« Looks like the Rose Parade without floats? | Main | The Kennedy Inaugural Parade - Republished 20 Jauary 2017 »

19 January 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Tel

Paul Combetta was granted immunity which of course makes his fifth amendment rights no longer valid.

That's the entire point of granting immunity, so not he did not have that right.

HawkOfMay

>We'll have to go back to the old ways with lots of Sunlight.
I doubt we will have any more visibility or accountability in the Trump administration. While we all know that Trump's first order of business will be rolling back many of Obama's executive orders I'm wondering what new executive orders President Trump has in mind and how quickly he will put those into place.

Ethics Lawyers Call Trump's Business Conflicts 'Nakedly Unconstitutional'

Full Fresh Air Interview

Here is an interview with President Obama's ethics lawyer Norm Eisen and Richard Painter ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush. Some folks may want to attack the sources rather than listening to what these 'establishment lawyers' have to say. I'm going to paraphrase Richard Sale in response: All of us have tendencies, habits, deep rooted beliefs that, if not corrected prevent us from calmly and critically evaluating information.

Ed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji0DIflxlLw

police coming' with his ball and chain, mmm...mmm

Fred

Hawk,

"President Obama's ethics lawyer Norm Eisen and Richard Painter ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush. "

Have they reviewed the "reconciling of holdings", which is relevant to my posting? Maybe their Sunshine, ie. an FOIA request, got them that information. I haven't seen it and that will " prevent us from calmly and critically evaluating information" pertaining to the conduct of the Secretary of State appointed by Obama. Nor have I seen the details of the immunity deals for Huma and the fab-five. Perhaps those lawyers should take up a discussion of the ethics of destroying evidence and government property, especially if one is an employee of said government.

Freudenschade

Fred,

I would welcome an investigation, but it appears the relevant agencies and committees have lost interest. I invite you to write and call your congressman and senators. Good luck.

Fred

Freudenschade,

Lost interest or were directed to lose interest?

Medicine Man

The ball is back in Trump's court. He can make good on his promises regarding Clinton, if he wishes to.

Bandit

It looks like another Obama moment in relation to Bush/Cheney war crimes, you know, looking to the future, not dwelling on the past. It is all political and has nothing to do with law and justice. But, when did justice really prevail in this country? Count on your fingers.

Freudenschade

Fred,

an excellent question.

Fred

Bandit,

Remember the movie Judgement at Nuremberg? To take a couple lines from Spencer Tracy's character. First,
"When I first became a judge I knew there were certain people I wasn't supposed to touch". Second, the more famous moment: "... it came to that the first time you sentenced a man ..... you knew to be innocent."

The establishment politicians, the press and Hollywood have been doing that to Americans for far more than a decade. That's how they got Trump. That and not touching the people in town they were not supposed to touch. The rotten apples were always at the bottom of the barrel and the politicians at the top were never to be touched. I think we'll be working from the bottom, we may not reach all the way to the top any time soon, but I don't see this man being the one who get told "It came to that when...."

steve

Imho Trump should grant a full pardon to Hillary rather than seeking any indictment. Criminal charges would only result in the Clintons and their legion of fans proclaiming it was a witchhunt and that she was innocent of any wrongedoing, which of course is her right. A pardon would preclude that and in my opinion would be the most humiliating and ultimately damning thing that could be done.

Yes,that might be unfair in some sense, but my dislike of Hillary trumps that.

Fred

Steve,

No, that is the corrupt establishment politician thing to do. It saves the Clinton family's reputation and clears the way for Hilary to run for the very important position of Mayor of New York. It clears the smell of corruption away from another Clinton to run for Senate.

To quote the words of a beloved President, spoken not too many years ago, "elections matter". The American People just repudiated the the corrupt establishment politicians in November's election. A pardon for Clinton now is a repudiation of the American people.

Leave her. Leave her subject to subpoena. Leave her to testify under oath in open court over the what she knew and when she knew it. To testify what she direct her staffer to do and when she directed that conduct. At each trial of each subordinate, as they, before an impartial judge and jury, with legal council, face the charges and answer the evidence and testimony of sworn witnesses, let Hilary be under oath to answer the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - or faces charges of perjury. Just like any other citizen of our Republic.

At the trial of the first of fab-fave; at the trial of long time chief of staff Cheryl Mills. And finally, after a thorough investigation, at the trial of her long time friend and confidant Huma Abdein, have Hilary testify. Let Hilary's sworn testimony shine forth for all the world to see as evidence of her conduct, her integrity and her judgement. When all the testimony given, all the evidence has been presented, all the defenses made, when the judge's gavel bangs down, let the decision of our fellow Americans on that jury be read out. Let American jurors decide, just like the voters decided this past election.

Pardon Hilary, no. In four years or eight, or maybe more; after all these trials and verdicts, let the next President decide whether to be a corrupt establishment politician and issue a pardon or whether to lock her charge her for the alleged crimes and have her face a trial by jury - just like any other American.

Mark Logan

Fred,

I like to think the reason the very first thing Trump did when he won the election was to publicly praise Clinton is due to an awareness that a foundation build on the sand of hatred for the other person is one that is sure to fail in time...and the witch is dead.

The FBI has decided there is no crime which they could detect which is worth prosecuting. What appears to me, based on Comey's rather convoluted statements, is their investigation determined her procedures were never a secret to anybody and certainly never a secret to anybody in the government and that she made no attempt to conceal them from anyone. The lack of precedence for prosecuting people for openly doing something they believed to be legal which everyone around them also believed were legal is also cited. There would also be the matter of prosecuting everyone who sent classified stuff to a non-.gov address, I suppose, but that last bit is only a guess by me.

If we are going to judge Trump corrupt for not prosecuting Hillary then we have decided that the holder of that office shall be the sole determiner of what is and is not prosecutable, a corruption in itself.

LondonBob

I hope justice is done, would be a fascinating trial. Perhaps the antics of recent weeks have encouraged Trump to press on. Hilary could play the role of Admiral Byng "pour encourager les autres" in DC, setting the necessary tone needed to drain the swamp.

different clue

Mark Logan,

Is that what I should understand Comey to have been saying? I had thought he was saying " forget it, Jake. Its Clintontown."

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

April 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    
Blog powered by Typepad