Judge orders Clinton Foundation racketeering case to trial

Washington Examiner ^ | 5-29-2015 | Sarah Westwood

[Tucker39]

Definitely GUILTY!

[Tucker39]

You’re giving scum sucking swine a bad name.
Just sayin’.

[Cboldt]

Nothing more than more legal maneuvering, then the judge will dismiss the case for cause. Then the Clinton's will claim that the issue was reviewed and all their actions found perfectly legal.

Waste of resources to go after somebody in the privileged class, beyond providing an opportunity to mislead the public about the integrity of the justice process.

[Cboldt]

-- Are felons eligible for POTUS? --

Yes, absolutely.

[Cboldt]

-- Why set a trial date? --

To keep up the appearance that the law applies to everybody.

[smoothsailing]

Your posts were very informative, thank you.

I hope Judge Middlebrooks will not be influenced by being a Clinton appointee, but will be guided only by the facts and the law.

[T Ruth]

Even with such a protocol, can a judge decline to schedule by refusing to accept or hear the case?

So long as the Constitutional and statutory standards for jurisdiction are met, the District Court cannot refuse the case.

Doesn’t the Supreme Court do that?

The Supreme Court's mandatory jurisdiction is very limited. Most of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is discretionary. So it can refuse a discretionary case if it wants to.

[The_Media_never_lie]

Why not criminal charges?

[smoothsailing]

Thanks again, your replies have been most helpful! :)

[unixfox]

Hope the judge has really good protection.

He could wind up having an “accident”