Revolt Within FBI / DOJ: Career Agents/Attorneys UNANIMOUSLY Believed Hillary Should Be CHARGED

[Dragonlady]

Outstanding, considering how these Red sympathizers accuse him of being the most lawless ever, while claiming we are a Banana Repbulic.

Tough to have a scandal when the leftist media protects him at every turn, like the NYT, CNN, MSNBC, etc.

Ah yes, the leftist media, which loves to dig into scandals. The problem being that when you dig into the rumours of scandal around the Clintons, they all end up being rumours started by Republicans without evidence or witnesses. When investigated, these "scandals" quickly fall apart.

What about the 50,000 emails that Cheney and Bush deleted from the private servers they installed in the White House. They had private email servers too. And Dick Cheney had them wiped clean. Nothing was turned over. Shouldn't the FBI investigate?

It wasn't 50k and they found them depotoo

The didn't find the administration's emails from their private server, they found the emails from the government servers which were misplaced. They didn't find the thousands of emails that Dick Cheney deleted from the PRIVATE SERVERS they installed in the White House, which W had admitted were there and has also admitted that Cheney deleted and scrubbed the servers.

 

[Dragonlady]

I've had to sign agreements not to even say the name of a file in an office hallway because someone might overhear. That's in addition to the non-disclosure agreement and insider trading agreement I signed when I was hired. Such additional non-disclosure agreements are common in such sensitive cases.

I have also - I still do; however, the difference between THOSE instances and the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton is that Hillary's investigation is NOT classified. If anything it should be HIGHLY TRANSPARENT to the American people, even possibly, dare I say, 'the most transparent evuh'?!

The reason there is a gag order in this case is NOT because the information and details are 'sensitive' or 'classified' - IT'S BECAUSE THE SOBs WHO IGNORED THE LAW TO PROTECT HILLARY DON'T WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.

Evidence? Of course not. There's never any evidence in these Clinton smears. It's always "unnamed sources".

Named sources are now coming out from every direction to accuse Trump of sexual assault. Miss Universe and Miss Teen USA contestants saying he walked into their dressing room when they were changing into bikinis. Reporters claiming to be groped. You have now lost the women's vote utterly. Everyone is fleeing this toxic campaign of misogyny, hate and lies. Your candidate is too cowardly to turn up for the last debate.

That fat lady has sung.

 

[owebo]

FBI AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS ARE COMING OUT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT COMEY'S DECISION WAS AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S REFUSAL TO INDICT / PROSECUTE HILLARY TRULY WAS -- A 'TOP DOWN' OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WHITE WASH OF HILLARY'S CRIMES / CASE!


--------------------------------------------------


FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails

"The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged"

FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision”


It sure as hell WAS a 'TOP DOWN' decision...all the way from the VERY TOP!!


“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”


"The claim also is backed up by a report in the New York Post this week, which quotes a number of veteran FBI agents saying FBI Director James Comey “has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his cowardly whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private email server.”

“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time. I hold Director Comey responsible,” Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit, told the Post.

Retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello added to the report, saying, “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.”


No one would have taken this case, according to Comey?! His fellow FBI Agents call 'BULLSHIT'!
-- “I know zero prosecutors in the DOJ’s National Security Division who would not have taken the case to a grand jury,” the source added. “One was never even convened.”


Fbi, Doj Roiled By Comey, Lynch Decision To Let Clinton Slide By On Emails, Says Insider

Now is the time for all good patriots to come to the aid of their Country......

 

[Dragonlady]

It's amazing how every career member of the FBI is coming out and saying Justice was Perverted, Hillary should have been indicted, yet 3 people in the entire united States prevented it from happening: Barry, Lynch, & Comey.

MOST CRIMINAL, LAWLESS ADMINISTRATION IN US HISTORY!

Really - name ONE! There isn't a single person named or quoted in that entire story. As usual, it's "sources say", or "sources inside the FBI or the DOJ". Not one person with the courage of their convictions to openly say it?

Maybe this is just another false FOX News hysteria, like Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, where 7 investigations showed that not a single thing that FOX News has been saying about Benghazi for the past 5 years was ever true.

Did you even read the OP or immediately start bashing trump? GTFO

Where in my post did I bash Trump?

Yeah, I read the OP, and I read the POS FOX opinion piece that contains no piece of verifiable fact. It quoted unnamed "sources", which is what bullshit phony news organizations are prone to doing. It's what fuelled 5 years of lie-filled Benghazi coverage.

The OP mentioned a name and position..

The OP named two people who are RETIRED from the FBI, and don't even work there now. They didn't see the evidence, and they weren't even working for the FBI when this happened. There opinions are worthless regardless of their positions before retirement.

 

[easyt65]

The OP named two people who are RETIRED from the FBI, and don't even work there now. They didn't see the evidence, and they weren't even working for the FBI when this happened. There opinions are worthless regardless of their positions before retirement.

It says they have connections within the FBI. Active duty FBI agents have also come forward. Let's use some common sense here for a minute, shall we -- WHY would a GAG ORDER be placed on the current GBI Agents if none of them are talking openly about the DIS-JUSTICE that was just done? I am sure some answer can be spun up, but the obvious answer is the right one.

 

[Dragonlady]

The OP named two people who are RETIRED from the FBI, and don't even work there now. They didn't see the evidence, and they weren't even working for the FBI when this happened. There opinions are worthless regardless of their positions before retirement.

It says they have connections within the FBI. Active duty FBI agents have also come forward. Let's use some common sense here for a minute, shall we -- WHY would a GAG ORDER be placed on the current GBI Agents if none of them are talking openly about the DIS-JUSTICE that was just done? I am sure some answer can be spun up, but the obvious answer is the right one.

The obvious answer is the right one. Agents assigned to this case were asked to sign the non-disclosure agreement at the START OF THE INVESTIGATION. Before any evidence was gathered. I had to sign my non-disclosure agreement on specific files BEFORE being given access to those files.

Regardless of who these people were in the FBI, they are now retired citizens who have no knowledge of the evidence. If they have spoken to agents currently working for the FBI, those agents either violated their non-disclosure agreements or they didn't work on the case.

There is no way to spin this that makes these two retired FBI people creditable commentators on this situation. It is FOX News that is trying to spin this. Individuals who are predisposed to hate Hillary Clinton, such as yourself, eat this stuff up with a fork and spoon. Smart people question every source.

 

[easyt65]

The obvious answer is the right one. Agents assigned to this case were asked to sign the non-disclosure agreement at the START OF THE INVESTIGATION.


Regardless of who these people were in the FBI, they are now retired citizens who have no knowledge of the evidence. If they have spoken to agents currently working for the FBI, those agents either violated their non-disclosure agreements or they didn't work on the case.

There is no way to spin this that makes these two retired FBI people creditable commentators on this situation.

1. You think FBI Agents who swore an oath to uphold the law would let a non-disclosure agreement stop them from speaking out against what they perceive as wrong-doing? Just like Snowden, huh?

2. Yes, I do believe that current FBI Agents have spoken out, and YES that means they violated their non-disclosure agreements....just like Hillary did! Since she faced no criminal charges they should not have to worry about facing any either, right?!

3. These retired FBI agents are extremely experienced and know the law. Hell, DL, you and I both know when the law states a civilian with no need to know is not legally allowed to have in their possession classified information and classified information IS found in their possession it is a CRIME. It doesn't take any/much spinning at all to argue highly experienced investigative ex-FBI agents still know when someone has broken the law based on some of the information WE know.

 

[forkup]

This is what the race is really about. We can waste time about bimbo shit but it doesn't really affect much.

Justice under W and O has been completely sold out. Hillary will continue to sell it out and then some. Trump will put the big crooks on trial, starting with Hillary, Ryan, and W....

Unless you disagree with separation of powers, I don't see how Trump would be able to do any of that, in the off chance he becomes president. So my question would be. Do you think America should become a dictatorship?

How does appointing a special prosecutor violate separation of powers?

Former U.S. Attorney General Responds To Trump's Special Prosecutor Comment
Read this excerpt, it is the legal opinion of an attorney general under the Bush administration. I'll copy past some relevant bits.
-the decision has to be made initially by the attorney general as to whether the case warrants reopening at all.
-hardly makes sense for the Justice Department then to redo its own investigation.
-But then you have to determine whether the bringing of charges is proper. And then you start to get into questions of policy and whether doing that would make us look like a banana republic, which I think it would.
-The short answer is that the attorney general is independent in deciding what cases to prosecute and what legal positions to take even if the president says, I think you ought to take a different position.
Note that he isn't a Clinton fan, and even goes as far as to say that the case could have been prosecuted. But appointing a special prosecutor with the express job of jailing your opponent is a clear breach of separation of powers.

 

[OKTexas]

This is what the race is really about. We can waste time about bimbo shit but it doesn't really affect much.

Justice under W and O has been completely sold out. Hillary will continue to sell it out and then some. Trump will put the big crooks on trial, starting with Hillary, Ryan, and W....

Unless you disagree with separation of powers, I don't see how Trump would be able to do any of that, in the off chance he becomes president. So my question would be. Do you think America should become a dictatorship?

How does appointing a special prosecutor violate separation of powers?

Former U.S. Attorney General Responds To Trump's Special Prosecutor Comment
Read this excerpt, it is the legal opinion of an attorney general under the Bush administration. I'll copy past some relevant bits.
-the decision has to be made initially by the attorney general as to whether the case warrants reopening at all.
-hardly makes sense for the Justice Department then to redo its own investigation.
-But then you have to determine whether the bringing of charges is proper. And then you start to get into questions of policy and whether doing that would make us look like a banana republic, which I think it would.
-The short answer is that the attorney general is independent in deciding what cases to prosecute and what legal positions to take even if the president says, I think you ought to take a different position.
Note that he isn't a Clinton fan, and even goes as far as to say that the case could have been prosecuted. But appointing a special prosecutor with the express job of jailing your opponent is a clear breach of separation of powers.

It's not a violation of separation of powers because it is the executive branch that prosecutes crimes. Also the function of a special prosecutor is to review the available evidence to see if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Assuming he feels there is adequate evidence, he then presents that evidence to a grand jury. If the grand jury indicts, then and only then does it go to trial, by either a judge or jury, which is the defendants option. The most any president can do is tell them I think something is fishy and have some one look into it. Much like your dear leader did when he sent the DOJ in to Ferguson and the Zimmerman cases. That's called due process, see the 4th and 14th amendments.

 

[forkup]

This is what the race is really about. We can waste time about bimbo shit but it doesn't really affect much.

Justice under W and O has been completely sold out. Hillary will continue to sell it out and then some. Trump will put the big crooks on trial, starting with Hillary, Ryan, and W....

Unless you disagree with separation of powers, I don't see how Trump would be able to do any of that, in the off chance he becomes president. So my question would be. Do you think America should become a dictatorship?

How does appointing a special prosecutor violate separation of powers?

Former U.S. Attorney General Responds To Trump's Special Prosecutor Comment
Read this excerpt, it is the legal opinion of an attorney general under the Bush administration. I'll copy past some relevant bits.
-the decision has to be made initially by the attorney general as to whether the case warrants reopening at all.
-hardly makes sense for the Justice Department then to redo its own investigation.
-But then you have to determine whether the bringing of charges is proper. And then you start to get into questions of policy and whether doing that would make us look like a banana republic, which I think it would.
-The short answer is that the attorney general is independent in deciding what cases to prosecute and what legal positions to take even if the president says, I think you ought to take a different position.
Note that he isn't a Clinton fan, and even goes as far as to say that the case could have been prosecuted. But appointing a special prosecutor with the express job of jailing your opponent is a clear breach of separation of powers.

It's not a violation of separation of powers because it is the executive branch that prosecutes crimes. Also the function of a special prosecutor is to review the available evidence to see if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Assuming he feels there is adequate evidence, he then presents that evidence to a grand jury. If the grand jury indicts, then and only then does it go to trial, by either a judge or jury, which is the defendants option. The most any president can do is tell them I think something is fishy and have some one look into it. Much like your dear leader did when he sent the DOJ in to Ferguson and the Zimmerman cases. That's called due process, see the 4th and 14th amendments.

I always assumed that it is the judicial branch that prosecutes crimes. Anyways during the debate he clearly said Hillary would be in jail and he would name a special prosecutor to that end. Where is the due process in that. It is not for the president to establish guilt. Which of course is kind of the point. This is why it is a breach of the separation of powers. Trump by his statements has made clear what he wants the justice department to do. And what's more it is clearly politically inspired.

 

[OKTexas]

This is what the race is really about. We can waste time about bimbo shit but it doesn't really affect much.

Justice under W and O has been completely sold out. Hillary will continue to sell it out and then some. Trump will put the big crooks on trial, starting with Hillary, Ryan, and W....

Unless you disagree with separation of powers, I don't see how Trump would be able to do any of that, in the off chance he becomes president. So my question would be. Do you think America should become a dictatorship?

How does appointing a special prosecutor violate separation of powers?

Former U.S. Attorney General Responds To Trump's Special Prosecutor Comment
Read this excerpt, it is the legal opinion of an attorney general under the Bush administration. I'll copy past some relevant bits.
-the decision has to be made initially by the attorney general as to whether the case warrants reopening at all.
-hardly makes sense for the Justice Department then to redo its own investigation.
-But then you have to determine whether the bringing of charges is proper. And then you start to get into questions of policy and whether doing that would make us look like a banana republic, which I think it would.
-The short answer is that the attorney general is independent in deciding what cases to prosecute and what legal positions to take even if the president says, I think you ought to take a different position.
Note that he isn't a Clinton fan, and even goes as far as to say that the case could have been prosecuted. But appointing a special prosecutor with the express job of jailing your opponent is a clear breach of separation of powers.

It's not a violation of separation of powers because it is the executive branch that prosecutes crimes. Also the function of a special prosecutor is to review the available evidence to see if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Assuming he feels there is adequate evidence, he then presents that evidence to a grand jury. If the grand jury indicts, then and only then does it go to trial, by either a judge or jury, which is the defendants option. The most any president can do is tell them I think something is fishy and have some one look into it. Much like your dear leader did when he sent the DOJ in to Ferguson and the Zimmerman cases. That's called due process, see the 4th and 14th amendments.

I always assumed that it is the judicial branch that prosecutes crimes. Anyways during the debate he clearly said Hillary would be in jail and he would name a special prosecutor to that end. Where is the due process in that. It is not for the president to establish guilt. Which of course is kind of the point. This is why it is a breach of the separation of powers. Trump by his statements has made clear what he wants the justice department to do. And what's more it is clearly politically inspired.

The judicial is there to insure fair prosecutions and protect the rights of the citizen.

What did you not understand about the roll of a special prosecutor?

Also, if you bothered to listen to the evidence Comey laid out in his press statement you would know the hildabitch is guilty as sin. He laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence, with is the only element required for prosecution under the law. Of course you're also ignoring her perjury in congressional testimony.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed

 

[Norman]

Unless you disagree with separation of powers, I don't see how Trump would be able to do any of that, in the off chance he becomes president. So my question would be. Do you think America should become a dictatorship?

How does appointing a special prosecutor violate separation of powers?

Former U.S. Attorney General Responds To Trump's Special Prosecutor Comment
Read this excerpt, it is the legal opinion of an attorney general under the Bush administration. I'll copy past some relevant bits.
-the decision has to be made initially by the attorney general as to whether the case warrants reopening at all.
-hardly makes sense for the Justice Department then to redo its own investigation.
-But then you have to determine whether the bringing of charges is proper. And then you start to get into questions of policy and whether doing that would make us look like a banana republic, which I think it would.
-The short answer is that the attorney general is independent in deciding what cases to prosecute and what legal positions to take even if the president says, I think you ought to take a different position.
Note that he isn't a Clinton fan, and even goes as far as to say that the case could have been prosecuted. But appointing a special prosecutor with the express job of jailing your opponent is a clear breach of separation of powers.

It's not a violation of separation of powers because it is the executive branch that prosecutes crimes. Also the function of a special prosecutor is to review the available evidence to see if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Assuming he feels there is adequate evidence, he then presents that evidence to a grand jury. If the grand jury indicts, then and only then does it go to trial, by either a judge or jury, which is the defendants option. The most any president can do is tell them I think something is fishy and have some one look into it. Much like your dear leader did when he sent the DOJ in to Ferguson and the Zimmerman cases. That's called due process, see the 4th and 14th amendments.

I always assumed that it is the judicial branch that prosecutes crimes. Anyways during the debate he clearly said Hillary would be in jail and he would name a special prosecutor to that end. Where is the due process in that. It is not for the president to establish guilt. Which of course is kind of the point. This is why it is a breach of the separation of powers. Trump by his statements has made clear what he wants the justice department to do. And what's more it is clearly politically inspired.

The judicial is there to insure fair prosecutions and protect the rights of the citizen.

What did you not understand about the roll of a special prosecutor?

Also, if you bothered to listen to the evidence Comey laid out in his press statement you would know the hildabitch is guilty as sin. He laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence, with is the only element required for prosecution under the law. Of course you're also ignoring her perjury in congressional testimony.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed

Thankfully the law does not apply to her. It's for other people...

 

[Norman]

Jullian Assange figures out "She is lying".

 

[Norman]

And let's not forget this old classic either:



Even Comey figured out she lied... a lot.

 

[AntonToo]

All FBI agents quit in disgust about Hillary's emails. There are no FBI agents left in the agency as I type this. They thought they were doing important work and when Hillary didn't get persecuted over handling of her emails just right they got depressed and felt like they had nothing to give to the world anymore...some couldn't deal with the gaping black-hole-void in their chest and committed suicide.

True story from un-named sources yo.

 

[Skylar]

FBI AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS ARE COMING OUT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT COMEY'S DECISION WAS AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S REFUSAL TO INDICT / PROSECUTE HILLARY TRULY WAS -- A 'TOP DOWN' OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WHITE WASH OF HILLARY'S CRIMES / CASE!


--------------------------------------------------


FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails

"The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged"

FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision”


It sure as hell WAS a 'TOP DOWN' decision...all the way from the VERY TOP!!


“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”


"The claim also is backed up by a report in the New York Post this week, which quotes a number of veteran FBI agents saying FBI Director James Comey “has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his cowardly whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private email server.”

“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time. I hold Director Comey responsible,” Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit, told the Post.

Retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello added to the report, saying, “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.”


No one would have taken this case, according to Comey?! His fellow FBI Agents call 'BULLSHIT'!
-- “I know zero prosecutors in the DOJ’s National Security Division who would not have taken the case to a grand jury,” the source added. “One was never even convened.”


Fbi, Doj Roiled By Comey, Lynch Decision To Let Clinton Slide By On Emails, Says Insider

Nothing Clinton did warranted criminal prosecution. Says who? The head of the FBI, James Comey.

Who sure as hell trumps an unnamed 'source' on fox news.

 

[Skylar]

All FBI agents quit in disgust about Hillary's emails. There are no FBI agents left in the agency as I type this. They thought they were doing important work and when Hillary didn't get persecuted over handling of emails they got depressed and felt like they had nothing to give to the world anymore.

True story from un-named sources yo.

An unnamed source says that they TP'd Comey's office and car on the way out.

 

[forkup]

Unless you disagree with separation of powers, I don't see how Trump would be able to do any of that, in the off chance he becomes president. So my question would be. Do you think America should become a dictatorship?

How does appointing a special prosecutor violate separation of powers?

Former U.S. Attorney General Responds To Trump's Special Prosecutor Comment
Read this excerpt, it is the legal opinion of an attorney general under the Bush administration. I'll copy past some relevant bits.
-the decision has to be made initially by the attorney general as to whether the case warrants reopening at all.
-hardly makes sense for the Justice Department then to redo its own investigation.
-But then you have to determine whether the bringing of charges is proper. And then you start to get into questions of policy and whether doing that would make us look like a banana republic, which I think it would.
-The short answer is that the attorney general is independent in deciding what cases to prosecute and what legal positions to take even if the president says, I think you ought to take a different position.
Note that he isn't a Clinton fan, and even goes as far as to say that the case could have been prosecuted. But appointing a special prosecutor with the express job of jailing your opponent is a clear breach of separation of powers.

It's not a violation of separation of powers because it is the executive branch that prosecutes crimes. Also the function of a special prosecutor is to review the available evidence to see if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Assuming he feels there is adequate evidence, he then presents that evidence to a grand jury. If the grand jury indicts, then and only then does it go to trial, by either a judge or jury, which is the defendants option. The most any president can do is tell them I think something is fishy and have some one look into it. Much like your dear leader did when he sent the DOJ in to Ferguson and the Zimmerman cases. That's called due process, see the 4th and 14th amendments.

I always assumed that it is the judicial branch that prosecutes crimes. Anyways during the debate he clearly said Hillary would be in jail and he would name a special prosecutor to that end. Where is the due process in that. It is not for the president to establish guilt. Which of course is kind of the point. This is why it is a breach of the separation of powers. Trump by his statements has made clear what he wants the justice department to do. And what's more it is clearly politically inspired.

The judicial is there to insure fair prosecutions and protect the rights of the citizen.

What did you not understand about the roll of a special prosecutor?

Also, if you bothered to listen to the evidence Comey laid out in his press statement you would know the hildabitch is guilty as sin. He laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence, with is the only element required for prosecution under the law. Of course you're also ignoring her perjury in congressional testimony.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed

Let's talk about gross negligence. By your logic both Colin Powell and condoleezza Rice should be in the same boat as Clinton. Both used private E-mail accounts yet neither are being threatened by Trump with jail time. Establishing again the clear political motivation for going after Clinton. I'm not trying to claim appointing a special prosecutor is outside his purview. My claim is that doing so after the judicial system already said they were unwilling to prosecute the case further is stepping out of his role as a potential president and doing something that threatens the integrity of the judicial branch.

 

[brummelben]

How does appointing a special prosecutor violate separation of powers?

Former U.S. Attorney General Responds To Trump's Special Prosecutor Comment
Read this excerpt, it is the legal opinion of an attorney general under the Bush administration. I'll copy past some relevant bits.
-the decision has to be made initially by the attorney general as to whether the case warrants reopening at all.
-hardly makes sense for the Justice Department then to redo its own investigation.
-But then you have to determine whether the bringing of charges is proper. And then you start to get into questions of policy and whether doing that would make us look like a banana republic, which I think it would.
-The short answer is that the attorney general is independent in deciding what cases to prosecute and what legal positions to take even if the president says, I think you ought to take a different position.
Note that he isn't a Clinton fan, and even goes as far as to say that the case could have been prosecuted. But appointing a special prosecutor with the express job of jailing your opponent is a clear breach of separation of powers.

It's not a violation of separation of powers because it is the executive branch that prosecutes crimes. Also the function of a special prosecutor is to review the available evidence to see if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Assuming he feels there is adequate evidence, he then presents that evidence to a grand jury. If the grand jury indicts, then and only then does it go to trial, by either a judge or jury, which is the defendants option. The most any president can do is tell them I think something is fishy and have some one look into it. Much like your dear leader did when he sent the DOJ in to Ferguson and the Zimmerman cases. That's called due process, see the 4th and 14th amendments.

I always assumed that it is the judicial branch that prosecutes crimes. Anyways during the debate he clearly said Hillary would be in jail and he would name a special prosecutor to that end. Where is the due process in that. It is not for the president to establish guilt. Which of course is kind of the point. This is why it is a breach of the separation of powers. Trump by his statements has made clear what he wants the justice department to do. And what's more it is clearly politically inspired.

The judicial is there to insure fair prosecutions and protect the rights of the citizen.

What did you not understand about the roll of a special prosecutor?

Also, if you bothered to listen to the evidence Comey laid out in his press statement you would know the hildabitch is guilty as sin. He laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence, with is the only element required for prosecution under the law. Of course you're also ignoring her perjury in congressional testimony.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed

Thankfully the law does not apply to her. It's for other people...

The law was applied to her, and she was not found guilty- and thats the end of the story- period!

 

[OKTexas]

How does appointing a special prosecutor violate separation of powers?

Former U.S. Attorney General Responds To Trump's Special Prosecutor Comment
Read this excerpt, it is the legal opinion of an attorney general under the Bush administration. I'll copy past some relevant bits.
-the decision has to be made initially by the attorney general as to whether the case warrants reopening at all.
-hardly makes sense for the Justice Department then to redo its own investigation.
-But then you have to determine whether the bringing of charges is proper. And then you start to get into questions of policy and whether doing that would make us look like a banana republic, which I think it would.
-The short answer is that the attorney general is independent in deciding what cases to prosecute and what legal positions to take even if the president says, I think you ought to take a different position.
Note that he isn't a Clinton fan, and even goes as far as to say that the case could have been prosecuted. But appointing a special prosecutor with the express job of jailing your opponent is a clear breach of separation of powers.

It's not a violation of separation of powers because it is the executive branch that prosecutes crimes. Also the function of a special prosecutor is to review the available evidence to see if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Assuming he feels there is adequate evidence, he then presents that evidence to a grand jury. If the grand jury indicts, then and only then does it go to trial, by either a judge or jury, which is the defendants option. The most any president can do is tell them I think something is fishy and have some one look into it. Much like your dear leader did when he sent the DOJ in to Ferguson and the Zimmerman cases. That's called due process, see the 4th and 14th amendments.

I always assumed that it is the judicial branch that prosecutes crimes. Anyways during the debate he clearly said Hillary would be in jail and he would name a special prosecutor to that end. Where is the due process in that. It is not for the president to establish guilt. Which of course is kind of the point. This is why it is a breach of the separation of powers. Trump by his statements has made clear what he wants the justice department to do. And what's more it is clearly politically inspired.

The judicial is there to insure fair prosecutions and protect the rights of the citizen.

What did you not understand about the roll of a special prosecutor?

Also, if you bothered to listen to the evidence Comey laid out in his press statement you would know the hildabitch is guilty as sin. He laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence, with is the only element required for prosecution under the law. Of course you're also ignoring her perjury in congressional testimony.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed

Let's talk about gross negligence. By your logic both Colin Powell and condoleezza Rice should be in the same boat as Clinton. Both used private E-mail accounts yet neither are being threatened by Trump with jail time. Establishing again the clear political motivation for going after Clinton. I'm not trying to claim appointing a special prosecutor is outside his purview. My claim is that doing so after the judicial system already said they were unwilling to prosecute the case further is stepping out of his role as a potential president and doing something that threatens the integrity of the judicial branch.

First you need to lean to keep your terms straight, the judicial branch hasn't been involved in the hildabitches case, prosecutors are part of the executive. The FBI is an investigative arm, not a prosecutor. It is up to prosecutors to decide if the evidence is substantial enough for prosecution, many current and former prosecutors have said there is sufficient to move forward to a grand jury. Just because our politicized DOJ declines doesn't mean another will also.

If you don't think the current DOJ has been politicized, just look at their refusal to present Holders case of contempt of congress to a grand jury, even though the LAW requires them to do so, it wasn't a legal option. So just keep on defending this regimes lawlessness while projecting it on others, you'll do very well. LMAO

Oh and there's no evidence Rice or Powell did what the hildabitch did in regards to classified information.