http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/07/b...or-attorney-general-liberals-worst-nightmare/ I think there would be assassination attempts on Trump because the Obama Administration and everyone supporting will be under investigation. Sounds like a party!!!
So, Trump's first cabinet "appointment" is someone completely incompetent, and you think that's a good thing? barfo
You think he's incompetent. I think he seeks the truth. Imagine the fun we have when you and other liberals cry when all your precious politicians go down in flames. It's gonna be awesome!!!
Liberals are blind Mags. Just come look at my Facebook feed of all the "feel the Bern" bullshit going on. The funny thing is, these people that are jumping on that bandwagon are the people in meaningful but low-paying jobs.... (figures...... no offense of course to anyone) but it just seems that's the situation for most of 'them'. I know, generalization....
Like Hillary went down in flames at the hands of Trey Gowdy, you mean? Ok, I guess that will be awesome. barfo
Only reason why Hillary isn't going down is because Obama administration won't allow it to happen. When a republican (doesn't have to be trump btw) wins the White House, don't expect Hillary to get off untarnished.
No. Gowdy's committee had the platform and the power to take her down, if there was any reason to. They failed, period. Obama administration did not intercede in the hearing. barfo
No, there was obstruction of justice. The email server was wiped clean so its contents could not be subpoenaed and examined. That's for starters. The emails that were turned over did show the administration lied about some video tape being the source of inciting joe citizen types to violence when she explicitly told people in email it was Al Qaeda. And on and on. It is the administration's job to appoint a special investigator/prosecutor.
Pretty sure the FBI is investigating that. The discussion here is about Gowdy and his committee, though. barfo
Pretty sure it's obstruction of justice. http://www.legalcurrent.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-obstruction-of-justice/ HILLARY CLINTON EMAIL SCANDAL: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? This post was written by Ronald Rotunda, author of Rotunda and Nowak’s Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure, 5th and Legal Ethics: The Lawyer’s Deskbook on Professional Responsibility, 2014-2015 ed. (ABA). On March 3, the New York Times announced, “Using Private Email, Hillary Clinton Thwarted Record Requests.” By then, we learned that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton never used the secure email servers of the Department of State. Instead, she used her own private server stored in her home in Chappaqua, New York. She said that she never used the secure government server to send any emails during her entire four years as Secretary of State. She says that perhaps she should not have done that, and she may have not followed State Department “policy” (which she was in charge of enforcing), but she explained, she broke no law. Since 2009, federal regulations require that the State Department and other federal agencies preserve all emails in its agency’s record-keeping system. However, her staff “took no steps to have [her emails] preserved as part of State Department record,” the New York Times reported. While Clinton claims she violated no law, this may be premature. The law on obstruction of justice has changed since Clinton was working on the House Impeachment staff and I was an assistant majority counsel with the Senate Watergate Committee. In addition to violating a State Department rule, her admitted destruction of over 30,000 emails raises serious questions of violation of the statutes. She later turned over 50,000 pages emails, but she did that with hard copy, not in electronic format, so they are a lot harder to search. Also, hard copy printouts do not include electronic “metadata,” which can provide crucial forensic evidence. Even though the law may not require a person to create a document, it is the crime (18 U.S.C. §1519) to destroy a document to prevent it from being subpoenaed. The Government’s burden of proof is light. The Department of Justice manual advises that §1591 makes prosecution much easier because it covers “any matters” or “’in relation to orcontemplation of’ any matters.” It adds, “No corrupt persuasion is required.” Section 1519 imposes up to 20 years imprisonment for what commentators call, “anticipatory obstruction of justice.” The Federal prosecutor does not have to establish that any investigation is pending. As one criminal defense expert explained, the prosecutor “need only prove that the defendant shredded the documents, at least in part, to make life more difficult for future investigators, if and when they eventually appear.” As the court explained in United States v. Ionia Mgmt., S.A., 526 F.Supp.2d 319, 329 (D.Conn.2007), “In comparison to other obstruction statutes, § 1519 by its terms does not require the defendant to be aware of a federal proceeding, or even that a proceeding be pending.” Congress made it much easier to prove obstruction when it enacted §1519 in 2002, as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Clinton should know that. As a Senator, she voted for the law.
And let's remember that the hearings aren't trials. They are evidence gathering. It's just like an investigator interviewing a suspect or witnesses at their home or in their office. Many believe this is a trial, and assume that Hillary is still innocent, therefor she's off Scott free. That is hardly the case. I believe there are still 60 other witnesses they will be interviewing, so this maybe something that won't be tried until mid next year. Personally, I think the GOP is waiting for trial until after the election, especially since a GOP president will be elected.
