Crony Criminals: Department of Justice Blocked Any FBI Inquiry Into Clinton Foundation This is why I just don't get NeverTrump. Do you want a country that is still recognizably America in four years, or do you want... something darker? Do you want a country that is still recognizably America in four years, or do you want... something darker? Yes, Trump is an obnoxious, ignorant, possibly crooked asshole. Yes, Trump is an obnoxious, ignorant, possibly crooked asshole. And what is Hillary? Hillary is all that plus the official and very illegal protection of the US federal bureaucracy. And what is Hillary? The Clinton Foundation was not part of the recent investigation into her private server; it was separate. The FBI went to Justice Department earlier this year asking for it to open a case into the foundation, but the public integrity unit declined. The Justice Department had looked into whether it should open a case on the foundation a year prior and found it didn't have sufficient evidence to do so. America is being divided, before your very eyes, into those castes with Juice and those without Juice. It's devolving into a fucking organized crime family. America is being divided, before your very eyes, into those castes with Juice and those without Juice. It's devolving into a fucking organized crime family. We are not equal under the law -- far from it. And every day this corrupt gang makes this more and more normal and more and more acceptable to the public. We are not equal under the law -- far from it. And every day this corrupt gang makes this more and more normal and more and moreto the public. I know one thing about Trump. I can't vouch for his good intentions -- he doesn't have them -- but I know the federal government and the so-called Fourth Estate will not play Mob Lawyers for him. I know one thing about Trump. I can't vouch for his good intentions -- he doesn't have them -- but I know the federal government and the so-called Fourth Estate will not play Mob Lawyers for him. Anyone who says they're for Equal Treatment Under the Law and then who supports someone who has been, is, and will continue to be Above the Law is simply a liar or hopelessly confused. Anyone who says they're for Equal Treatment Under the Law and then who supports someone who has been, is, and will continue to be Above the Law is simply a liar or hopelessly confused. If Trump breaks the law, he'll be hounded, pressured into appointing and Independent Prosecutor -- If Trump breaks the law, he'll be hounded, pressured into appointing and Independent Prosecutor -- Remember those? We had them under Republican presidents. It's where the President has to appoint someone from outside his coterie of cronies to investigate himself or his cronies. We don't have those under Democrat presidents, who prefer having their own cronies "investigate" them.* Remember those? We had them under Republican presidents. It's where the President has to appoint someone from outside his coterie of cronies to investigate himself or his cronies. We don't have those under Democrat presidents, who prefer having their own cronies "investigate" them.* -- and then impeached and kicked out of office. -- and then impeached and kicked out of office. It will, indeed, be a black eye for the GOP. It will, indeed, be a black eye for the GOP. But it will be a victory for the Rule of Law and a vindication of the American Republican System of Government. But it will be a victory for the Rule of Law and a vindication of the American Republican System of Government. And what happens when Hillary similarly breaks the law, then has her crony Loretta Lynch say "no controlling legal authority," and completely gets away with it? And what happens when Hillary similarly breaks the law, then has her crony Loretta Lynch say "no controlling legal authority," and completely gets away with it? Which outcome sounds worse to you? Which will be more corrosive to America itself -- the rule of law triumphant, or the rule of law humiliated, stripped of its clothes, and raped on the floor? Which outcome sounds worse to you? Which will be more corrosive to America itself -- the rule of law triumphant, or the rule of law humiliated, stripped of its clothes, and raped on the floor? We are literally witnessing the end of the Republic itself, and yet people prefer to dwell on smaller things (maybe because smaller things are comforting; if you dwell on small things, you can convince yourself nothing major is amiss) and just shrug at the end of the Republic. We are literally witnessing the end of the Republic itself, and yet people prefer to dwell on smaller things (maybe because smaller things are comforting; if you dwell on small things, you can convince yourself nothing major is amiss) and just shrug at the end of the Republic. By the way: CNN buried the lede at the end of their story. Drudge had to elevate it to the actual headline news it is. By the way: CNN buried the lede at the end of their story. Drudge had to elevate it to the actual headline news it is. So, hey. Let's all coronate queen Hillary and her united media, federal bureaucracy, Supreme Court, and permanent Clinton-Industrial Complex. So, hey. Let's all coronate queen Hillary and her united media, federal bureaucracy, Supreme Court, and permanent Clinton-Industrial Complex. There's nothing at all wrong with power with no checks whatsoever -- that's Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution, isn't it? There's nothing at all wrong with power with no checks whatsoever -- that's Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution, isn't it? Treason never prospers, for if it prospers, then none dare call it treason. Treason never prospers, for if it prospers, then none dare call it treason. Let's just sit back and watch some treason prospering. Let's just sit back and watch some treason prospering. * Some fool of a leftwing blogger -- are there any other kind? if they had anything on the ball, they'd be working for their buddies in a real media organization -- says I'm forgetting the Clinton Administration. Well, no; I just got sloppy with my terminology. * Some fool of a leftwing blogger -- are there any other kind? if they had anything on the ball, they'd be working for their buddies in a real media organization -- says I'm forgetting the Clinton Administration. Well, no; I just got sloppy with my terminology. There are Special Prosecutors -- who have always existed; these are appointed by the President or AG -- and Independent Prosecutors -- who existed from like 1978 to 1999, when the law was allowed to lapse. There are Special Prosecutors -- who have always existed; these are appointed by the President or AG -- and Independent Prosecutors -- who existed from like 1978 to 1999, when the law was allowed to lapse. Independent Prosecutors are appointed and directed by a three-judge panel drawn from the DC Circuit of Appeals. I think a matter had to be referred to them by the AG, but the AG had little discretion about whether or not to refer; much was dictated by law. You were supposed to refer to the 3-judge panel for any allegation of wrongdoing by any covered person (high ranking officials) where any conflict-of-interest in the administration of justice might be present. Independent Prosecutors are appointed and directed by a three-judge panel drawn from the DC Circuit of Appeals. I think a matter had to be referred to them by the AG, but the AG had little discretion about whether or not to refer; much was dictated by law. You were supposed to refer to the 3-judge panel for any allegation of wrongdoing by any covered person (high ranking officials) where any conflict-of-interest in the administration of justice might be present. Janet Reno caused great controversy when she refused to refer Al gore to the 3-judge panel, claiming "no controlling legal authority," despite the fact the law in question actually did control and did mandate she refer the case. She just basically claimed that since Al Gore had (in her deciding) not committed any wrongful act, there was nothing to refer -- and that's precisely the sort of cronies-deciding-the-legal-fate-of-other-cronies the law was supposed to forbid. Janet Reno caused great controversy when she refused to refer Al gore to the 3-judge panel, claiming "no controlling legal authority," despite the fact the law in question actually did control and did mandate she refer the case. She just basically claimed that since Al Gore had (in her deciding) not committed any wrongful act, there was nothing to refer -- and that's precisely the sort of cronies-deciding-the-legal-fate-of-other-cronies the law was supposed to forbid. So, the point is: democrats don't appoint outside prosecutors they can't control unless it's forced by the law, and that law doesn't even exist any longer. So, the point is: democrats don't appointprosecutors they can't control unless it's forced by the law, and that law doesn't even exist any longer. So they no longer do. So they no longer do. See See here. Democrat Presidents don't appoint Special Prosecutors anymore, and didn't under Clinton, either. That was an Independent Prosecutor appointed by the court. Clinton didn't voluntarily have that going on. Democrat Presidents don't appoint Special Prosecutors anymore, and didn't under Clinton, either. That was an Independent Prosecutor appointed by the court. Clinton didn'thave that going on. (Note: because the questions of constitutionality with the independent prosecutor law, a special prosecutor -- actually appointed by the AG -- was to "shadow" the independent prosecutor basically as a fall-back option if a court struck down the independent prosecutor law as unconstitutional due to separation-of-powers concerns. So technically there was a special prosecutor "shadowing" Ken Starr, but you don't know his name, because he wasn't important, and was just there to preserve any convictions should the framework of the independent prosecutor law be invalidated.) (Note: because the questions of constitutionality with the independent prosecutor law, a special prosecutor -- actually appointed by the AG -- was to "shadow" the independent prosecutor basically as a fall-back option if a court struck down the independent prosecutor law as unconstitutional due to separation-of-powers concerns. So technically therea special prosecutor "shadowing" Ken Starr, but you don't know his name, because he wasn't important, and was just there to preserve any convictions should the framework of the independent prosecutor law be invalidated.) Anyway, this blogger-who-blogs-about-other-bloggers didn't know this, so I thought I'd help him out. Anyway, this blogger-who-blogs-about-other-bloggers didn't know this, so I thought I'd help him out. Democrat presidents don't appoint special prosecutors. Republicans bow to pressure and do so -- see Nixon and Bush -- but the media never pressures Democrats to do this, which is why the idea of a special prosecutor for Hillary has never been so much as broached by the mainstream media. Democrat presidents don't appoint special prosecutors. Republicans bow to pressure and do so -- see Nixon and Bush -- but the media never pressures Democrats to do this, which is why the idea of a special prosecutor for Hillary has never been so much as broached by the mainstream media. It was just allowed to sit in Obama's cronies' hands. It was just allowed to sit in Obama's cronies' hands. Posted by: Ace at 06:37 PM











MuNuvians MeeNuvians Polls! Polls! Polls! Frequently Asked Questions The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick Top Top Tens Greatest Hitjobs News/Chat