a conflict of his business interests.
I don't think that's correct. There is no legal requirement for him to give up control of his businesses, nor is there a legal bar to those businesses turning a profit during his term.

The requirement to divest conflicting assets and to manage conflicts on an ongoing basis is only applicable to appointed executive branch officials such as cabinet members.

That said, most modern presidents with business ownership have utilized a blind trust.

Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush placed their assets in “blind trusts,†with all investments made by independent third-party managers. President Barack Obama put his holdings into index funds.

The potential danger to Trump is summed up here:

Ken Gross, a former elections enforcement official and lawyer who has advised presidential candidates from both parties about avoiding conflicts of interest, said the scope and complexity of Trump’s investments, and the potential for those business interests and relationships to present significant conflicts with his obligation to look out for the country before his own interests, is “unprecedented.â€


Gross says we could eventually see “the name of the U.S. president listed as the property of an offshore shell or associated with someone in a country that is in conflict with the U.S. or suddenly subject to sanctions or contentious treaty negotiations.â€


The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 does require high-level federal officials to publicly disclose their personal financial interests on periodic financial disclosure forms. This disclosure is intended to prevent financial conflicts of interest by lending some transparency to the personal finances of senior government officials. During the campaign, Trump refused to disclose his federal tax returns, saying they were under audit, despite enormous amounts of media pressure to follow the example of every other presidential candidate since 1976.




The Use of Blind Trusts by Federal Officials

Ethics laws don
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 02:41 PM
 
2,405 posts, read 1,455,201 times
Reputation: 1175
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Steve Bannon, is not going to let the people that killed his buddy Andrew Breitbart off the hook that easy. That guy has blood in his eye and knows they will crawl back in their hole, to attack later, if he doesn't kill them now.

Someone murdered Andrew Breitbart and Stephen Bannon is plotting to murder the murderers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,857 posts, read 25,653,922 times
Reputation: 24780
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Comey said himself she committed many crimes... There is no denying that. What he also said and is the key here is, she didn't intend to...... so we are not going to pursue this further.
What's he afraid of?

The FBI almost NEVER presses charges unless they're fairly certain they'll get a guilty verdict. Otherwise, they let it go. They take great pride in a high conviction rate.

Of course, Comey did what he could to throw the election to Trump. And he was successful in that effort.


Quote:
It isn't closed. The crimes are still there, without a term of limitation.
Lynch may not have sent it to a Grand Jury, but nothing can stop Sessions, who has a beef with the corruption in Washington and Steve Bannon telling him to stay cool or we are going to lose her.


Best she can hope for, after she is found guilty, is for Trump to pardon her.
Believe me, I WANT to see her taken to trial.

It'd be a spectacle like we haven't seen in decades. Very entertaining.

But it's looking like Trump is chickening out. And that's a BIG letdown for the Trumplings, who chanted "lock her up" so enthusiastically.

Let's see where this goes.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 08:27 PM
 
34,259 posts, read 17,336,386 times
Reputation: 17334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat View Post
Now that the election is over, Trump has no plans to pursue legal action against Hillary Clinton. There never was sufficient grounds to win a court case in the first place, and Trump knew that, but it was an effective tool to envigorate his base. It worked, he won and now the ploy is discarded.

Trump will not pursue charges against Clinton, aide says | Fox News

Not sure the case isn't there, particularly the Foundation 900k for Chelsea's wedding, but the big loser on this is Bill C. If HRC were locked up, he'd have more time for interns to help.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 08:49 PM
 
27,624 posts, read 21,200,140 times
Reputation: 11097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
What's he afraid of?

The FBI almost NEVER presses charges unless they're fairly certain they'll get a guilty verdict. Otherwise, they let it go. They take great pride in a high conviction rate.

Of course, Comey did what he could to throw the election to Trump. And he was successful in that effort.




Believe me, I WANT to see her taken to trial.

It'd be a spectacle like we haven't seen in decades. Very entertaining.

But it's looking like Trump is chickening out. And that's a BIG letdown for the Trumplings, who chanted "lock her up" so enthusiastically.

Let's see where this goes.

IMO...that is why such a HUGE number of birther boy supporters even came out to vote. The were chanting " lock her up" with spittle and all. The were akin to barbaric bloodthirsty knuckle draggers with free tickets to the feature slaughter show at the Roman Coliseum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 08:50 PM
 
6,977 posts, read 5,741,098 times
Reputation: 5180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
As predicted, Donald Trump will apparently not pursue charges against Hillary Clinton, as in his view 'she has been through enough'. Also, as he neglected to mention, the precedent that he would set by going after her would make him ripe for similar treatment once he leaves the President's job.

Of course Congress could still pursue the matter independent of Trump. Also, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Miller were not mentioned as being included in this proposed amnesty.
Hopefully Obama buys into this and doesn't pardon her.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:19 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top