So? A politically motivated prosecution can still yield convictions.
Vacuous insinuation offered without evidence. Comment dismissed.
But if that same prosecutor’s office chooses not to prosecute someone (say a liberal Democrat’s Administration official), then there won’t be any conviction since there is no prosecution.
Since Truman, we've had Republicans Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, HW Bush, G Bush, and Trump. Plenty of opportunity to indict criminal Democrats (if they exist). so, one of the two are true:
1. Republicans are incompetent for letting Dems get away with crimes.
2. Republicans are, indeed, committing the vast majority of crimes.
But, in truth, Republicans in the White House are committing the vast majority of Crimes. Nixon had watergate, Reagan had Iran Contra, Trump had, well, we know what he had, lots of criminals surrounding him (so much for 'the very best people). As for Bill Clinton and Hillary, it was whitewater, a couple of indictments/convictions. AS for 'Benghazi' four years and 8 investigations and they couldn't find anything to pin on her.
The fact is that Republicans in the White House committed the bulk of the crimes, and you just can't handle that truth.
No no. I have seen plenty of corruption and criminality. Things like what President Potato bragged about in getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired;
Debunked, utterly.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told reporters Thursday he did not recall signing a letter urging reforms in the office of the Ukrainian prosecutor President Trump has alleged former Vice President Joe B…
thehill.com
““The United States, the European Union, the I.M.F., and Ukraine’s leading reform figures were all pressing for Viktor Shokin to be removed from office because he was one of the biggest obstacles to fighting corruption in the entire country. This was a bipartisan goal in Congress as well.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden–Ukraine_conspiracy_theory
The conspiracy theory alleges that then-Vice President Biden withheld loan guarantees to pressure Ukraine into firing a prosecutor to prevent a corruption investigation into Burisma and to protect his son. The United States did withhold government aid to pressure Ukraine into removing the prosecutor, in accord with the official and bipartisan policy of the federal government of the United States. The US government, along with the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, believed the prosecutor to be corrupt and ineffective and too lenient in investigating companies and oligarchs, including Burisma and its owner. A January 2018 video shows Biden taking credit for withholding the loan guarantees to have the prosecutor fired, acting to implement bipartisan US policy rather than for the reasons the conspiracy theory alleges.
Donald Trump said Ukraine’s former chief prosecutor was an honest, wronged man, fired after Joe Biden tried to shut down an investigation into his son’s gas company. In Kiev, Oliver Carroll speaks to people who know Viktor Shokin, and finds a different story
www.independent.co.uk
Donald Trump said Ukraine’s former chief prosecutor was an honest, wronged man, fired after Joe Biden tried to shut down an investigation into his son’s gas company. In Kiev, Oliver Carroll speaks to people who know Viktor Shokin, and finds a different story
Republicans wanted Shokin removed, as well:
(Even the GOP chairman of the Homeland Security Committee which spearheaded this report, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, backed the effort to remove Shokin, saying the “whole world” agreed he wasn’t doing a good job.)
Donald Trump said Ukraine’s former chief prosecutor was an honest, wronged man, fired after Joe Biden tried to shut down an investigation into his son’s gas company. In Kiev, Oliver Carroll speaks to people who know Viktor Shokin, and finds a different story
www.independent.co.uk
Factchecking republican lies
(Even the GOP chairman of the Homeland Security Committee which spearheaded this report, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, backed the effort to remove Shokin, saying the “whole world” agreed he wasn’t doing a good job.)
[...]
Viktor Shokin was appointed to the position of Prosecutor General of Ukraine by Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko, whom he was loyal to. Representatives of the EU and the United States pressed Poroshenko for his removal[21] as did the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.[22] In March 2016 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former ambassador to Ukraine John E. Herbst stated, "By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin's removal" and that Joe Biden "spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv". During the same hearing, assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland stated, "we have pegged our next $1 billion loan guarantee, first and foremost, to having a rebooting of the reform coalition so that we know who we are working with, but secondarily, to ensuring that the prosecutor general's office gets cleaned up." An overwhelming majority vote in the Ukrainian Parliament in March 2016 led to Shokin's removal from office after an investigation into extortion of another company led to associates who were found in possession of diamonds, cash and other valuables[24] as well as documents and passports belonging to Shokin.
things like what Shrillary did with her emails and devices, etc etc etc.
No evidence of criminal activity. only 3 of her emails were marked with a C, for 'confidential'. No prosecutor will indict a former Secretary of State, former First lady, on such scant evidence. The claim that there were over 100 classified docs is an opinion rendered after the fact, and the docs were not so marked. A good defense attorney will shred this point on cross.
I don’t care who you end discussions with. You need to learn something. You’re not significant.
BackAgain, with due respect, that is what you call a meaningless point.
Also, finally, I’m not saying that none of the prosecutions brought by the deep state DOJ were invalid. Maybe they were all valid. What I am saying is that partisan political considerations go into who gets prosecuted.
See above under the 'rationalization'.
Ironically, that chart is indirect evidence of that.
Explain.
