Hillary Clinton has been punished enough.

Some parties on the political Right are fretting because President-elect Donald Trump is no longer interested in pursuing legal action against Hillary Clinton.

From Politico:

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog agency that sued to get more of Clinton’s State Department emails released, urged Trump on Tuesday to “commit his administration” to investigating Clinton, while promising to continue its own litigation and investigations to help uncover possible scandals. For Trump to refuse to do so “would be a betrayal of his promise to the American people to ‘drain the swamp’ of out-of-control corruption in Washington, DC,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton warned in a statement. “President-elect Trump should focus on healing the broken justice system, affirm the rule of law and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Clinton scandals.”

Ironically, what Fitton wants from Trump would harm the nation’s justice system instead of heal it. CNN quotes University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck as saying, “Even though the attorney general reports to the president, the Department of Justice is meant to exercise a degree of independence from the White House entirely to avoid the perception that political considerations, rather than legal ones, are behind decisions to (or to not) prosecute.”

States Politico, “Matt Miller, a former spokesman with the Department of Justice, tweeted Tuesday morning that Trump would be violating the Justice Department’s independence if he ordered his attorney general to pursue an investigation.”

Trump was correct when he told New York Times reporters that prosecuting Clinton would harm the nation.

Besides, Hillary Clinton has been punished enough already. As a Wall Street Journal editorial states, “Being denied the Presidency is a far more painful punishment than a misdemeanor or minor felony conviction … democracy’s verdict is justice enough for Mrs. Clinton.”

Clinton’s punishment was brought about by the democratic process in each of the 50 states. That punishment should be sufficient even for the harshest of Clinton’s critics. Besides, as Fox News reports, “Trump’s decision not to pursue charges against Clinton would not prevent congressional Republicans from opening investigations and referring them to the Justice Department for charges.”

If Turkeys Could Talk
I Have Glimpsed The Future
  • Charles Harkins

    President Trump should allow the new Attorney General to review the matter and decide on a course of action based on equality before the law. IF charges are brought and a conviction is registered, President Trump should commute the sentence, but the convictions, if any, should stand.

    • Except now, Laws are for the Little People…

  • Scalia

    Hillary’s losing the election is irrelevant. If she committed crimes, she needs to be held accountable for them. Of course the AG should be independent, but there is nothing that should prevent the new AG from reviewing the evidence and deciding on a course of action.

    • Indeed not. Hillary belongs in prison.

      I point out that the FBI and IRS investigations of the Clinton Foundation are ongoing.

    • fustian24

      An amusing thing is that the left is CERTAIN the Russians grabbed Hillary and Podesta emails and fed them to wikileaks in order to discredit Hillary and tip the election to Trump.

      At the same time, they insist that there was no evidence that Hillary’s private server was hacked and that there shouldn’t be any concerns about her keeping the nation’s secrets there.

      Which is it?

  • pennywit

    As a voter, I’m just tired of both the Clintons and the anti-Clinton faction, and I’m ready to move on. I just want to get to 2020 and vote for somebody not named Clinton, Trump, or Bush.

    • Retired military

      So it is okay for someone to compromise national security, and sell access using their govt position and not go to jail becuase you are just so tired of hearing about it.

      Remember that if she hadnt lied and denied and sidestepped and delayed every step of the way with the full help and blessing of the Obama admin than she would have been in jail years ago and you wouldnt have had to hear about her for the past 4+ years.

      • pennywit

        The email investigation was never about national security. It was simply congressional Republicans’ latest move in their twenty-year-plus attempt to try to pin something — anything — on the Clintons. The Clinton family’s instincts to circle the wagons didn’t help matters, but at the end of the day, there really was more smoke than fire on Clinton’s email server.

        The Clinton Foundation, meanwhile, is certainly a concern. But, again, investigations have turned up a lot of dancing along the very edge of the law, and a few things that probably should be illegal, but aren’t.

        Now, given a choice between another decade or more of blatantly partisan investigations and letting the Clintons retire in peace … I’ll take the second option. Our country has more pressing matters than making sure Republicans snare their great white whale.

        • Scalia

          The email investigation was never about national security.

          It certainly was about national security to a lot of people, including yours truly.

          I know you’re “tired” of all this, but since you ventured to comment, let’s look again at what Director Comey had to say:

          From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.


          Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

          For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

          None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

          While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

          With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

          So, we have quite a few classified emails on an unclassified system, a Secretary of State who was “extremely careless” in the handling of classified information, a Secretary who “should have known” what she was handling, and “hostile actors” who gained access to accounts which were in contact with Clinton. So, pennywit, no laws were broken? How about:

          18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”


          18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.”

          That’s what setting up a private server accomplishes.

          18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

          18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.”

          Classified material was definitely placed outside a government-secured server. Moreover, Secretary Clinton destroyed over 30,000 emails three weeks after a congressional subpoena.

          What was Director Comey’s justification for not prosecuting her?

          Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

          In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

          To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

          That’s it! She wasn’t charged because Comey believed her actions were not “intentional and willful.” You have some legal background, pennywit. Surely you know that ignorance of the law is no excuse—especially for the Secretary of State!! Clinton was instructed how to handle classified information. She thus was not ignorant of her responsibilities as a protector of classified information. Since she was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified material, and since there is a reasonable assumption that high government officials are responsible to safeguard that material, there is not doubt that Clinton handled our nation’s secrets in a grossly negligent manner. Comey repeatedly cited intent while ignoring the “grossly negligent” segments of statutes.

          Yes, pennywit, national security and the handling of classified material is very important to millions of Americans, not just Republicans.

          • pennywit

            I actually looked into it a little bit on my end, Scalia. From what I understand, Clinton’s carelessness did not rise to the level that would ordinarily have been prosecuted as a crime, and would have been handled administratively if it had been a non-appointed official. Additionally, it is worth noting that Clinton’s practice of maintaining a private server had also been the practice of at least one other Secretary of State before her.

            From where I sit, it appears that the decision to prosecute, or not prosecute, Hillary Clinton is entirely at the rightful discretion of the Attorney General (not the FBI Director), and it appears to me that the Attorney General did not abuse her discretion.

            Given that, I see no necessity in prosecuting her now.

          • Retired military

            Tell that to the navy guy who took pictures of his 20 year old submarine to show his family where he worked but is spending a year in jail because of it. ANd I bet that you believe Obama didnt know about the private server until he heard about it in the news (even though he had personally emailed Hillary on her private server numerous times).

          • Vagabond661

            If anyone else has been prosecuted for similiar crimes, then yes she should be prosecuted. Not doing it demonstrates partisanship that you condemned above.

          • pennywit

            That’s the problem, though. We haven’t seen evidence that her deeds rise to the level of crime.

          • Vagabond661

            Then pardon Petraeus.

          • He’s already been “rewarded” for joining the 0bama (mal) Administration.

          • Yes we have. The laws in question do NOT require proof of criminal intent.

          • fustian24

            My company required a number of us to understand the federal laws concerning dealing with technology and embargoed countries. What struck me at the time is the law did not care at all how diligently we tried to prevent various technologies from reaching embargoed countries. All that mattered is that they didn’t. We could have taken every step possible, but if our technology showed up in Libya or Iran, we were guilty.

            The secrets laws work that way too. They have to, otherwise any moron could put our nation’s secrets up on Facebook and get off by saying that they didn’t know it was wrong.

            The second Hillary put national secrets on her personal server, she was in serious violation of the law. What she thought about it simply does not matter to the law.

            And the federal prosecutors I’ve been reading about are stunned by Comey’s malfeasance in making the ridiculous claim that nobody would have prosecuted. That was simply a lie.

          • Vagabond661

            I don’t think the investigations have concluded.

          • Retired military

            Gee was her maid cleared to print out classified information?

          • Name the former Secretary of State who used a private e-mail system after the Federal Records Act went into effect, and after the State Department implemented their own dedicated e-mail system for classified information.

          • Scalia

            From what I understand, Clinton’s carelessness did not rise to the level that would ordinarily have been prosecuted as a crime, and would have been handled administratively if it had been a non-appointed official.

            “Extremely careless” is what “gross negligence” is, and that is the statutory requirement. Moreover, it is rare that a person will announce to the world, “I’m intending to break the law here, get your cameras ready.” The intent is shown by the person’s actions and by her lying about it repeatedly. So, we have both intent and gross negligence on Clinton’s part. Definitely worthy of prosecution.

            Additionally, it is worth noting that Clinton’s practice of maintaining a private server had also been the practice of at least one other Secretary of State before her.

            This is false. No other secretary of state used a private server.

            Besides, Scalia … opposition members of Congress demanding an investigation, a re-investigation, and a re-re-re-re-investigation until they get a result that they like?

            I could agree with your sentiment were it not for Comey’s acknowledged findings. He essentially said that laws were broken, but because they were broken unintentionally, he could not recommend a prosecution. As stated, intent is not the only prong of culpability, and her intent is shown by her actions, including lying. We are thus justified in crying foul and demanding justice.

          • pennywit

            Hm. I hadn’t seen that Colin Powell note; I thought he had used a server. That said, I would argue that his email address of choice (an AOL address) was less than ideal.

            Now, as far as the gross negligence standard … it’s a bit more than extreme carelessness, as I recall. Something about specific indifference to great harm?

            As far as intent … as I recall, that was really what Comey’s analysis turned on. He concluded that Hillary Clinton was careless, but she didn’t have the intent necessary to trigger criminal prosecution.

          • Scalia

            Now, as far as the gross negligence standard … it’s a bit more than extreme carelessness, as I recall. Something about specific indifference to great harm?

            I think you’re conflating negligence with deliberate indifference. They’re not the same. If Clinton’s acts were extremely careless, then she was negligent by definition, and that satisfies the statutory requirement.

            As far as intent … as I recall, that was really what Comey’s analysis turned on. He concluded that Hillary Clinton was careless, but she didn’t have the intent necessary to trigger criminal prosecution.

            Yes, and as I recall, we’ve already stated that. Clinton is an attorney, and she was specifically trained on how to handle classified data. When yo consider her unprecedented act of creating her own server, her deletion of over 30 thousand emails three weeks after a congressional subpoena, and her lying about her actions, I think it stretches credulity that her intentions were innocent.

          • pennywit

            You’re really going to hate what I say next, though. I happen to think that Gerald Ford did the right thing pardoning Nixon in the wake of Watergate. As I recall, there was not yet enough evidence to tie Nixon directly to the break-in and/or the cover-ups. But there were investigations coming, and Democrats were likely salivating over the chance to put Nixon behind bars.

            And Ford put an end to it. Yes, it forestalled justice. But by closing down the investigation, he at least gave the country a chance to move on, rather than mire itself in a decade or more of partisan investigations.

            I feel similarly about the Clintons. In this case, I happen to think that political unity — or at least a chance for political unity — is a greater good than continuing with investigations that will inevitably be tinged with the worst sort of partisan politics.

          • Retired military

            And Nixon didn’t do 1/10 of the crap that Hillary has pulled.
            And kinda hard to have political unity when the left calls you deplorables, KKK, hate mongers and that is just the good stuff.

          • fustian24

            The left REALLY owes that man an apology.

            If only he’d had email, instead of tape, I guess he’d be in the clear right?

          • Scalia

            I feel similarly about the Clintons. In this case, I happen to think that political unity — or at least a chance for political unity — is a greater good than continuing with investigations that will inevitably be tinged with the worst sort of partisan politics.

            And who do you think is behind Jill Stein’s effort for hand recounts in the critical states Clinton lost? Jill Stein? Really?? She hasn’t the slightest chance of winning the election, yet she wants recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Of course, after Clinton’s statements about accepting election results, even she would be able ask for recounts with a straight face. So, who is Stein carrying water for? Partisan politics anybody?

            There is not the slightest chance that there will be partisan healing. As I predicted in my post about Trump’s victory, this will be an all-out brawl of perhaps unprecedented proportions. The Left hates Trump with a passion, and they will politically destroy him at the first opportunity.

            Bottom line: If Clinton broke the law, she needs to be held accountable, and if Nixon broke the law, he should have been held accountable as well.

          • pennywit

            Oh, tish-tosh, Scalia. Hillary Clinton’s fingerprints are nowhere on Jill Stein’s challenge!!

            Which is how you know Clinton’s fingerprints — or her people’s fingerprints — are all over it.

          • Scalia

            Yeah, how foolish of me. I mean, with another recount, Stein just might pull this off! Stein’s spending 5 million dollars in the hope that she’ll become president. Makes perfect sense to me.

          • Scalia

            Tish-tosh?? It just broke that Clinton Campaign Will Participate in Stein’s State Recounts. So much for accepting election results and so much for “Clinton’s Fingerprints,” right?

          • pennywit

            Scalia — I actually did figure Hillary’s campaign, or her backers, would be somewhere near the challenge (as I implied with my second sentence … )

          • Scalia

            My bad. Sorry.

          • pennywit

            In seriousness … if this election had come down to a few thousand votes in one state, I would fully expect either major-party candidate to challenge the count, and I would support that candidate’s right to do so. This is not a close election.

          • Scalia

            Correct. Even though the margins in those three states are slim, there are not slim enough to trigger an automatic recount. I’m really perplexed by this effort. I don’t want to say that there’s something else afoot, but how else can this be explained?

          • pennywit

            If Hillary Clinton and her people were smart, they would stay away from this and let the Jill Stein Show play out. If the votes still came back Trump, let Stein get egg on her face. If the new count changed the election, then Clinton could benefit.

            Of the third-party candidates, I think Gary Johnson would be the only one, really, who stands to gain anything from a recount; there’s a slim chance he could find another 1-2 percent of the votes and get federal funding for the Libertarian candidate in 2020.

            I suspect the Stein campaign’s challenge is more about getting money and publicity for Jill Stein than anything else.

          • pennywit

            I don’t think there will be bipartisan healing, truly … but I think we at least need a chance for it.

          • Scalia

            The Democrats have a chance right now, with or without a Clinton indictment. For eight years, the term “bipartisan” in Obamaspeak meant, “Agree with me” and “I won.” Why is is that the GOP always has to heal hurt feelings and bridge the partisan divide? Let’s see if the Democrats are interested in healing. I promise you they aren’t.

          • As they have sown, so let them reap.

          • Retired military

            It meant the same thing under Bush too. Do what the dems wanted and that is bipartisian. Dont do what they want and you are a racist bigot and homophobe.

            Tell me please Penny. Go back and check and see when the last time the republican candidate wasnt compared to Hitler. Hint. You may want to start prior to Bush 41.

          • pennywit

            PS. Please pardon my grumpiness. The Gods of Work (A Thousand Curses Upon Their Names) have decreed that I must work this weekend. This leaves me in not a good mood.

          • My phone rang this morning at 0400 for a work issue. Such is life.

          • pennywit

            We must accept life, but grumpiness is permitted.

          • Scalia

            I didn’t notice any grumpiness, but perhaps it’s because of my good mood. I had a great day today with my family and church in giving thanks to God for His wonderful blessings. The food and fellowship were fantastic—and the Lions won another nail-biter.

          • pennywit

            Skins lost. Grumpiness ensues.

          • Scalia

            That missed field goal and the botched two-point conversion took four points off the board, and their defense couldn’t make the critical stops they needed. Still, it was a closely fought contest.

        • Retired military

          Keep believing that and your poll numbers Penny. They will get you far in life. If you had done what Hillary had done you would be in jail for a very very long time. And if Clinton is guilty then is the investigations blatantly partisian?
          I bet you believe that Bill’s investigation was never about perjury but about sex right?

          • pennywit

            Actually, if I had done what Hillary had done, I don’t think I would be in jail. However, I would be summarily fired from my job, disciplined by regulatory authorities, and I probably wouldn’t be able to work in my industry again.

          • Retired military

            After working around classified material for most of my 20 years in service i can tell you unequivocally if you had been in the service you would have been i n jail.

          • pennywit

            Are there different obligations for military service members vs. civilians?

          • Retired military

            When it comes to classified material NO (I have worked extensively with civilians while I was in the military in a classified environment to include TS SCI material). They both use the same DOD regulations for the handling and storage of classified material.
            The only difference would be various base or command (Div, Corps) regulations which can add to but not take away from the DOD regs.

          • pennywit

            That makes sense. I have a few friends and family members who have handled some classified material, and I’ve talked with them a bit over the past year. Once I screened out the rabid partisanship (both left and right, truth be told), their general consensus was that Clinton’s actions would have been handled administratively, without criminal charges brought. Complicating the analysis was the fact that as Secretary of State, Clinton herself had the authority to determine which items were classified and which were not.

          • Only for intelligence generated by State…

          • How many of them with TS/SCI/SA? That level of clearance is absolutely unforgiving.

          • pennywit

            A couple of them, actually. They live and work in DC.

          • And their views on the breaches of TS/SCI and TS/SA documents found on Madam Former Secretary’s illegal server?

          • pennywit

            Asked and answered, Rodney.

          • fustian24

            Why do you think Comey made a prosecutorial decision?

            Isn’t that a Justice Department function?

          • fustian24


            Comey stated that no career prosecutor would bring such a case forward.

            That would be what we call a lie.

            Here’s one:

          • fustian24

            And here is a former ATTORNEY GENERAL of THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA that says that what Comey said and did was simply wrong.

            When Comey said that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges, he was lying.


          • pennywit

            Not quite It’s what we call an opinion.

          • fustian24

            No. It is the sole reason Comey said that he would not recommend prosecution.

            There are two problems with that:
            1. He has no business deciding whether or not to prosecute.
            2. He was simply wrong. Reasonable prosecutors WOULD take that case.

            Which means that Hillary should be indicted. The FBI investigation proved that.

          • Retired military

            Yep why anyone who controls classified information can have their maids print it out.

          • Retired military

            Again, tell that to the navy spending a year in jail for taking pictures of the 20 year old sub he was working on so he could show his family where he worked.

            Also Clinton DOES not have the authority to declassify items another agency has classified. The President can but the general rule of thumb is whoever classified it is the agency who can unclassify it.

          • Ayup. And the more senior the offender the stiffer the sentence.

          • Had you done what Hillary has done you would be in prison for the rest of your life.

        • It started out as an investigation of a clear attempt to avoid the requirements of the Federal Records Act. It became a National Security Investigation when the investigators found the Classified Materials.

  • Brucehenry

    For a quarter-century thousands of people, spending hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it taxpayer money, have tried and tried and failed and failed to make a provable criminal case against Hillary Clinton. What makes anyone think a new effort, again funded by taxpayers, will have a different result? That’s one reason not to pursue it — it’s a waste of time and effort and money.

    Another is that the pursuit of Clinton by her victorious rival will make the US look even more like a banana republic. It’s already taking on that aspect pretty quickly what with Trump not putting his holdings into a blind trust and generally not seeming to give a damn about the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest. Prosecuting vanquished political opponents or disgraced former officials is something done in Russia, Honduras, or Egypt, not the US. Which is why Ford pardoned Nixon, and why Obama didn’t pursue charges against Cheney, Yoo, Gonzalez, et al in regard to torture and what we used to, quaintly, call “warrantless wiretapping.”

    Plus has anyone heard about this “audit the vote” thingie? Push this Hillary-for-prison thing too hard and Trump might find himself on the business end of an investigation into whether Russia hacked voting machines in the “blue-wall” states — where in counties where electronic machines vulnerable to hacking were used Clinton’s vote ran 7% UNDER the counties where these machines weren’t used.

    • Red Five

      We become a banana republic for following our laws and prosecuting those who break them, no matter their social or political status? She, her husband, their foundation, hell even Chelsea, have all broken laws. Hillary got 4 people killed in Benghazi, to say nothing of the 50+ “suspicious deaths” of people who were going to testify against her or Bill. That’s way too much to just sweep under the rugs in the Oval Office.

      • Brucehenry

        Sure sure but 25 years of investigation by the multi-hundred-million-dollar Clinton-hater industry have failed to come up with a provable criminal case. And EIGHT separate Republican-led Congressional investigations, spending close to 100 million taxpayer dollars, failed to prove your assertion that “Hillary got 4 people killed.” And your ludicrous tinfoil hat “50+ ‘suspicious deaths'” bullshit is of course just that — bullshit. Who pulled the trigger on all these deaths, Elvis?

        We look like a banana republic when it appears that the victors in a close election are trying to throw in jail those who they just defeated. There’s a reason the tinpot dictators who run banana republics cling to power so tightly and must be dislodged by violence. It’s because they know they will be jailed if they are turned out of power. (Egypt, Ukraine, Pakistan come to mind.) If we value a peaceful transition of power when the voters speak, we must be careful not to give the impression that the losers will be imprisoned.

        • Retired military

          In most banana republics if the person being investigated is an enemy of the state they are lined up against a wall and shot after a 1 day trial. If that person is a friend of the state then they are investigated for a day and then cleared.
          It makes the US look more like a banana republic when you have Hillary who is a friend of the administration investigated, the state and justice dept stall for years on end, you have the head of the FBI come out and said “Yep this looks bad but umm we just dont think anyone will prosecute” and HIllary not only gets off scot free but almost becomes President. . Plus you have the media line up to fawn over Clinton. That is what a banana republic looks like.

          Also Bruce have you noticed that before the election that Chelsea being in charge of the CLinton foundation when Hillary was elected (because it was preordained by the press that she was going to be ) and not nary a question was raised by the press or anyone in govt. Yet Trump’s kids cant take over his business because umm conflict of interest.

          BTW Happy Thanksgiving.

      • And they all should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    • jim_m

      Typical BS that draws in ignorant rubes like you Bruce. When you correct the vote tally for income and education (which is where the great divide in this election came) Hillary’s vote tally is not under at all.

      You are a fool. A dupe. An ignorant asshole reaching for anything to explain why your fascist bullshit got run out of town by peoplle who believe in freedom. Take your bullshit conspiracy theories and your belief that the moon landing was faked somewhere where dumbasses like yourself who never pay attention to facts live.

      • Brucehenry

        Don’t know why you’re so angry but whatever.

        Probably won’t come to anything, I agree, but at least as believable as the legions of impostor voters swarming the polls to vote for Democrats.


        • jim_m

          I’m not mad, I am ridiculing your gullibility and rank ignorance. You, who are constantly calling other people rubes, have fallen for a deliberately dishonest ploy that counts on peoplle’ bias and incapacity for independent thought. You have just demonstrated that you are easily led and are willing to accept anything because your ideology demands that it must be true.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh OK well now that that’s clear, lol.

            I mistook your over-the-top language and wild hyperbole for anger, sorry.

            So forget the audit-the-vote thingie. What about my other two points?

          • jim_m

            As for prosecuting Hillary, I think that it may be wise to not spend political capital on pursuing that when there are far more important actions to take. It is a pragmatic approach and I can appreciate that.

          • Brucehenry

            As long as we can all move on, as we did post-Nixon, I agree.

          • jim_m

            That being said, she is still responsible for a breach of security that has put other people in prisons for years. She should be prosecuted but for the good of the republic I am wiling to let that go in favor of dismantling the statist crap that obama has erected.

          • Brucehenry

            Your magnanimity is admirable.

          • Nope. Prosecution to the full extent of the law.

    • Retired military


      1. The DOJ doesnt audit votes.
      2. Hillary has until like MOnday to request recounts or its too late.
      3. If Hillary requests recounts for the 3 states which have a total of about 50+ k plus Trump votes then Trump can ask for recounts in NH Nevada and Minn which have a total of about 50+k more votes for Hillary.
      4. The computer scientist that brought up this whole audit thevote thing has said he doesnt believe that the ballot counting was wrong but that the polls were wrong.

      • Brucehenry

        Like I said elsewhere, forget the audit-the-vote thing. What about the waste-of-time thing and the banana-republic thing?

        • jim_m

          Ironic that after 8 years of obama turning the US into a third world kleptocracy with a politically based legal system, you complain about Trump making the US into a banana republic with an attempt to enforce the rule of law without relation to whether or not the person has political power.

          You have things standing on their head.

          • Brucehenry

            “Third world kleptocracies” don’t get turned out on their asses by elections, Jim.

            The US has until now avoided that fate, despite the through-the-looking-glass view you take of the Obama administration. We’ll see what happens under Trump, but it doesn’t look promising:


          • jim_m

            Indeed, it does not look promising for those like you, who were wishing for a corrupt administration to complete the destruction of the Republic and take this nation into the abyss of fascism.

          • Retired military

            To be fair to Bruce I dont think he wants the US destroyed nor to become a facist state. I do however believe that he like us looks at things through a prism. Unfortunately his prism IMO ignores basic facts about the left 😉

          • Brucehenry

            Well if I HAD wished for a corrupt administration to lead us all into fascism, it’s beginning to look like the Trump Fairy is about to grant such a wish.

          • jim_m

            Indeed, as long as your definition of fascism includes impartial application of the law without respect to political power and offering educational opportunity to everyone and not just the power elites while forcing blacks into poverty due to the crappy education the government provides them.

            Tell us Bruce: Why do you hate black people so much that you publicly demand that they be kept stupid and poor?

          • Brucehenry

            Happy Thanksgiving, Chatty Cathy! Pull your string and you utter the same 10 phrases over and over.

            Go eat by yourself at Golden Corral, as was your plan for today. Hopefully their wifi will be out and a human being will talk to you.

          • jim_m

            I’m actually with family, unlike you sitting in your retirement home all alone. Oddly enough, it is my ultra leftist brother who eats alone at a restaurant rather than face his siblings in civil discussion. Apparently, like you he is too bitter over the election to face the rest of his family (even those who land on the left side of the political spectrum)

          • Project you very much indeed. I shall remember to give thanks for that.

    • fustian24

      This depends entirely on whether you think Hillary was guilty of serious crimes.

      I think the fix has been in for a while. Many people believe that, at the very least, Hillary risked the nation’s secrets by putting them on an unsecured server for the purpose of monetizing her role as Secretary of State. Then she sold out our foreign policy to the highest bidder.

      If, like me, you believe that, you also believe that it is important for us to expose such corruption and to punish it or we risk more of this in the future. We cannot have the powerful flaunt in our faces that they are above our laws.

      And frankly, from just the little we already know, I don’t see how there is another side.

      The argument: “I must be innocent because you haven’t caught me yet” is a silly one. Especially with Lynch meeting with Bubba on the tarmac and Comey suddenly making prosecutorial decisions that are simply not his job. Pretty clear the fix was in here if you are honest with yourself.

      Plus, when does Comey get to rewrite the laws to add new requirements?

  • Vagabond661


    Failing at winning the Presidency…..twice does not excuse criminal behavior.

  • Red Five

    “Hillary has been punished enough.” No, she hasn’t; she’s still walking free.
    3 words: Lea Ven Worth.

  • Paul Hooson

    Even without the pursuit of Clinton, I fully expect the Justice Department under Jeff Sessions to be political and petty enough to satisfy the most ardent of witch burners. Watch for Sessions to use the feds to shut down marijuana businesses that are legal in some states or local communities using federal laws. Under federal laws, medical marijuana businesses that were legal under local San Francisco laws were subjected to federal prosecutions that limit the rights to a defense to argue they were legal under local laws. The charged individuals are presented to a jury only as illegal drug dealers, ensuring federal convictions every single time. The Obama Administration respected the state’s rights for the individual states to determine their own marijuana regulation or laws.

    Lawyers for AVN, the trade organization for the adult entertainment industry is also expecting Sessions with the help of Edwin Meese and other extremist puritans to ramp up a new war against adult entertainment and attempt wholesale prosecutions against adult Websites, videos and magazines. Trump once owned one of the largest strip clubs in the country and his wife has done nude photoshoots, but don’t expect this to restrain his Justice Department’s efforts to stomp out free expression rights for the adult entertainment industry where the industry could lose 10’s of millions of assets to forfeiture to the government if convicted of as few as two obscenity violations per Website or company. Former Senators Jessie Helms and Strom Thurmond helped to write RICO legislation where as few as two obscenity convictions can send businessmen to prison for 20 or more years, forfeit their businesses, homes, cars, bank accounts to government plus face huge fines. Smaller businesses cannot afford the high legal costs to defend against such charges, and will plead guilty to seek less prison time and leave prison broke and homeless.

    Minority victims of hate crimes can expect a lot less support from the Sessions’ Justice Department. Sessions once thought the KKK were ok with him, until he found out that some smoked marijuana. Sessions may not bring the matches or gasoline for those that want to burn crosses on some victim’s front lawn, but don’t expect Sessions to do much to prosecute persons who commit some acts either. Hate crimes are already up 700% recently, so you can only expect more of the same if persons who commit such crimes believe it is unlikely to face any charges.

    The social fabric of the country will only worsen with more racial tensions and less tolerance. It will be some uptight and dark ages under Sessions. Not seeking to prosecute Cinton for the same use of Emails as former Secretary Of State Colin Powell or others also did isn’t some act of tolerance here. In so many other ways Trump would love to be another Vladimir Putin-styled dictator if only the Constitution didn’t but some brakes on him.

    • jim_m

      Obama hhas already pursued state legal marijuana activity that remains illegal under federal law. How is what you claim Seesion will do any different? Or do you only object to Republicans enforcing the law?

      You hate crime stat is pure bullshit, which is why you have no credible link to support it.

      Sessions put the head of the KKK in prison in Alabama so your claim that he will lead a racist DOJ is also bullshit, but then we expect ignorant, uninformed BS from you on a daily basis. Your posts have gone sharply downhill in the last half year and I suggest that you get a medical exam to check on your mental health.

      • Paul Hooson

        There will always be cases in which Sessions will put murderers or bad people away. But, in other ways I expect it to be one of the most political Justice Departments ever. I only hope that he more fairly applies law in a just manner than I fear that he will not.

        • Retired military

          “ly hope that he more fairly applies law in a just manner than I fear that he will not.”

          Well if you had added “THAN UNDER THE OBAMA ADMIN” then I would have said that you had set the bar pretty low.

        • jim_m

          Sessions is from Alabama. You cite California issues that have nothing to do with him as examples of how he is out of the mainstream.

          I would suggest that this is a good example of your disordered thinking and that you do not think clearly enough to have an opinion that anyone should respect.

        • fustian24

          If I understand your point, you’re confident that Sessions will do great with the unimportant cases involving murders and bringing bad people to justice.

          But, more seriously, Sessions MIGHT interfere with the sanctity of the adult film industry!

          The horror! Fascist!

          I also suspect that it would be news to most Republicans that their mainstream view is to be pro-porn.

    • Retired military

      “under Jeff Sessions to be political and petty enough to satisfy the most ardent of witch burners.”

      oh you mean like the IRS with Lerner

      • Paul Hooson

        Rogue agencies and agents are just a fact of life under both parties. Even the local city hall official that grants small-time permits to put up a kid’s swimming pool. I don’t like it either.

        • jim_m

          Right. SO your response is to compare the IRS infringing upon the rights of conservatives and using the power of the federal government to harass political opposition to some petty municipal permit process?

          Go sober up before posting here Paul.

        • Retired military

          So you are saying that Lerner did this without Obama’s full knowledge and approval? And the state dept asked for like 5 years to release Hillary’s documents over a year after the investigation had begun but Obama had nothing to do with it.
          Yeah right.

          Remember what Obama said about the IRS “not a smidgen of corruption”/ I think Hillary’s loss as affected your memory and mental stability.

    • Par4Course

      Well at least one person hasn’t lost his optimism! (Sarc.) I don’t support the federal drug laws but they should be repealed or revised; it’s not the AG’s job to ignore the law, even if it’s popular in Colorado. So-called “hate crimes” are crimes that should and will be prosecuted. There is absolutely no evidence that Jeff Sessions supports the KKK or cross-burning, or that he is some kind of intolerant bigot. This post is just an unfounded attack on a Trump appointee – Is Paul auditioning for a job at the NYT?

    • Retired military

      ” Former Senators Jessie Helms and Strom Thurmond helped to write RICO legislation where as few as two obscenity convictions can send businessmen to prison for 20 or more years, forfeit their businesses, homes, cars, bank accounts to government plus face huge fines”
      Yet Hillary committed many more violations of national security than that to include having her maid print out classified material and you want her to get off scott free.
      No sympathy for you here Paul

      • fustian24

        And you have to laugh at the notion that the Justice Department is suddenly going to be political.

        I’m hoping that it’s going to be LESS political.

        And we have to realize that a completely apolitical justice department will be totally unacceptable to the left. It’s either social justice or it’s nothing.

        And Paul: the whole “KKK okay until I found out they smoked marijuana” was a joke. It may have been in poor taste, but please don’t push this as a serious position of Sessions.

  • Retired military

    I read the title of your thread and I thought that she had been publically flogged and locked up for 20 years and I missed it. Then I saw that that wasnt the case. So IMO she hasnt been punished enough.

  • Vagabond661

    David, what you should ask yourself is should criminals be prosecuted. If the answer is yes, then write another piece to asking Obama to pardon Petraeus.

    If no, then Hillary needs to be punished for her crimes like anyone else. The Clintons should not be above the law.

  • Wild_Willie

    Trump said HE is not going to go after Clinton. The FBI is in the middle of their investigation and the finding will be presented to the AG. If warranting indictments and trial it will happen. Trump can’t stop it due to law and nor will he. He is just stating HE will not. ww

  • yetanotherjohn

    Let’s apply Occam’s razor to this.

    1) Trump announced on day one of his administration he would order Sessions to indict Hillary

    -The press has a field day with stories about political persecution of defeated opponents. This is somewhat irrelevant because the press will have a field day against Trump on real or imagined stories any way.

    – It will set a precedent on jailing your opponents. But this precedent has already been started by the left (see Sen. Stevens, Gov. Walker, Gov. Perry, etc.) where the left files charges, usually to interfere with a campaign, that later prove to have no basis. Further, Hillary really has done something. Not prosecuting sets a precedent in the other direction.

    -Obama says to heal the wounds and to counter the dangerous precedent by the GOP, he will pardon Hillary. Thus, no matter how much Trump says about going after Hillary now, saying so now means Hillary gets off Scott free.

    2) Trump makes an announcement “I think it would be very divisive going after the Clintons”.

    – This is true. He’s not lying.

    -That is not a statement he won’t go after her, just acknowledging the costs. A general who says that attacking a position would likely result in high casualties isn’t saying he isn’t going to attack, just acknowledging the cost.

    -This will cause Obama to hesitate to pardon. If the perception is that Trump won’t prosecute, why pardon. To pardon is to acknowledge a wrong was done, even if the wrong will go unpunished.

    Conclusion, it is better to make noises about not prosecuting, especially noises that are true (after all Trump isn’t a politician) and can make Obama not pardon her.

    When in office, he can call for the appointment of a special prosecutor, let Sessions act independently, wait to hear the FBI report on pay for play in the State Department under Hillary, let congress go after Hillary, etc. He could also do nothing or even pardon him herself. I think I would have a better idea what Pres. Cruz would do than what Trump will do, but that shipped sailed 6 months ago.

  • Doc Musgrove

    Trump said HE would not prosecute Hiliary. He said nothing about FBI or DOJ not pursuing the crimes. He does not have to become involved, simply let the system take it’s course. Trump will have to do something AFTER she is convicted, refuse to pardon her, (and whoever goes down with her) and refuse her/them clemency for two reasons: 1) TO SHOW THE NATION no one is above the law 2) SET PRECEDENT to deter politicians by showing them that abuse of the public trust deserves no mercy. What Trump says is sometimes not as significant as what he doesn’t say.

  • Happy Thanksgiving, all!

  • Brian Brandt

    From American Thinker, Ed Straker – Entire article at –


    Excerpt –

    We know that liberals have been entrenched into the bureaucracy by
    eight years of Obama. Many of these bureaucrats will be eager to see
    Trump fail. Their primary means of sabotage will be through leaks to
    the media – leaks of Trump’s intended plans to torpedo them, as well as
    leaks of Trump’s current operations in an effort to discredit them.
    Maybe they will leak details about Trump’s plans to fight ISIS, or
    Trump’s plan to deal with illegal immigrants, or a whole host of other
    policies he might be considering.

    Leaking government information is a crime. But if leakers see that
    Trump does not prosecute one of the biggest abusers of government
    privacy laws, security laws, and conflict of interest laws – namely,
    Hillary Clinton – they may feel that they too are immune from harm and
    may feel free to act.

    Worse yet, this sends a troubling message to future Democratic
    administration where even worse abuses are rampant. When the Democrats
    retake the White House someday, and they will, they will merrily pick
    up where they left off, politicizing the Justice Department, IRS, and
    FBI, using these arms of the government to persecute citizens. If
    Trump showed them that he would hold misdeeds committed in past
    administrations to account, that might give future bureaucrats a second
    thought about violating the law. But with Trump “letting bygones be
    bygones,” a future Democratic administration could again violate the
    law without a second thought.

  • fustian24

    We always run the danger of creating a precedent where each incoming administration attempts to prosecute the outgoing one. You can imagine a situation where every December, the outgoing President resigns in favor of his/her Vice President who pardons the President and key aides.

    Certainly there were lefties desperate to put Bush and Cheney on trial. I thought then that their claims were nonsense and I still do.

    But Hillary is another can of fish entirely.

    At a minimum, I believe she intentionally put our nation’s secrets at risk so that she could monetize the office of Secretary of State. Then she went right out and sold our foreign policy to the highest bidder.

    Worse, I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    I think we cannot let this stand. If Hillary is allowed to just go about her business, a lot of powerful people learn some very unhealthy lessons about just how much they can get away with.

    My hope is that Trump is essentially playing mind games with Obama in the hopes that Obama will not pardon Hillary. Then all he needs to do is stand aside and we will finally get a real investigation of Hillary, her foundation, and all those that helped cover-up her crimes.

    I believe it is essential to put our foot down here as a society or we can expect deeper and worse corruption as we move forward. We have an obligation to reset everyone’s understanding of what behavior we are willing to tolerate in our leaders.

    Assuming she is, in fact, guilty and it can be proved in court, I don’t really care whether she is eventually pardoned. But she needs to make a full confession to earn that pardon. One that can leave no question in anyone’s mind just how corrupt that woman was and how bereft of integrity her supporters and her press were.

  • yetanotherjohn

    There isn’t an open thread, so I’ll post here.

    I was wondering who was impacted most by the third party candidates. I arbitrarily assumed that half of the Libertarian vote could have been persuaded to vote for Trump and half the Green vote could have been persuaded to vote for Clinton.

    The results were only close enough in 7 states that it could potentially matter: FL, ME, MI, NV, NH, PA, WI

    If only Clinton had flipped 50% of Green votes, she still would have lost Florida Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, but would have carried Michigan. In short, Trump would still have won, but 277 to 261.

    On the other hand, if only Trump had flipped 50% of Libertarian votes, he still would have lost Nevada, but would have flipped Maine, New Hampshire.In short, Trumps EV total would have increased from 306 to 313.

    If both candidates had flipped 50% of their respective third parties, then there would gave been no change.

    Bottom line is that the third party vote probably didn’t hurt/help either candidate in a meaningful way, but Trump probably has more upside in 2020 if he can persuade some of the GOP’s ‘never Trump’ in how he governs.

    • jim_m

      The people I know that voted for Johnson are about equally split between conservative and liberal. I am not sure that simply suggesting that Johnson pulled from Trummp voters is entirely fair.

      • yetanotherjohn

        That’s why I said 50%. If you give Hillary half of Green and half of Libertarian, then the election would change (unless you gave the other half to Trump). Also, a certain number of these supporters would have voted green/libertarian no matter who the major party candidates were.

        What was most interesting to me is how small the Green party vote was in Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. indicating that the left there did slide toward Hillary.

  • cathymv

    Just for Hillary’s handling of Benghazi and the fall out of that atrocity – 4 americans dead, call to stand down, lying that it was revenge for a video, lying to the families of our dead americans, covering up for Obamas total incompetence, covering for her own incompetence and lying to the american people…. for that alone I think she should suffer – I have no sympathy for her at all, none.

  • 914

    What about us being punished by her and Obama??

  • Idahoser

    hillary clinton has been a puppet of the cabal dedicated to dismantling the United States. There is not enough punishment, they must be themselves dismantled or we will eventually lose our country completely.

  • jim_m

    Apparently, Hillary disagrees and has openly declared that she should be further punished as she is now backing the fraudulent and deliberately corrupt attempt to steal the election back for her.

    Now is the time for Trump to reassure the public that he will throw her corrupt ass in prison and have Bill investigated for being a pedophile and going to Jeffrey Epstein’s rape island to screw 13 YO girls.

  • Hillary will have been punished nearly enough when she dies in prison.

  • Ken in Camarillo

    The DOJ really does have to re-assess the Hillary investigation once there are some honest people to do it. Not because we need to punish Hillary, but because we have to restore the integrity and reputation of our DOJ and FBI. I am not saying that a prosecution is necessary (even though it would be highly likely). I am saying that a legitimate investigation must be performed and a thorough credible explanation given for the decision to prosecute or not prosecute. I don’t see how the evidence available would allow a no prosecution, but I suppose it is possible.

    If Hillary were convicted, then I think it would be reasonable to commute her sentence, eliminating jail time, but allowing any fines to stand. But it would be imperative to leave the conviction on her record.