Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Kellyanne Conway: Trump won’t prosecute Hillary (Update)

Kellyanne Conway: Trump won’t prosecute Hillary (Update)

Major promise broken.

https://twitter.com/Bridget_PJM/status/633759714334085120

Assuming this statement by Kellyanne Conway proves to be the case, it’s a major promise broken by Trump.

The NY Post reports:

President-elect Donald Trump won’t subject Hillary Clinton to a criminal inquiry — instead, he’ll help her heal, his spokeswoman said Tuesday.

“I think when the president-elect who’s also the head of your party … tells you before he’s even inaugurated he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content, to the members,” Kellyanne Conway told the hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” who first reported that the president-elect would not pursue his campaign pledge to “lock up” Clinton, his Democratic opponent.

“Look, I think, he’s thinking of many different things as he prepares to become the president of the United States, and things that sound like the campaign are not among them,” Conway, who is now on the Trump transition team, said in her interview.

She continued: “I think Hillary Clinton still has to face the fact that a majority of Americans don’t find her to be honest or trustworthy, but if Donald Trump can help her heal, then perhaps that’s a good thing.”

Here’s the video:

What a contrast to the campaign:

UPDATE: Trump was interviewed on the record by the NY Times today, and appears to confirm he does not want Hillary prosecuted or the Clinton Foundation:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

MISTAKE!

If you are going to drain the swamp you have to get rid of the alligators first.

    thalesofmiletus in reply to MattMusson. | November 22, 2016 at 9:19 am

    He already got rid of her on the 8th.

    Massinsanity in reply to MattMusson. | November 22, 2016 at 11:09 am

    Its not worth it over the emails. She received her punishment for that on 11/8.

    They should go after the foundation and the myriad of pay to play scams they were running plus any misuse of funds such as for the insufferable Chelsea’s wedding.

    Bonus would be to send a message to the soon to be launched Obama Foundation that this type of behavior will not be tolerated.

2nd Ammendment Mother | November 22, 2016 at 8:58 am

I don’t see anything about getting in the way of Congress’ investigation… he can let them take care of it and keep his fingers out of it… win – win.

    This.

    And the State Department and Justice Department will stop dragging their feet. So the Congressional investigation can actually happen. And if they *do* find a smoking gun, President Trump can “reluctantly” be persuaded to appoint an independent prosecutor.

    I’m going to stick up for fairness and point out Conway didn’t leave any meaningful wiggle room there, saying Trump expects everyone in the party to follow suit.

    I’m sure you’re well aware that as a matter of basic separation of powers, Trump has no say in whether Congress investigates more or not. Completely separate from that, I’m not very impressed by Congress’ competence on this issue, so Hillary seems pretty safe.

    Congress will investigate.

    Only the Executive could prosecute. Maybe T-rump doesn’t get that.

      Actually, there’s an open question about that.

      As a technical matter of statute, the US Attorney for the District of Columbia doesn’t have any discretion as to whether or not to seek an indictment if an individual is found in contempt of Congress. The are ~required~ to empanel a Grand Jury to consider a criminal indictment. At least that was teh theory according to the Democrat party members that were using the process against Attorney General Gonzales in 2007.

      Once indicted, THEN there may be prosecutorial discretion to dismiss.

Hillary sure looks good in orange.

Maybe Trump prefer to be a one-term President? Draining the swamp was a major pledge.

Right after Trump won the presidency, I had a convo with my father about it saying if Obama doesn’t pardon her, Trump shouldn’t go after her or the Clinton Foundation.

Main reason being, okay anyone with even the tiniest bit of sense realizes Hillary is guilty of perjury and the destruction of evidence in a federal investigation as well as the misuse of classified info as Secretary of State, but to convict her on said charges would take alot of WH resources as well as new congressional inquiries after the Obama administration leaves office.

Those resources can be used to do something a little more constructional than throwing a 70 year old woman in a federal cell for what 5-10 years?

It just is not worth it.

The Republicans have for the first time since like 1928 – have control over the Presidency, House, and Senate.

I would much rather Trump try to pass some real reforms please.

Repeal and/or fix the ACA.

Secure the southern border and get all these inbound refugees under wraps.

Get some form of voter ID established nation-wide so every election is an honest one.

Roll back all of Obama’s executive actions and destroy all these “czar” positions and branches root and stem.

I mean we can all sit around and feel vindicated as we watch Hillary go through more trial proceedings with a looming prison sentence (that may not even happen) but I myself would rather the Republicans actually try to effect real change for the 50% of us that got ran over the last 8 years by Obama and his left-wing cronies.

    thalesofmiletus in reply to fishstick. | November 22, 2016 at 9:27 am

    The feds should definitely go after the Clinton Foundation. Now that the Clintons have been defeated politically, it’s time to bankrupt them.

      Dead on. DJT can get at her, without seemingly getting at her, by making sure the DOJ and the IRS go hammer-and-tong at the Clinton Foundation.

      BTW, the CF is running a Black Friday Sale. All regurgitated speeches will be delivered at 97% off list price. Further discounts for all-seniors events.

    Merlin in reply to fishstick. | November 22, 2016 at 9:56 am

    Everything on your list can be pursued AND the Clintons can be prosecuted. Simply assign a special prosecutor and let him/her get on with it. Whatever budget the prosecutor needs is chump change in comparison to the absolute fortune the Clintons have made selling out their country. Whether or not either Bill or Hillary ever live long enough to spend a day in prison has nothing to do with WHY they should at the very least receive a legitimate criminal investigation or two. Excusing their behavior simply because it might be inconvenient is disgusting. Elected officials blatantly ripping off the American people should never be excused. In addition to having been rejected by the people at the polls the political party that forced those corrupt bastards on the country need to pay a steep price for having done so. Allowing them to simply slink away with their millions shouldn’t even be an option. I’m pretty sure the incoming administration will be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to fishstick. | November 22, 2016 at 10:03 am

    “Those resources can be used to do something a little more constructional than throwing a 70 year old woman in a federal cell for what 5-10 years?”

    No, that 70 year old woman has hundreds of co-conspirators in the USA and abroad that need to be investigated & prosecuted if deemed appropriate. House brigades of special prosecutors in the emptied EPA, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy buildings and that old United Nations building in NYC.

    Exiliado in reply to fishstick. | November 22, 2016 at 10:04 am

    It’s not an “either or” scenario.
    He can go after her, after the foundation and their corruption, AND do all the other things.

    We need her prosecuted to restore our faith in the rule of law. Otherwise, it’s the same old corruption.

    “I would much rather Trump try to pass some real reforms please.”

    None of that matters if there is no rule of law. It’s foundational. If Hillary gets away with everything she has done, your average American starts to feel like a sucker for playing by the rules.

    So they stop.

    They start walking away from their mortgages. They start cheating on their taxes. They start filing false insurance claims.

    You don’t invest in home improvements when your foundation is rotting away. This is not about punishing Hillary Clinton, this is about restoring the faith of 150 million Americans that everyone is equal under the law.

    RMS1911 in reply to fishstick. | November 23, 2016 at 11:29 pm

    George w bush had Republican majority in the house and Senate for 2 years. (109th Congress)
    and Clintons plural should be in jail for their crimes
    or are they to special to be judged like the rest of us?

casualobserver | November 22, 2016 at 9:39 am

Yeah, to go after Clinton or the foundation right out of the gate is too political and sets a negative tone for his administration.

There is always the possibility that more evidence will come out in the near future, too.

It’s not up to him to go after her. It’s up to his attorney general.
I doubt Trump will impede where the facts lead….

    thalesofmiletus in reply to rduke007. | November 22, 2016 at 11:45 am

    Yes, the best course of action for Trump the POTUS is to appoint the best men to the FBI, DOJ, etc (which is exactly what he’s doing right now, along with State and DHS) and then step back and let the wheels turn as they may. If HRC land behind bars, DJT gets the credit; if not, he doesn’t get personally blamed. Win-win.

    Milhouse in reply to rduke007. | November 22, 2016 at 12:08 pm

    The AG works for the president. He does not have any independent power; the constitution says so. So he has to obey the president’s instructions or resign.

      Yes, but the particular AUSA involved is also specifically bound by statute governing his particular conduct.

      There’s an argument to be made that once Congress makes a contempt finding that the AUSA for DC has effectively a ministerial act, without any discretion, to seek an indictment.

      The Democrat members started and stated this in 2007 regarding the resignation/firing of the 8 AUSAs that were determined to be “disloyal” to the Bush administration and were canned.

Hillary is a has-been. Chelsea is a different matter, but she doesn’t seem to have what it takes anyway.

Husband your resources wisely; deal with illegal aliens, Ocare, etc. Hillary isn’t a factor anymore and wasting energy on her is unhelpful.

See also, Ford vis-a-vis Nixon.

Not saying she shouldn’t be in prison, just think the country is too important to waste resources on that sickly thing.

Of course, the contra argument can be made: letting such a big fish off when little fish are rotting in prison, allows a two-tier system to exist. Perhaps the harm of that overrides other national concerns.

I’m truly torn.

    Fiftycaltx in reply to CloseTheFed. | November 22, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    Chelsea is being prettied up for Lowrey’s seat in NYC. There are so many democratic socialists there, an actual monkey could be elected. I imagine Hillary would “loan” Uma to her so she could learn the ropes. You want another Clinton running for prezzi in 8-12 years? Put them all in jail.

      Chelsea is not going to run for President. She doesn’t have the heart, the chops or the cut-throat instinct that either of her parents have/had.

      She might make it to Congress in a decade, if she’s shepherded, controlled and very, very well managed. But my guess is that after two or three terms, she’ll want to wander back off to obscurity somewhere and live off of the small fortune that the Clinton Foundation will pay her to do nothing as one of its directors.

Paul In Sweden | November 22, 2016 at 9:46 am

Is it not possible that instead of the POTUS & the West Wing staffers prosecuting the bloodsucking vermin the DOJ may work with the FBI on that matter leaving Trump somewhat removed from the process?

    Paul In Sweden in reply to Paul In Sweden. | November 22, 2016 at 9:52 am

    Think about all the confirmation hearings that still have to take place and if the prospects come forward all covered in war paint or carrying torches & pitchforks someone might get the idea that there is a bias.

Let the facts of the case take it where it will!

How is Trump saying through Kelly Anne that he won’t subject Hillary Clinton to a criminal inquiry — instead, he’ll help her heal any different than Obama interfering with the IRS and FBI investigation of Clinton?

Hopefully it’s just healing talk from Trump. If he interferes he’s no better than Obama! The better response is the AG will look at the fact!

Hillary Clinton set up a ‘private’ email server to avoid government scrutiny so she could scheme to accept hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes from foreign governments while U.S. Secretary of State.

This is the most horrid kind of felony by a public official, and arguably could be treason.

Way too many people don’t understand the depth of her offense – they merely understand it as a ’email scandal.’

By letting her off the hook, Trump is ensuring acts like hers will be committed again.

Dumb move, Donald.

    He’s also tarnishing his own reputation and that of his administration. How is giving Hillary a ‘pass’ signify that America is a country governed by LAWS? Or, do the laws only apply to 2nd class citizens and not to the elite?

    No, it could not arguably be treason. Treason requires adhering the the USA’s enemies, which means not just helping them but doing so because one supports them, not for private profit. When Ted Kennedy solicited the USSR’s help in the 1984 election, that was not treason, because his motive was not to help the USSR but to get one of his party elected. That the Soviets would benefit was a side issue to him, not the purpose of the exercise; if he could cause Reagan to lose without helping the Soviets he would have done so. Therefore he did not adhere to the Soviets, and thus did not commit treason.

    The same is true of Clinton. There is no evidence that she ever did anything for the purpose of helping any enemy of the USA. Unlike 0bama I’m sure she loves the USA in her own way, and all things being equal she would like it to prevail over its enemies; it’s just that for her making money is a higher priority. That is not treason.

    Even 0bama is not guilty of treason. He doesn’t love any of our enemies, except perhaps Cuba. He just hates America. So he can’t be accused of adhering, for instance to Iran. If he could hurt America without helping Iran I’m sure he’d do so.

I would suggest the following –

Carry out a complete investigation of all of the issues, Clinton, her staff, the Foundation, everything. This could be done in either the Executive Branch or by the Congress.

Make all of the findings public. Everything.

Then decide on prosecution based on the results of the complete investigation.

DCP

First ever smart move by The Donald.

I don’t think he has much choice. There are several investigations already in place. If Clinton lied to congress, and congress refers it to the attorney general, he is not going to bury it. Sessions won’t lie. He is incorruptible. He’s not Holder or Lynch.
Comey has to explain to the attorney general his very peculiar investigation. Blanket grants of immunity. The guy who wiped Hillary’s server claims to have done it on his own. Comey gave him immunity and accepted it as truth. I just don’t see Sessions being a party to this nonsense, whatever Trump says. I know Chelsea called up crying asking for help, but if the situation was reversed Donald would be wearing a jumpsuit to match his hair.

“Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up! Wait, he’s not going to lock her up? Wow he’s a genius!”

Sigh.

I don’t normally have the chance to say “I told you so” but…..

    tom swift in reply to gwsjr425. | November 22, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    And what did you say?

    Did you predict that somebody who isn’t Trump would say something to the press, and that some excitable types in the peanut gallery would clutch spasmodically at their pearls?

    Hardly a big deal.

You can make the argument that prosecuting the outgoing administration or the loser in the presidential race sets a very dangerous precedent. But. There is no reason whatsoever not to go after the dozens (hundreds?) of people who helped Hillary break the law, and locking up her enablers sends the message that must be sent.

    thalesofmiletus in reply to Same Same. | November 22, 2016 at 11:48 am

    The problem is that so many people have already been granted immunity for, well, nothing. The case may be so horribly botched to the point of unsalvagability that it’s just a tar baby at this point, something DJT as POTUS should personally stay away from.

      So prosecute the people who granted immunity. The rot goes deep.

      Also, immunity doesn’t always mean immunity. Investigations are still possible, and even if you don’t get criminal convictions you can bring all of their wrongdoings to light.

        THAT you cannot do.

        It is not illegal for a prosecution to make a grant of immunity, even if it is based on fraudulent information. The GRANTORs of that immunity have their own “prosecutorial immunity from suit” for actions taken within the scope of their employment and at the explicit direction of their employers

    Milhouse in reply to Same Same. | November 22, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    Not prosecuting a criminal just because she happens to have been a presidential candidate is what sets a bad precedent.

    tom swift in reply to Same Same. | November 22, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    Prosecuting your predecessors for their crimes in office would certainly be a change, and, to professional politicians, an unwelcome one. And—as I’ve opined here before, so no need to slog through it all again—it could be a major reason both parties were so fixated on getting “one of their own” into the White House. A newcomer who may not be satisfied to play nudge-nudge-wink-wink could be a deadly menace to them all.

    But it wouldn’t do America any harm.

read my lips.
no new taxes.
one and done.

time will tell, so much fluff being tossed around right now and none of it set in stone.

It is inappropriate for the president to make decisions about who should or should not be prosecuted. He’s supposed to appoint good people and let them do their jobs.

This is not a good thing.

This is dumb. She is the poster child of corruption and the wrong message is being sent by letting her walk.

If the Clinton Foundation investigation suddenly goes away, then all Americans should be pissed.

If this keeps Obama from pardoning her this is the smartest move he could make. After he’s in office he can step back and let the DOJ do its job.

So are we to tell the people listed below that they are in prison because some folks are above the law and some folks aren’t. Hillary gets a special pass why?

1. State Department Official Fired and Security Clearance Revoked After Linking to Classified Wikileaks Document: Peter Van Buren, a foreign service officer for Hillary’s State Department, was fired and his security clearance revoked for quoting a Wikileaks document AFTER publishing a book critical of Clinton…

2. Bill Clinton’s CIA Director Was Pardoned During Plea Negotiations for Storing Classified Data on Home Computer: John Deutch, CIA director under President Clinton, was found to have classified information on a government-owned computer in his home several days after he left the CIA. He had to be pardoned in the middle of plea negotiations by Hillary’s husband.

3. Navy engineer sentenced for mishandling classified material: Bryan Nishimura of Folsom, California, pled guilty to the unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials during stints in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008…Nishimura was sentenced to two years probation, fined $7,500, and had to surrender his security clearance.

4. Marine Corps. Major Caught Sending Classified Documents to Superiors Using Personal Email: Maj. Jason Brezler was dismissed from the Marine Corps when he ‘accidentally took home 14 documents on his personal computer, some of which were classified.’ According to the report, Brezler was ‘in a graduate school class when he received an urgent email from military officials in Afghanistan and sent a specific document in response, using his personal email account.’

5. State Dept. Official Steals Classified Docs: Donald Willis Keyser earned over a year in prison when he ‘pled guilty to a three-count Criminal Information in which he admitted that he willfully and unlawfully removed classified documents and digital memory devices from the Department of State to his residence.’ United States Attorney Chuck Rosenberg stated that… ‘His (Keyser’s) sentence of imprisonment is a warning to others in positions of public trust.’

I wonder if Trump has reliable information that she has a terminal health condition and (1) he doesn’t want to waste time and money on this national abscess and (2) when information about her deteriorating health becomes public knowledge more might people might realize he in fact has compassion they are currently in denial of.

Why did Trump meet with the Attorney General of Arkansas?

The Attorney General of Arkansas is in a position to prosecute the Clintons because the Clinton Library/Foundation are located in Arkansas.

It doesn’t have to be a broken federal law that puts the Clintons in jail for the rest of their sorry lives.

    Kaffa in reply to Kaffa. | November 22, 2016 at 11:03 am

    PS: they may love the Clintons in NY and DC… but they do NOT love them in Arkansas. Trump won the state with a large percentage of the vote.

    Ragspierre in reply to Kaffa. | November 22, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    Look up “statutes of limitation”.

    See also “jurisdiction”.

    Kaffa in reply to Kaffa. | November 22, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    WALL STREET EXPERT: CLINTON FOUNDATION A ‘VAST CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY’
    Ortel believes the evidence calls for a criminal investigation by the FBI as well as by attorneys general in four states where the Clinton Foundation is registered, maintains offices and/or has aggressively solicited individual donations: Arkansas, Massachusetts, California and New York.

    Forget about Massachusetts, California and New York doing anything. But Arkansas? They are not loved in Arkansas.

The FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation is still ongoing, and involves many more people than just Hillary. But that might not be concluded for another year or two–no point making a fuss about it now. Wait until all the facts come out, then he can just change his mind then, if the evidence warrants it.

Forget about this distraction… lower the corporate tax rate, find a way to let companies re-patriate their overseas cash reserves, reduce red tape and watch the economy take off.

    equaljustice in reply to Massinsanity. | November 22, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Want those things as much as anyone else. But if Trump is going to start breaking campaign promises before even being inaugurated, then he can break all of the campaign promises he made. Now I will watch for the southern wall and Obamacare promises to be broken next. Not encouraged by this revelation.

    So, we get our choice: jobs, or Rule of Law. One or the other, but not both.

      “Neither” is now also on the table. No jail for Hillary, no jobs for Americans. No wall. Nada.

      Because this was a promise that rallied the troops. It became their battle cry. Trump folds on this, what else will he fold on?

      Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | November 22, 2016 at 11:22 am

He nicknamed her “Crooked”. His followers went into a frenzy chanting “Lock Her Up” at his rallies.

But now that he’s won the election he wants to help her heal.

Unsurprising. He donated to both Clinton’s campaigns. She attended his wedding. He said great things about her after she left SoS job. He golfs with her husband.

The “Crooked Hillary” and “lock her up” was all theater for the rubes.

Except that many Trumpkins knew they were being duped. They just didn’t care. Sorta like most Democrats knew Obama was telling lies about Obamacare but they didn’t care.

I don’t see how any of this is a sign of a strong society. More like one in moral decay.

    I am a US citizen residing in a foreign country in which Trump is universally despised. I took a lot of heat from people here for saying that although Trump is a contemptible swine, he really was the lesser of two evils. Since the last election, he has called the Clintons “good people”, and he spokesperson now implies that we should have known that his promise to appoint a Special Prosecutor was merely campaign rhetoric.
    I’ll never go to the bother of defending him again, against any accusation, in any forum. He’s stabbed his supporters in the back, and I hope that on 20 January 2017, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathy Shelton chain themselves together and block his way into the door of the White House. He used them shamelessly.

    You’re concluding rather a lot … from something Trump didn’t say.

From the The Warrior’s Apprentice by Lois McMAster Bujold. A young commander back from his first command tells his cousin, “When storming a room, it is better to do so quietly rather then go in shouting and alert your enemy”.

After reading this, Obama ios now thinking “Do I or don’t I pardon Hillary?”. If he does then people will wonder why, if Trump does not prosecute. Did she actually do something? If he doesn’t then what if Trump actually does prosecute.

The same goes for Bill and Hillary getting on a plane to a non extraditable country.

If he prosecutes her, what is to stop her from “suddenly” becoming sick? I don’t think Hastert has served a day in jail. ( Though I also think the crimes he is charged with are not so heinous. Money laundering to hide black mail payments. Seems like a double victim. Still can’t be fussed. The crimes he isn’t charged with–pedophila are nasty. )

In terms of draining the swamp, it is best to do so while the creatures are asleep. it is also best not just to drain the water but let the roots of the plants dry out so everything shrivels up and dies.

There are several investigations going on right now. Some by non-government entities. Others by Contgress. A few by Congress. Let’s see what happens when we contempt charges aren’t hidden by a DoJ.

Another thing is that I don’t see Kellyanne is saying that Trump won’t appoint a special prosecutor, what she is saying is that she doesn’t see the sense in it. If there are some revelations, that could very well change.

Also at this point, I seem to remember that people last week were saying that Ted Cruz is going to be AG. Don’t believe anything unless you hear it from Trump.

If Clinton discloses everything and pays a $300 million fine, I’m good with not prosecuting her.

Otherwise march her to prison, the reason we charge and imprison criminals like Hillary is as a deterrent to others like her!

Trump should lead by example!

Trump is correct, in his stance not to seek prosecution of Clinton, on the server issue, as things stand now. Prosecuting your election opponent, even if justified, is a dangerous precedent to set. And, at this point, Hillary Clinton is no longer a person of influence, in political circles. And, Trump needs to avoid stirring up too much political enmity until later in his term of office.

This does not mean that Clinton will not escape prosecution. It is always possible that a special prosecutor could be appointed to investigate the matter, at a later date. And, there are the other active investigations ongoing, in which she is a subject or potential subject.

“Those resources can be used to do something a little more constructional than throwing a 70 year old woman in a federal cell for what 5-10 years? It just is not worth it.”

Yes, it is worth it. It sends the correct message that no one is above the law, a benefit Clinton has enjoyed for many years. It is essential that she be prosecuted, and appropriately sentenced if found guilty, if for no other reason to show that even our most revered politicians will be held accountable if they violate the law.

Letting Clinton off the hook just reeks of more cronyism. Trump needs to keep his promise or he proves himself no better and no more trustworthy than Clinton herself.

    tom swift in reply to rokiloki. | November 22, 2016 at 1:43 pm

    Trump needs to keep his promise or he proves himself no better and no more trustworthy than Clinton herself.

    He’d have a looonnnggg way to go before he approached Hillarian levels of ignominy.

https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/801084948073549824

Bill Mitchell Verified account
‏@mitchellvii

Trump may have just rope-a-doped Obama into not pardoning Hillary.

https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/801070735720665088

Trump Camp: “We won’t ‘pursue’ Hillary.” Independent FBI: “We recommend a Grand Jury.” Trump Camp: “We must follow FBI’s recommendations.”

Bill Mitchell is someone who has had the pulse of the Trump campaign all along.

    Ragspierre in reply to RodFC. | November 22, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    You are SOOOOOOOO dreaming…!!!

    Barracula will pardon Hellary, come hell or high water. He’ll do it for himself as much as for anything or anyone else.

    And he’ll do it for one reason to check-mate Der Donald. Cheap win.

And another cool part of the whole episode is that Obama probably won’t be getting any $500,000 checks for a 20 minute speech to Wells Fargo or the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Don’t fret.
Trump has been ahead of the game at every turn thus far.
I don’t see this as a promise that Hillary will not be prosecuted.
Will justice be served? I can’t say, but I do believe so.

Also remember:
The investigations have only recently admitted that Obama is complicit in the e-mail debacle.
And, the investigations are ongoing.
Just a point to ponder on.

Trump isn’t President yet.

He still has two hurdles to clear.

First, the Electoral College.

I don’t expect anything to come of the childish attempts by some Dems to cajole or threaten electors into voting for The Witch. But more capable Dems may have plans which could be more dangerous. Any vote can be perverted, not just the big one we had last week, but the one on December 19 as well. How, I don’t know, but I’m sure they’ll try.

Second, Obama.

The annoying habit of Presidents plaguing their successors with last-minute appointments began with John Adams, who placed staunch Federalists wherever he could solely to trip up Jefferson. Sometimes it works out OK; one of his appointments was his Secretary of State, John Marshall, as the fourth Chief Justice. Another was the appointment of William Marbury as a Justice of the Peace; an appointment which the new Secretary of State, Madison, left languishing on his desk, and which eventually became the famous Marbury v. Madison.

Obama, a notoriously petulant personality, will certainly try to do the same, although he won’t have a reliably Federalist congress to help ram his appointments through in time. But how hard Obama will try is not definite. If he thinks his “legacy” isn’t in mortal danger, he’s more likely to settle for a last expensive trip in Air Force One to go golfing in some exotic clime, and leave relatively few booby traps behind.

Perhaps.

It’s up to Trump to play the odds, throw nice juicy steaks to distract the mad dogs, toss chopped fish to the trained seals, and wait to see what he actually has to deal with on January 20. His obvious opponents right now are the Democrats, and far too many Republicans. The press isn’t very important at this stage. He may bait them a bit, just because his doctors have told him to get some exercise, but they probably don’t merit any serious efforts until after Inauguration.

Of course, he’ll continue to be blamed for saying things he didn’t actually say, but we should all be accustomed to that by now.

More news from Da Greatest Transition EVAH…!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/22/trumps-tax-infrastructure-promises-face-pushback-from-gop-lawmakers.html

So, MAYBE not BIG GOVERNMENT as usual, as T-rump proposes?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/donald-trump-disavow-groups-new-york-times/index.html

So, Der Donald is disavowing a group of his supporters that some of the morons here swore didn’t exist, and was only a Hellary invention.

Huh.

A short while ago, I was forced by circumstances to listen to a segment of the Seanenne Hannity radio show.

I heard Neutered Gingrich go full-tilt Federal tax-and-spend our way to prosperity.

Amazing.

He also depicted Bannon as “a solid conservative”, which Bannon himself has disavowed.

I’d imagine that behind the scenes of the forming Trump administration there exist camps of ‘jail her’ vs ‘let it go’ staff members arguing over which path is the better politically, that being do they investigate and prosecute and risk even more opposition acrimony (I doubt Trump cares, but some staff would), distraction from their ambitious first year plans, and the possibility of failing get an indictment or conviction, which would not be liked by his base? Or do they let it go, basically a pardon by inaction. That too would likely anger Trump’s base. Trump may echo the Gerald Ford reasoning for his pardon of Nixon… heal the nation, put the past behind, fresh start, etc., retooled for the Nov. 8 election… heal/unite the nation, tough, hard election cycle, let’s put it in the past and look forward, etc.

OneVoiceInAmerica | November 22, 2016 at 7:39 pm

Very disappointing, and he’s not even in office yet.
America is no longer exceptional, rich and powerful are not held to the same laws, we can no longer pretend otherwise.

What a shameful shame.

“I think when the president-elect who’s also the head of your party … tells you before he’s even inaugurated he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content, to the members,” Kellyanne Conway

Yes. It tells me Trump doesn’t give a shit about the Rule of Law.

You just lost me. I will now support impeachment of Trump.

Bad move.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | November 22, 2016 at 9:28 pm

    So, I can expect your apology (abject would be good) any time now.

    While that would be right, I’m not holding my breath.

      Apology for what?

      My position since my guys (Walker and Cruz) lost the nomination was that I was supporting whoever was in range to stop Hillary Clinton from gaining the power of the Executive Branch.

      I never said Trump was our salvation. There is plenty to criticize him about, but not while I am sweeping all your “Trump is the next Hitler” bullshit off the board.

      You still don’t get it. Your hyperventilating hyperbolic attacks only immunize Trump against legitimate criticism. Same way the Left’s “Bush let 9-11 happen” and “Bush lied troops died” nonsense interfered with honest complaints about Bush.

      You are you’re own worst enemy.

        Fen in reply to Fen. | November 23, 2016 at 7:38 am

        And I threw you a typo out of pity. Since you’re on a steady diet of ad hom these days. Enjoy the morsel. Tastes like chicken I hear.

        Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | November 23, 2016 at 7:42 am

        Hen: Apology for what?

        For being a lying T-rump sucking sack of filth.

        Hen: “Trump is the next Hitler”

        One of your many, many lies. I’ve never said, hinted, or suggested that, you lying piece of filth.

        Hen: Same way the Left’s “Bush let 9-11 happen” and “Bush lied troops died” nonsense interfered with honest complaints about Bush.

        But those were also the Code Pinko, Collectivist T-rump attacks, you lying sack of filth.

        You can’t step up to your own bullshit. I’ll just have to help you.

Too many people consider Hillary Clinton to be, at her greatest reduction, simply another American citizen, with no more or less rights than anyone else, an equal among equals, and this errant assumption leads to anger. We have to remember and accept that Hillary is one of those more equal citizens, as foretold by Mr. Orwell.

On the other hand, perhaps come spring Mr. Trump will tell us that new evidence has arisen in the Hillary (name your scandal: Benghazi, emails, Foundation, etc.) case, and since it all started before he began his term, he is loathe to interfere with the DOJ’s request for further investigation and indictment, if warranted, that he will stand aside and let the investigative chips fall where they may. The base gets its investigation/prosecution/conviction, and the forever present opposition can be told it’s not Trump’s wish, it was a case he inherited.

As for me, I’d let the Benghazi families personally execute her.

I have a suggestion for Mr. Trump: Once you take on the full responsibilities of President, extend a healing laurel and hearty (apologies to Mel Brooks and “Blazing Saddles”) handshake to Hillary, by way of offering her the position of U.S. Ambassador to Libya, with offices headquartered in Benghazi.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to DouglasJBender. | November 23, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    Excellent idea. I bet she’d arrange for decent security.

      Wrathchilde in reply to Henry Hawkins. | November 25, 2016 at 11:12 am

      I bet she’d *want* decent security, but as precedent shows, that’s up to the SecState, isn’t it?

      Now don’t get me wrong, she’d get much better security than she appears to have cared to provide her peeps, but she won’t be getting the Secret Service detail she dreamed of.

      Which may be for the best, as noted in the old news that the Clintons loathe the military, and have historically treated their bodyguards as servants.

The decision to prosecute Clinton is not a decision of the president, despite Trump’s comments on the matter. While he will appoint an Attorney General, there is a investigative and legal process involved. That’s where the decision resides.

A special prosecutor is only warranted when it is the executive investigating itself. As Clinton is not in power, there is no reason for a special prosecutor.

The FBI has already determined there is no legal justification for a charge due to the email server situation. The Clinton Foundation is still under investigation, and based on what is publicly known, nothing will come of that either. In any case, the process will continue regardless of Trump’s intemperate statements on the matter.

“…The FBI has already determined there is no legal justification for a charge due to the email server situation. ”

Not true. Comey went on and on, listing multiple facts that provide a legal basis for charging her.

He then went on to describe decisions that are not the FBI director’s to make. He then went on to describe the complete and utter nonsense on which he based decisions that weren’t his to make. He said no reasonable prosecutor would take the case. He said he couldn’t prove intent, and and since the law doesn’t require intent (for a very good reason; a security clearance isn’t a right and anyone who passes the background check for a position where they will have access to classified material has to fist sign a binding contract when they are read-in stating they recognize they a legal responsibility to exercise a special duty of care to safeguard classified or they will not be granted the clearance) he rewrote the statute and declared the gross negligence standard unconstitutional.

Clinton’s conduct, as described by Comey, perfectly fits the statute. He’s too much of a political hack to let the Attorney General take the heat for making an obviously partisan call.

Lynch met with Bill Clinton just days before Comey announced the foregone conclusion that his wife wouldn’t be prosecuted for eminently prosecutable crimes. But not only did Lynch meet with husband of a target of an investigation, since the FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation she met with an actual potential target of an ongoing investigation.

No “reasonable” prosecutor would do that. Only an unprincipled, unethical, politicized, and weaponized prosecutor would do that.

    Arminius: Not true.

    Comey: although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

    Arminius: Comey went on and on, listing multiple facts that provide a legal basis for charging her.

    They did not find sufficient evidence of intent to recommend prosecution.

    Arminius: he rewrote the statute and declared the gross negligence standard unconstitutional.

    That is incorrect. Starting with Gorin v. United States, the Supreme Court has determined that, under the Espionage Act, scienter and bad faith must be present.

    Arminius: No “reasonable” prosecutor would do that. Only an unprincipled, unethical, politicized, and weaponized prosecutor would do that.

    It was the unanimous decision of the career investigators involved in the case.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend