• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I remember outrage about Hillary's secret email server

Trump thought the DOJ was his personal law firm and he used it for his and his friends' advantage and to his opponents detriment. Can't get much more political than that. The DOJ is supposed to be an independent agency, not to go after Trump's enemies or hunt down Trump's myriad phony conspiracy theories about a fraudulent election.

Well no the DOJ is not an independent agency. It exists to help the president in his exercising of his constitutional authority-- taking care that the law be enforced.

And as it has been pointed out, Trump never went after Mrs. Clinton.
Not for that matter, anyone else.
 
Read that bolded part carefully. According to the government it was just an oopsie. Not worth prosecuting.
Yes, "no evidence of deliberate mishandling of classified information" would certainly be a reasonable pretext for "not worth prosecuting."

And it's certainly interesting that all three Republican-led investigations found the same thing.
 
I agree and assumed (before engaging some posters on here) that everyone knew that.

I didn't vote for Hillary, that being one of the reasons. I knew I was not going to vote for Trump in 2016, but I had concerns about that entire situation with Hillary (and in fact not long ago @americanwoman found a post I made in 2016 that said exactly that). I ended up voting for Johnson (now realizing I never should have done that, but....).

That entire spectacle hurt her with a lot of voters.

It was hilarious to point out in 2016 how very, very concerned some people were about Presidents and classified information now suddenly defending someone who "declassifies with their mind." Of course, you are not a hypocrite so you did and still do have concerns about that.
 
Well no the DOJ is not an independent agency. It exists to help the president in his exercising of his constitutional authority-- taking care that the law be enforced.

And as it has been pointed out, Trump never went after Mrs. Clinton.
Not for that matter, anyone else.

Yes, despite Donald "law and order" Trump's public persona, the records show he isn't very tough on crime.
 
It was hilarious to point out in 2016 how very, very concerned some people were about Presidents and classified information now suddenly defending someone who "declassifies with their mind." Of course, you are not a hypocrite so you did and still do have concerns about that.

I won the $298 million Powerball this morning. I said "Mind, you have the winning ticket" and voila!
 
They had a reason to charge. Comey spelled it out
They also had a reason not to charge.

Don't forget the SD and DOJ investigations under Trump. They also concluded the same thing.
 
They had a reason to charge. Comey spelled it out
They also had a reason not to charge.
Here's a quote from his statement...
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

Where do you see him saying they had a reason to charge?
 
Here's a quote from his statement...
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

Where do you see him saying they had a reason to charge?

That there was evidence of violations
 
That there was evidence of violations
Evidence of violations is not a reason to charge. I guess that means you feel djt should be charged this afternoon?
 
A major investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state found no evidence of deliberate mishandling of classified information.

Intent isn't needed to violate the law, only gross negligence.
 
mrjurrs said:
Here's a quote from his statement...
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

Where do you see him saying they had a reason to charge?
That there was evidence of violations
Uh, you neglected to include the word "potential," which means "possibly." Why did Comey say "potential" if there was actually "evidence of violations"?
 
Evidence of violations is not a reason to charge. I guess that means you feel djt should be charged this afternoon?

The precedent from the DOJ is that we do not.
 
The precedent from the DOJ is that we do not.
You are right. The DoJ (and every prosecuting office down to the smallest one) doesn't charge in cases they can't convict.

Source your claim.
 
Back
Top Bottom