You think people should be subject to trial as soon as they're accused, whether charges are pressed or not?
You thought gov't is corrupt now? Wait until Crooked Hillary and Corrupt Kaine get in there. lol
You thought gov't is corrupt now? Wait until Crooked Hillary and Corrupt Kaine get in there. lol
how can one get put in charge of a much higher position when she has been found out she cannot do a lower job like sec of state?
Yep we now have it where the number 1 law of the land gets broken...NOT LETTING the jury make the judgements
The FBI DIRECTOR breaks the founders laws...
this then can have it where voters don't decide elections.... to NOT take the very high ups possible breaking of laws to a jury trial this then is a total OUTRAGE its possible not to prosecute very low level positions but deciding to stop the jury trial for the most higher ups is OUTRAGEOUS
So until a few weeks ago law enforcement in this country never closed a case due to insufficient evidence before?
Hillary is already charged with not taking care of her high office.... she was not charged with being too stupid to do emails.. we know she does do emails so not too stupid.... she is charged with not taking CARE by being extremely careless
how can one get put in charge of a much higher position when she has been found out she cannot do a lower job like sec of state?
You really think there was insufficient evidence? He laid out a strong case against her and then said he would not recommend prosecution. Like the Dem primaries, the Clintons had this rigged from the start.
taking this to a grand jury for them to decide if this warrants going to a full jury.. so he is stopping the number 1 law of the land.. he says clear evidence she did commit the crime but the intent is unclear
a jury must decide ......that is the law of the land.. THIS is a very high up and that then requires more strict following the law..... a jury trial.... the higher the power and the importance for a nation the more strict to follow the law.. and let the jury decide
So until a few weeks ago law enforcement in this country never closed a case due to insufficient evidence before?
I sympathize. I understand. But the FBI and other law enforcement is often asked for their recommendation on whether or not they believe charges should be filed. Not unusual. And it's not their decision, don't forget. In the end, the Justice Department makes the final call.
The evidence is overwhelming, the decision not to charge her was not made because of lack of evidence it was made because he didn't think he could prove intent, but that is not for him to decide. Many military personnel have been dishonorably discharged for a single breech of security with no question of intent even being considered. This is clearly the case of one set of laws for the Clintons and one for everyone else.
EXACTLY.... that is NOT for a single person to decide.... that is for a JURY.. at least a small jury like the grand jury
he went against the number 1 law of the land....
So until a few weeks ago law enforcement in this country never closed a case due to insufficient evidence before?
I could be wrong but as Secretary of state doesn't she fall under the uniform code of military justice, she should be tried by a military court.
Yep we now have it where the number 1 law of the land gets broken...NOT LETTING the jury make the judgements
The FBI DIRECTOR breaks the founders laws...
this then can have it where voters don't decide elections.... to NOT take the very high ups possible breaking of laws to a jury trial this then is a total OUTRAGE its possible not to prosecute very low level positions but deciding to stop the jury trial for the most higher ups is OUTRAGEOUS
The evidence is overwhelming, the decision not to charge her was not made because of lack of evidence it was made because he didn't think he could prove intent, but that is not for him to decide. Many military personnel have been dishonorably discharged for a single breech of security with no question of intent even being considered. This is clearly the case of one set of laws for the Clintons and one for everyone else.
your ignorance of the law is ignorant
The FBI director did not make the decision - he made a recommendation to DOJ and DOJ concurred and decided not to prosecute.
right .. liberal criminals..... going against the founders main laws
The real problem all along is that Republican's have known for years that Clinton was likely to be the DP presidential candidate for 2016 and they can't beat her fair and square. So we get endless amounts of hyperbole and scandals (some manufactured) blown all out of proper proportion that would never have been a thing if it was anyone but Mrs. Clinton. Look past the ideology, hyperbole and personal animosity - this was a loser case and do all you Clinton haters really think an acquittal was going to help your cause?
Best to drop it and move on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?