Why Hillary Is Absolutely NOT Guilty

[Sundance508]

I think The Donald is going to have a field day when he finally gets around to exposing hillary...notice how all the t.v. ads now are coming from hillary....The Donald being very media savvy is playing a sort of rope a dope strategy...let her tire herself out and then drop the meat clever and sever the head of the lying pos.

Bryan Crabtree - Why Hillary Is Absolutely NOT Guilty

 

[saveliberty]

Tyranny reins, it is only logical we need to elect a tyrant like Hillary.

 

[emilynghiem]

I think The Donald is going to have a field day when he finally gets around to exposing hillary...notice how all the t.v. ads now are coming from hillary....The Donald being very media savvy is playing a sort of rope a dope strategy...let her tire herself out and then drop the meat clever and sever the head of the lying pos.

Bryan Crabtree - Why Hillary Is Absolutely NOT Guilty

Dear Sundance508
OK so they only investigated the question did she intend to break the law
where intent cannot be proven by mere investigation so this answer is no.

How about we agree to this same standard in investigating all the cases of
police shootings, and if they intended to violate rights and due process
or if their intent was to enforce laws and subdue any dangerous threats?

If people aren't happy with inability to prove intent in the case of police shootings,
then why tolerate this lack of proof of intent with Clinton?

And if people are pushing to prove there was unlawful intent with Clinton
why not agree to hold all other people, both the police and the suspects in each case,
to the same standards.

What really gets me is Clinton issuing a statement to respect law enforcement.
Well, what example has she and the Obama administration set?
If you are looking to abuse the process to hide behind the laws until proven guilty,
then what can you expect from all these other cases of either criminal suspects or police
expecting to be treated as innocent until proven guilty (which is the law) EVEN WHERE they themselves violated laws. How can you both expect to uphold laws in public while violating them in private?

The purpose of due process is not to protect wrongdoing from being uncovered, but to protect innocent from false accusations and unwarranted deprivation of liberty by govt abuse, and to prevent excessive punishment that exceeds the wrong.

When abusing the laws to hide wrongdoing this is obstructing justice.
How can we preach "equal protection of the laws" if people are abusing them
to obstruct other people from getting the justice and corrections they seek.
Where is the equal justice if one side wins and the other loses; shouldn't both sides agree that justice is served, and wrongs are corrected, to protect both interests equally?

 

[saveliberty]

Police spend time talking to their prosecutors in airports?

 

[Obiwan]

Hey, insanity IS a legal defense...

Can we vote to put the bitch in a straightjacket and a rubber room???

 

[emilynghiem]

Hey, insanity IS a legal defense...

Can we vote to put the bitch in a straightjacket and a rubber room???

Dear Obiwan I think we could see the equivalent.
If people representing various parties all sign a resolution
that is the equivalent of "No Confidence" in federal govt and investigative procedures,
that is like saying no to insanity or inconsistency with law enforcement and govt standards.

A public statement could be issued that bypassing and downplaying serious investigation and charges
constitutes a threat to public trust in govt and national security, signed by parties who
refuse to put faith in any administration that doesn't take this seriously -- either
the actual wrongs committed and/or the APPEARANCE of wrongdoing as a threat to
public trust in govt and national defense.

I could see such a resolution coming out of the various parties pulling together on this issue.