Image 01 Image 03

Trump and the debate: on jailing Hillary Clinton

Trump and the debate: on jailing Hillary Clinton

How will it play in Peoria?

In last night’s debate, Donald Trump stated that if he were president Hillary Clinton would be in jail. If you look at the entire transcript, that was the last (and most extreme) statement of a much lengthier exchange that went like this:

TRUMP: When I speak, I go out and speak, the people of this country are furious. In my opinion, the people that have been long-term workers at the FBI are furious. There has never been anything like this, where e-mails — and you get a subpoena, you get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena, you delete 33,000 e-mails, and then you acid wash them or bleach them, as you would say, very expensive process.

So we’re going to get a special prosecutor, and we’re going to look into it, because you know what? People have been — their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you’ve done. And it’s a disgrace. And honestly, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, I want to follow up on that.


RADDATZ: I’m going to let you talk about e-mails.

CLINTON: … because everything he just said is absolutely false, but I’m not surprised.

TRUMP: Oh, really?

CLINTON: In the first debate…


RADDATZ: And really, the audience needs to calm down here.

CLINTON: … I told people that it would be impossible to be fact-checking Donald all the time. I’d never get to talk about anything I want to do and how we’re going to really make lives better for people.

So, once again, go to We have literally Trump — you can fact check him in real time. Last time at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking, so I expect we’ll have millions more fact checking, because, you know, it is — it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.

TRUMP: Because you’d be in jail.

If Trump had stopped just short of the “because you’d be in jail” remark, I wonder whether there would have been all that much controversy. But it was the “jail” remark that seems to have gotten most of the attention from both sides.

The seriousness of Trump’s remark was also in question, and for what it’s worth, I offer this statement from Trump’s campaign manager:

Donald Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway dismissed as “a quip” the Republican nominee’s threat at Sunday night’s debate to “jail” Hillary Clinton for her handling of government secrets if he becomes president…

“That was a quip. And I saw in NBC’s own reporting it was referred to as a quip, so I’ll go with NBC on it. He had already finished his statement. She said something like ‘that’s why you’ll never be president,’ and he said ‘you’d be in jail.’ And so that was his answer,” Conway said Monday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

But Trump’s own social media director and senior adviser, Dan Scavino Jr., tweeted out the “quip” at about 2 a.m. Monday, complete with a black-and-white photo of a resolute-looking Trump standing at a lectern.

Conway said Trump was not joking about the special prosecutor but was instead “channeling the frustration he hears from thousands of voters out on the stump every day. And they’re very frustrated that she has a different set of rules for her.”

So Conway is saying that although the special prosecutor was a real promise, the “jail” remark was a joke. Who knows, though, whether Trump would actually appoint one? And could he do so?:

But former attorneys general under Republican and Democratic administrations said presidents don’t get to decide on the appointment of a special prosecutor.

“I don’t conceive of that as something that’s in the authority of the president,” said Michael Mukasey, who was attorney general under President George W. Bush and has been an outspoken critic of Clinton for her use of the private email server.

Mukasey and other former Justice Department heads said the president can request a special investigator be named, but it’s up to the attorney general whether to actually appoint one.

Federal law states: “The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.”

Mukasey told ABC News, “The president can say what they want to happen, but the attorney general’s proper response would be, ‘That’s interesting, I’ll take a look. But I decide that, you don’t.’

On the other hand—as the Obama DOJ has shown—because the president gets to appoint the Attorney General in the first place, he or she can try to appoint a simpatico person willing to do his/her bidding.

Trump’s opponents have quickly seized on his statement (or quip) as evidence of his banana republic extra-judicial tendencies—for example, here’s Ezra Klein:

…[T]hreatening to jail one’s political opponents — is how democratic norms die…

…[W]e believe that political disagreement should be legal.

Donald Trump doesn’t seem to care about all that.

In his last line — “you’d be in jail” — he is outright saying that he would imprison Hillary Clinton in office (if he could). This comes despite the fact that there is no evidence Clinton committed a crime in her handling of the email servers, despite lengthy investigations that found evidence of carelessness and dishonesty. That would be a politically motivated prosecution — retribution for daring to run against Trump and attack him during the campaign.

This is everything we feared about Donald Trump.

From the context of Trump’s remarks, however, it is clear that what Trump was talking about was not his opposition to Clinton politically, but her conduct regarding security and her private email server, in particular her lack of compliance with a subpoena. And Trump was not speaking of an extra-judicial proceeding, just implying that under his administration a special prosecutor would have been appointed, recommended charges, and Trump believes Clinton would have been found guilty.

But he didn’t exactly say it that way, did he? And the way he did say it left him open to accusations of the type Klein has leveled. That’s what Trump often does, and you either like it or you don’t.

However, I’m wondering how the middle-of-the-road undecideds will see it, not the partisans. After all, the partisans on both sides are dug in, and the undecideds may hold the key to this election. Will they be swayed by arguments like Klein’s? Or will they applaud Trump’s feistiness? I confess that I do not know.

Or aren’t they paying much attention at all?

[NOTE: In case you’re unfamiliar with the somewhat archaic reference in the title of this post, it’s based on an old show biz term, “traditionally used to ask whether a given product, person, promotional theme, or event will appeal to mainstream…America, or across a broad range of demographic and psychographic groups.”]

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Attention Ezra Klein: the democratic norms died with Obama . You libs will not like how this ends.

Read the Federalist piece by Bre Payton, (linked at Instapundit this morning) 16 Times the Democrats Tried to Prosecute Their Opponents.

Personally, I would welcome a real investigation of what has happened and if a crime has been committed those guilty treated as any other American.

Maybe Trump can restore that balance.

    buckeyeminuteman in reply to lonetown. | October 11, 2016 at 7:45 am

    His midichlorians are off the charts

    Here’s the link….

    I think the point of a special prosecutor and possible jail time will play very well in Peoria and many other places. On the Federalist list of examples, there were some examples that everyone could relate to as a threat to their liberty. In particular, the Wisconsin John Doe investigations, wishing jail for climate change deniers, forcing sex-protected bathrooms in schools, the lawsuits for refusing to provide a service (baking cakes, photography, etc) that conflicts with beliefs, the IRS targeting of conservative non-profits and the prosecution of the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby over health care mandates.

    And many in the “land of Peoria” know someone in the military. They would be kicked out of the service, jailed, and lose their retirement benefits for a single act of mishandling classified information.

    Add to the list of abuses – Congress frequently excuses themselves from the laws – ACA and insider trading are two that come to mind.

G. de La Hoya | October 11, 2016 at 7:48 am

Poor, poor Ezra Klein and the Liberals he herds with. They already set the rules of engagement and they no longer adhere to the “high road” and never will. Their followers don’t understand it anymore. Alinsky the hell out of them with a scorched earth vengeance. They have not had any fear of any justice system for a long time and it has only gotten more brazenly overt with Obama’s presidency.

legacyrepublican | October 11, 2016 at 8:00 am

I think people are missing the Karma moment in this quip.

In ’92, Clinton lectured Bush on how out of touch he was with the American people.

But, it stuck.

Similarly, the more the media harps on this quip being an example of how Trump is unfit, what people will hear is that Trump said to Hillary that she is out of touch with the American people and needs to be humbled.

Humphrey's Executor | October 11, 2016 at 8:06 am

The point is moot. If Trump were to win, which only happens if the Dems somehow fail to turn out in droves, then Obama pardons HRC, Huma, and the rest. He’ll point to GHWB’s pardon of Caspar Weinberger et al over Iran-Contra cause that’s how he rolls.

    I wonder how much Obama is charging for pardons these days? I understand it is a pardon mill at the White House. He has already pardoned more people than the last 11 presidents combined. Who knows how many millions of dollars have been promised?

      OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to MattMusson. | October 11, 2016 at 5:06 pm

      Actually he has been commuting mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders who has shown good conduct in custody. Do you have a problem with that?

    VetHusbandFather in reply to Humphrey's Executor. | October 11, 2016 at 9:57 am

    I agree. If Trump gets elected expect a pardon for Hillary “just in case.” I have a feeling she’ll be out of politics at that point anyway. If she wins, then the whole thing is just history no matter how much evidence continues to pile up.

Neo, you seem to take the position that Ezra and ilk might be right or Donald might be right. You can’t say for sure!

Our response to folks like Ezra should be first to laugh, then take advantage of their focus on this subject and make the point again:

Hillary should be in jail, but for the complicit White House, State Department, Department of Justice, FB, … and folks like Ezra.

Any of us would be in jail if we did what she did. The Dims prosecute and use government agencies to persecute their political opponents all the time. So why the vapors?

    CloseTheFed in reply to Paul. | October 11, 2016 at 9:00 am

    Seriously, Paul, it’s because she’s a girl. You don’t put girls in jail….

    Course, Hillary wants the female empowerment thing & if you want to play with the boys, you have to take the same penalties as the boys….

      Valerie in reply to CloseTheFed. | October 11, 2016 at 10:40 am

      Hillary Clinton has quite the potty mouth, too, only she does not limit to telling dirty jokes in private. She uses it to peel the skin off of people who work for us. Some people take public rudeness and abuse toward employees more seriously that non-serious private conversations.

      She also has a famously out-of-control physical temper, documented by marks on Bill’s face and a broken lamp, IIRC.

      I do not get how this behavior is tolerable in her, but far less troublesome talk by DJT is somehow cause for the vapors.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Valerie. | October 11, 2016 at 5:10 pm

        Trump did his NY projects with the cooperation of the Mafia. So he was either their tool, or he knew how to get a knee-cap broken.

        But I guess a broken vase disqualifies one from being President. I that one of the stories peddled by that FBI tattletale?

This is everything we feared about Donald Trump.

It’s called the rule of law.

If Klein and his buddies fear it, that’s no bad thing.

People are over analyzing it.
Certainly since a President can signal to his Attorney General he believes no prosecution is allowed ,he could signal that an investigation is warranted.
Many people and legal scholars feel she violated gross negligence portion of the law.
I think he knows he just can’t inprison someone.
How often did Democrats sayBush should have been in prison

Just Democratic deflection

Things seen as persecutions crumble under the “everybody does it so why are you picking on this guy” argument; that even worked in the Nixon days, and became a fine art with Billy Jeff.

Play grabass with the interns under the desk? Not everybody does it but quite a few wish they could. A little creative deducting on taxes? Ditto. Say things the women would hate if they were around? Sure!

But there’s a limit; you can’t say “everybody does it” about everything. Sell a big chunk of America’s uranium supply to Russia? No way. Rob disaster victims in Haiti? Hell no. Violate security laws and practically hand state secrets to the Russians, the Norks, the Persians, the Chinese … sorry lady, jail’s too good for you.

This particular playing field is not level; it’s all downhill with Hillary at the bottom. It’s to Trump’s advantage to kick the ball in that direction.

There’s likely something approaching 100% agreement among LI commenters that Hellary Clinton should be in jail…or at very minimum HAVE BEEN prosecuted by this time.

But this what I said about this yesterday, and it still holds up…

2. while his quip about Hellary going to jail thrilled his followers (who eat his bullshit like it’s pudding), and she should NOW be in jail, it was a stupid thing to say, and for the following reasons; it may not sit well with women, and it is Constitutionally a REALLY bad idea to criminalize political opponents at a change of administrations (this is ONE of the prime reasons for the Presidential pardon). It’s also an empty promise, for two reasons; he’s going to lose, and if he wins, he’s assured Barracula will issue a blanket pardon.

Andy McCarthy has a good piece up about this question from yesterday, but he doesn’t address the pardon issue.

    Valerie in reply to Ragspierre. | October 11, 2016 at 10:44 am

    Somehow Hilary supporters are always saying how it’s stupid for DJT to state clearly what is obvious but being whitewashed.

      Ragspierre in reply to Valerie. | October 11, 2016 at 12:28 pm

      Somehow, it’s considered wrong by T-rump sucking myrmidons to say anything T-rump says is less than brilliant.

      I gave several rational reasons WHY what Der Donald said was stupid. Deal with them. Or do what you usually do, and try to smear me for ThoughtCrime.

      And note that this whole thread is about the opening for his opposition that Der Donald HANDED his opposition for “stating the obvious” in the stupid, off-handed, and unnecessary way he DID.

If he’s gonna investigate, he might as well include Bill and Loretta for obstruction of justice.

Also, bear in mind that the communications between Lynch and Obama/White House may well be excluded from attorney-client privilege under the crime/fraud exception.

Diluting the intent of his statement is the typical response. She knew exactly what he meant hence the stammering and thorazine shuffling. The average voter who doesn’t use Occupy Democrats, and Salon as their references knew what he meant. We have a regal dismissal of evidence now and Trump is not president, Barry is. These projections are just more fiddling. Appropriate that it came from net-neocon. Goldberg/Cruz 2020!

I’m pretty sure even folks who don’t normally participate in class envy resent the fact that the Clintons have been living above the law for decades. At the very least she deserves to be the subject of a legitimate investigation into ALL of her activities while at State. Even the staunchest of Democrats can see the elephant in the middle of the room. Prosecution wouldn’t necessarily be persecution where the Clintons are concerned.

Whether or not a Republican in the White House would weaponize the entire federal bureaucracy as Barak Obama has done is something that every Democrat should fear. They ought to quake in their boots that Republicans would reciprocate such “fairness”. I certainly don’t advocate that particular flavor of political persecution, but that genie has long left the bottle.

If Trump wins, Hillary’s political career is over, and she reverts from the Great Satan of DC back to a political minor demon. Now off the radar and a political hasbeen, similar to Gore after his 2000 loss, calls for her prosecution will diminish in number and intensity and the Trump administration won’t reopen her case. With a Clinton defeat and exit from national politics, it will all just fade away.

    If Trump wins, Hillary will be pardoned by Obama, and retire to extreme wealth and comfort. The media will then be free to canonize her like they did Jimmy Carter.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Valerie. | October 11, 2016 at 12:04 pm

      Is a blanket pardon to be issued or will he have to specify exactly what he’s pardoning? And if he has to specify exactly, would she remain vulnerable on everything not specified, would Obama unwttingly reveal heretofore unknown Clinton crimes? Inquiring minds….

      OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Valerie. | October 11, 2016 at 5:19 pm

      What exactly is your problem with Carter? He seems to have take his Christianity very seriously. But I guess he can’t be a real Christian because he is not a republican.

      Didn’t Reagan make some speeches in Japan for 2 million bucks right after leaving office?

      Carter has devoted himself to good works – shocking!

        ORDA, you make the most outrageous claims and seem to believe that you know how conservatives or right-leaning people think. You do not. What does anything Valerie said have to do with Christianity? That is you. All you.

        I can’t speak for Valerie in terms of “what is your problem with Carter?,” but I’ll go ahead and regale you with my thoughts on the matter. Not only was Carter a weak, spineless, jellyfish of cowering coward, but he totally screwed up our economy (then told us that’s the new normal and we should embrace the “malaise”)–including miles long gas lines and the jaw-dropping stagflation. He screwed up just about every single thing he touched as president, including but not limited to the Iran hostage crisis and the Panama Canal. This doesn’t even touch on his being attacked by a “killer rabbit” and his UFO sightings.

        What’s wrong with Jimmy Carter? It’s hard to think of anything right about him while in office at all. The only saving grace for the Carter presidency is that Obama’s is worse.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | October 11, 2016 at 6:43 pm

          I was just responding to what seemed like a gratuitous comment about Carter AFTER he was voted out of office. He seems to have led an exemplary life.

          But I guess it will be interesting to explore a few of your assertions. You do tend to put them out there; without the benefit of fact or historical context.

          Carter screwed up the economy? You mean there wasn’t stagflation when he took office? Nixon didn’t apply price controls? I never did get my WIN button from Ford, but I can probably find one on eBay. History seems to credit Paul Volker with breaking the back on inflation.

          The 1st oil crisis occurred in 1972. Carter wasn’t president. The 2nd one occurred as a result of the Iranian revolution. I am not sure what any President could have done about that, considering that we were backing an extremely brutal dictator who was overthrown and we were still all determined to drive gas guzzling cars. Bad luck that we got an even more brutal dictatorship a religious theme. Hope that doesn’t happen here.

          Panama Canal? What exactly is the problem with giving sovereignty to a country that was created as a convenience to us and had a canal zone that split it in 2? It was, after all, a colonial possession. The French & English had to give up the Suez Canal and that has been a far bigger problem.

          Has any incident caused us a problem? Has a warship been denied transit? Any commerce obstructed? Is it being well administered by professionals? Didn’t they just widen it? There is an issue with whether they should have done away with the tractor-trains, but I think they will figure it out. In fact there has been no news since the widened section opened. That makes it a lousy political issue.

          Yes, there was the killer rabbit. Didn’t the sainted Reagan have a habit on mixing up real life with films. Didn’t 242 Marines get killed despite warnings and a poorly designed perimeter defense during Reagan’s term. Didn’t he cut and run? You don’t think there were repercussions from that?

          Lets see – killer rabbit – 241 Marines – 4 in Benghazi – 5000 troops killed and 100’s of thousands of Iraqis killer and ISIS formed. Clearly the killer rabbit takes the prize.

          One last thing. It was Carter who authorized the deployment of the Pershing II missile. If you don’t think that had a significant effect on the cold war, it is probably because you are ignorant. Luckily Google can cure ignorance.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | October 11, 2016 at 9:56 pm

          “weak, spineless, jellyfish of cowering coward: You are talking about a man who graduated Annapolis and rose to executive officer and qualified to command a nuclear submarine. Discharged honorably. I don’t know of any “weak, spineless, jellyfish of cowering cowards” who accomplished that.

          You are nothing but an ideologue. That you changed your ideology is not impressive. It is just like changing fashion. It used to be that women’s hemlines went up and down and the fashionistas slavishly changed their hemlines. You have simply changed to a different ‘truth’. Perhaps in a year or two, you will find yet another ‘truth’.

    Obama doesn’t like her and I don’t think he will pardon her. He’ll throw her under the bus and try to keep the stench off himself. He certainly doesn’t want his legacy to be “the guy who pardoned Hillary”. Keep in mind that if he does grant her a pardon, it will be after the election, so he will be flying in the face of her disgrace.

    OTOH, even if he does pardon her. There would still be plenty of crimes that would not be under pardon. You can just investigate the previous DOJ. Collusion between the FBI and DOJ. People start coughing up and maybe even Obama is investigated, the pardon could be found to be part of a criminal conspiracy and be revoked. Similar to the arguments about a defense lawyer actually being part of the crime removes attorney client privilege.

If below referenced intercept is legitimate, hillary has accepted money from foreign nations actively waging war on US soil resulting in the death of US citizens. She should then be tried for high treason along with many others. This is incredible stuff.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton sent an email to her campaign chairman John Podesta in 2014, who was then-counselor to President Barack Obama, that said Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both giving financial and logistical support to the Islamic State and other extremist Sunni groups, according to a recent Wikileaks release.

Read more:

Trump needs to make the point that this election is about equal protection — about the disparate treatment of well-connected insiders and everybody else. This issue — the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton — could be a *great* lead-in to that.

And there are a *lot* of staunch Democratic voters for whom this is a huge issue. It’s *the* issue of OWS and BLM and the feel-the-Bern crowd.

“Too Big to Jail” is a slam-dunk campaign slogan. And if he doesn’t say those words in the third debate, I’ll be sad.

If the Lutz focus group tracker, which was running on Fox during the debate, is any indication, then the VAST majority of people, even HRC supporters agree with the Donald.

Will the statement swing the vote either way? Probably not. See, the Anti-Trump forces are grasping at straws. Trump has solid support from a majority of the people for his position on the relevant issues [not the ones that the media deems relevant]. Most people are in favor of controlling immigration, stopping amnesty, deportation of illegal immigrants, the repeal of Obamacare, job retention and increase, tax reform, strengthening the military and a no-nonsense approach to foreign policy. So, all that is left, for the anti-Trump forces is to whine about not releasing his tax returns and talking dirty a decade ago. Look for more of the same for the rest of the campaign.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Mac45. | October 11, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    So why doesn’t he release his tax returns and put that to rest. According to you, he would win in a landslide if the Dems didn’t have that knockout issue.

    Something is wrong with you analysis. I just can’t put my finger on it. No, I just don’t but it and it is wrong.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | October 11, 2016 at 10:58 am

Trump has a bad habit of using imprecise, ambiguous language. His opponents then seize on that language to infer the worst possible interpretation. This has happened to him numerous times yet he seems unable to modify his communication style/language.

In this case, he did not use the personal pronoun “I”. He used the collective pronoun “we’re”. But the collective is undefined. Who does “we” refer to?

The narrative builders did what they always do, and assumed the worst possible interpretation of his ambiguous language. And Conway did not help with her clean up operation.

What she should have said he meant by “we’re going to get a special prosecutor” is that he will work with Congress to try to pass a new law authorizing a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary’s conduct.” Or something like that.

I don’t blame her, though. He said it. He is the one who uses ambiguous language. And when he does he gives his opponents an opening. They take it.

It’s really strange to understand. His business is all about deals, where the contractual details and precise language are everything.

We’re not becoming a banana republic, we are a banana republic and we’re trying to restore an honest government. As the past thirty years have amply demonstrated, the reputed two party system exists only in the minds of the voters. Yet these same voters bring recrimination against one another for failures beyond their control. They lash out at their fellow citizens in their attempts to free themselves from the quicksand so carefully planned and placed by politicians.

All of our public institutions, with the possible exceptions of our libraries, have been corrupted by insiders working on behalf of the government. No longer does the government provide services to the people without extracting its pound of flesh in return.

Our federal agencies have combined with state and local police to legitimize open, unabashed armed robbery of every day citizens. Asset seizure are sub rosa bills of attainder issued to random citizens under the guise of crime fighting.

The IRS uses campaign finance regulations at its whim to block citizens from organizing and effecting elections while our courts enable massive election fraud in the name of voter rights. We are forbidden from requiring voters to show up at the polls let alone to identify themselves. Long live the dead!

The FBI not only grants immunity from prosecution to the favored, but actually destroys what little evidence the favored failed to destroy themselves. The DOJ, instead of scrutinizing the work of the FBI, grants the FBI the power to short circuit the prosecution of criminal acts.

So here we are discussing how wrong it is to demand punishment for a politician who ‘earned’ a quarter of a billion dollars and risked our national security while intentionally hiding unseemly behavior while holding public office.

Please wake me up and tell me that I’m dreaming.

Lock her up!, Lock her up!, Lock her up!

It’s a great chant for a rally. But what they want is for the rule of law to be followed! We all heard what the FBI found and there is no reason that this was not sent to trial.

There is Clinton justice and normal people justice!
It’s not the same justice and it’s not fair justice.

Obama has severally damaged the rule of law but Crooked Hillary will finish it off.

Unless one believes Trump intends to suspend the Constitution, then to believe that Clinton would end up in jail under a Trump Administration is to believe a jury of 12 ordinary citizens would put her there by concurring in his AG’s decision to prosecute her, his district attorney’s presentation of evidence, and a judge interpreting the law for them.

Furthermore, the logical corollary is that the only reason she’s not in jail now is that the Obama Administration declines to prosecute her, because we know that if they did, a jury would surely vote for conviction.

Perhaps a Hillary supporter could explain to me how they think the woman has done nothing wrong. But if one really, truly, wholeheartedly believed that Hillary was as innocent as the proverbial newborn babe, the correct response to Trump’s suggestion would be to laugh and say, “oh ha ha bring it on, idiot — no jury in the world would ever convict her!”

But her supporters don’t believe that, do they? They KNOW a jury would convict her. That isn’t what I’d call a ringing endorsement of the woman’s character — and this is by people who presumably like her and want her as president.

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to stevewhitemd. | October 11, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    1st of all, there are countries where the opposition does get convicted on one charge or another.

    2nd. Clinton has admitted to error. She doesn’t claim to be innocent as a new born babe. She just hasn’t done anything criminal.

    But what is Trump going to do when he loses. The NY Attorney General is looking closely at Trump’s Foundation and other irregularities. If Spitzer could be brought down for using his own money to pay for a prostitute, nailing Trump should be child’s play.

    Trump will be bankrupt, anyway. His brand isn’t going to be worth anything was he loses by a landslide.

      Actually….THAT is a perfect example of your double standards.

      Here you are crying like a baby about a quip (which the VAST majority of people found amusing on so many levels) and how mean Donald was because you know, she’s a woman YET breathlessly raised without objection the POLITICAL move in NY to dig dirt up on Trump (for, what, something like .000001% of what the Clinton Foundation has done).

      Yes, the left in a nutshell…well…that and the fact lefties have absolutely NO sense of humour.


        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to mailman. | October 12, 2016 at 8:57 am

        Lefties don’t have a sense of humor? OK. Don’t see much point to argue over that because there is absolutely no humor in your post and no evidence that you are in a position to judge.

        BTW, ever heard of George Carlin?

        Meanwhile, Trump is the one in jeopardy.

          Hahahahahahhahaa…you respond to a claim that lefties have no sense of humour by doing what cry baby lefties always do…have a sook! 🙂 Oh the irony!!! 🙂

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to OnlyRightDissentAllowed. | October 12, 2016 at 10:34 am

          @mailman Congratulations – you have identified a winning issue! Lefties have no sense of humor. I admit it. No lefty has EVER had a sense of humor.

          Now you can take your fingers off the keyboard and put your thumb back in your mouth. No humor intended.

          and now the over reaction….hahahahahahahahaha…f8ck it must be terrible being a lefty with feelings…seeing all those injustices being levelled against every minority group on the face of the planet…just terrible!!! Hahahahahahaha 🙂

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to OnlyRightDissentAllowed. | October 13, 2016 at 8:51 am

          @mailman Yes, it is. But it is comforting to know that your kind is losing.

          BTW, it is now clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Trump was not joking. He keeps repeating it over and over and he is red in the face.

          If he is lucky, he will not end up in jail from irregularities in the Trump Foundation, Trump U and a number of other transgressions that are now coming to light. Boy is he going to be sorry he ran for president and shed a bright light on his despicable conduct.

          Still laughing? Then you are a fool.

1. Joe Peoria ( and I live close to Peoria ), would say that the way he interpreted “you’d be in jail” is that Hillary could not survive the scrutiny of a strict investigation, and needs to win to prevent such an investigation.

2. Trump may not be able to appoint a special prosecutor. He can suggest to the AG, who he does appoint,

    RodFC in reply to RodFC. | October 11, 2016 at 1:03 pm

    oh shoot. That’s what happens when you popst to multiple forums at once.

    To finish:
    2. Trump may not be able to appoint a special prosecutor. He can suggest to the AG, who he does appoint, that he appoint a special prosecutor. The people in Peoria probably figure that any impartial AG would appoint a special prosecutor.

    3. In the third debate, he should demand of Loretta Lynch why she hasn’t asked for a special prosecutor.

Why people think Trump is a great orator is beyond me. Obviously the President and his administration gave Hillary political cover which helped her avoid serious legal problems during her election campaign. Whether those legal problems would have resulted in jail time is highly debatable but they certainly could have been a career ender similar to what happened to General Petraeus.

If Trump had just said that, he’d be fine. Of course he has to take it a step further with the “you’d be in jail” remark, which makes it sound that he as President would ensure she would be convicted and get a jail sentence and that’s far outside a President’s authority. Any attempt could create a constitutional crisis that ended with the President’s impeachment and/or resignation (see Richard Nixon).

Also in my view, the reason Obama helped and is still helping Hillary is because he needs an appointment from his successor to jump start his ex-Pesident career. if Hillary does win, I’d expect to see Obama in a UN role or something similar within a year.

    RodFC in reply to tyates. | October 11, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    Also in my view, the reason Obama helped and is still helping Hillary is because he needs an appointment from his successor to jump start his ex-Pesident career. if Hillary does win, I’d expect to see Obama in a UN role or something similar within a year.

    Boy you’ve just made me think.

    Hmm. I thought that Hillary would appoint Supreme Court Justice Slick Willie but I can totally see her saying “Listen you p***ychaser you nearly f***ed it up for me. You blew it.”
    and then appointing
    Supreme Court Justice Barrak Hussein Obama .


      Henry Hawkins in reply to RodFC. | October 11, 2016 at 5:01 pm

      Having already been a two term American president, if Obama has his sights on the UN, it will be as Secretary-General and no lower. A president Hillary could not make that happen for him. She could appoint him US ambassador to the UN, but I’m certain that’s small potatoes to an ego like Obama’s.

      OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to RodFC. | October 11, 2016 at 5:31 pm

      Obama for SCOTUS. Great idea. Now if only they pull out the file on Roberts, he can be Chief. Brilliant, simply brilliant!

      Obama has zero interest in being on the Supreme Court. He’s lazy-intellectually and professionally, and he undoubtedly sees himself, the man who will cause the oceans to recede and the healer of the planet, as far too important to bother with such menial labor as that of the SCOTUS.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | October 11, 2016 at 6:05 pm

        I guess you missed that tongue-in-cheek thing. I thought suggesting they could oust Roberts with a secret file was a dead give-away. Do they have a secret file on him. Does he talk about pornography? No, that was Thomas.

        BTW, I am not sure how hard the Justices work. They each have a bunch of eager beaver clerks.

        Please. Obama is a big blowhard to likes to lecture everyone.

        What could be more fitting then writing opinions for a living?

          LOL, Rod! Good point. He’d have to know the law, though, and he doesn’t. He will never ever spend the time it takes to bone up, either. And no army of interns will ever be able to help him because he’s intellectually lazy and hasn’t got a curious bone in his body that might make him interested in learning. Nothing says manifest loser on the law level than being the editor of the Harvard Law Review and somehow managing to never publish even one scholarly or professional article on law. He’s a coaster, a puppet, an empty suit perched precariously near an empty chair. He simply couldn’t cut it on the Supreme Court.

          Barry in reply to RodFC. | October 12, 2016 at 12:39 am

          ” He’d have to know the law, though, and he doesn’t.”

          Hasn’t stopped him before…