Hillary’s Bulwarks

[Flanders]

Media continues to pooh-pooh Clinton crimes. Loretta Lynch was Hillary’s bulwark before she lost the election. Her defeat changed the landscape. Now that Lynch is on the verge of being breached, Special Council Mueller is the only bulwark standing between Hillary and jail time:

Senate Republicans are clamoring to hear from Loretta Lynch after former FBI Director James Comey raised concerns about her involvement in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are seizing on Comey’s testimony earlier this month that he was concerned over the former attorney general telling the FBI to refer to the Clinton investigation as a "matter," which resembled the Clinton campaign line.

Senate GOP shifts focus to Lynch
By Jordain Carney - 06/18/17 06:00 AM EDT

Senate GOP shifts focus to Lynch​

Irrespective of what Mueller says or does, AG Sessions and the FBI can prove:

​

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.hApAbHPr9FhDLbGInEJ_DgEhEh&pid=Api&w=123&h=100&c=7

 

[mudwhistle]

Media continues to pooh-pooh Clinton crimes. Loretta Lynch was Hillary’s bulwark before she lost the election. Her defeat changed the landscape. Now that Lynch is on the verge of being breached, Special Council Mueller is the only bulwark standing between Hillary and jail time:

Senate Republicans are clamoring to hear from Loretta Lynch after former FBI Director James Comey raised concerns about her involvement in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are seizing on Comey’s testimony earlier this month that he was concerned over the former attorney general telling the FBI to refer to the Clinton investigation as a "matter," which resembled the Clinton campaign line.

Senate GOP shifts focus to Lynch
By Jordain Carney - 06/18/17 06:00 AM EDT

Senate GOP shifts focus to Lynch​

Irrespective of what Mueller says or does, AG Sessions and the FBI can prove:

​

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.hApAbHPr9FhDLbGInEJ_DgEhEh&pid=Api&w=123&h=100&c=7

Hillary should have been a lesson to the left....that being dishonest and trying to fool the public is not gonna manufacture votes for you.
She never should have won the nomination.
Now the Dems are paying a price for going along with her deceptions.
I think ultimately they will pay a price for their deceptions against Trump.

 

[bodecea]

Media continues to pooh-pooh Clinton crimes. Loretta Lynch was Hillary’s bulwark before she lost the election. Her defeat changed the landscape. Now that Lynch is on the verge of being breached, Special Council Mueller is the only bulwark standing between Hillary and jail time:

Senate Republicans are clamoring to hear from Loretta Lynch after former FBI Director James Comey raised concerns about her involvement in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are seizing on Comey’s testimony earlier this month that he was concerned over the former attorney general telling the FBI to refer to the Clinton investigation as a "matter," which resembled the Clinton campaign line.

Senate GOP shifts focus to Lynch
By Jordain Carney - 06/18/17 06:00 AM EDT

Senate GOP shifts focus to Lynch​

Irrespective of what Mueller says or does, AG Sessions and the FBI can prove:

​

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.hApAbHPr9FhDLbGInEJ_DgEhEh&pid=Api&w=123&h=100&c=7

Still waiting for those indictments.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Media continues to pooh-pooh Clinton crimes.

That's impossible to do insofar as Hillary Clinton hasn't been convicted of criminal behavior. One can only be declared to have committed a crime after one has been convicted of having done so. Of course, that's not so for individuals who reject the presumption of innocence principle found in American and international jurisprudence.

 

[Flanders]

Still waiting for those indictments.

To bodecea: Your wait time has been shortened:

Loretta Lynch was Hillary’s bulwark before she lost the election.

That's impossible to do insofar as Hillary Clinton hasn't been convicted of criminal behavior.

To Xelor: That hardly proves she is not a criminal!

Of course, that's not so for individuals who reject the presumption of innocence principle found in American

To Xelor: Presumption of innocence is a myth that is confused with a fair trial. Presumption of innocence is pretty much like the Golden Rule: UNENFORCEABLE.

Nobody in a trail is required to be presume innocence; certainly not the prosecutor, and certainly not the jury who are instructed to decide guilty or not guilty on the evidence. In short: Innocence is a moral judgement.

Judges do not presume innocence. A judge is only required to conduct a fair trial. How is that one working out? The guilty are acquitted more often than the not guilty are convicted.

Italian anarchists Nicola Sacco (right) and Bartolomeo Vanzetti (left) walking through a crowd …
Hulton Archive/Getty Images​

https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/70/121670-004-3D428550.jpg

I read quite a bit about S & V. Even without that opinion-forming background, I would still believe they were both guilty because the liberal intelligentsia responsible for making Sacco & Vanzetti a cause célèbre were no more to be trusted back in the 1920s than is today’s crop who are actors in a trial.

Parenthetically, more books, plays, commentaries, etc., were written about the Sacco & Vanzetti trial, and its aftermath, than any other case in American history. “Sacco & Vanzetti” was a Communist rallying cry since the 1920s. Sacco & Vanzetti is the Left’s all-time favorite trial. It was that trial that moved criminals away from guilt/not guilty, and into the Left’s definition of a fair trial.

Briefly, the judge in S & V decided 11 or so discretionary rulings. Every one of those rulings went against S & V. There is no evidence that says the jury found Sacco & Vanzetti guilty because of those rulings, yet the Left harped on those rulings to declare the trial unfair. There were additional charges of unfairness leveled by liberals of that era, but it was those rulings the Left pounded home in order to convince the general public that Sacco & Vanzetti did not get a fair shake.

The most commonly-held belief today is that Sacco was guilty but not Vanzetti. Frankly, I think they were both guilty. I base my opinion on the numerous books and articles that I read a half century ago; notwithstanding then-Massachusetts Governor Dukakis signing a proclamation clearing their names posthumously. Liberals, working through Dukakis, carried the “fair trial” rallying cry to its unavoidable conclusion: If you did not get a fair trial you are not guilty.

Anyone interested in the most famous verdict in America’s history can find plenty on the subject —— famous because of the havoc wreaked on this country by the ACLU and judges. The people who profit from fictional movies, plays, and novels are the only people who benefitted from the myth of presumption of innocence.

Here is a brief account of S & V:

Sacco-Vanzetti case | law case

and international jurisprudence.

To Xelor: That is a clever synonym for non-existent international law.