Why would I not expect the full extent of the law to be implemented here?
The full extent of the law, addresses the infractions that were committed, and the legal fines and or sentences that were prescribed if someone were convicted of them.
There would be no need for me to address capital punishment, because capital punishment is not one of the penalties for what Clinton did.
I doubt seriously it’s prescribed by anything Obama did.
Giving arms and funding to terrorists, should be illegal. Them then toppling an ally’s government, and the arms being used to kill our ambassador and his staff should be cause for concern and possible criminal infractions. If not, fine.
If Obama can be found to have broken the law, and I’m pretty sure I’ve read of things that certainly pointed me in that direction, then I want him brought up on charges and convicted.
For starters, I do not think he is a citizen. I think he defrauded the United States and it’s citizens.
Some federal law enforcement agency should review his college records and find out if he filed as a foreign student to get financial aid. They should review if he ever renounced his citizenship to attend school in Malaysia.
Other things should be looked at.
Clinton is exposed. We know of things she did. She needs to be brought up on charges. She knowingly mishandled top secret classified information, and it’s known that foreign powers gained access to it as a result.
I’m not sure how you could have read what I wrote to you on this thread, and not come up with these concepts.
“I’m not sure how you could have read what I wrote to you on this thread, and not come up with these concepts.”
All I know is that this last post of yours is filled with facts snd specifics examples, and I find it much easier to understand where you are coming from, and respond with follow up questions, etc..
If you and I ever debate something again, I hope we start out with a post like this last one.
Regarding the subject at hand, I think your approach to investigating corruption and criminality would be fine for Trump’s AG and DOJ to pursue.
If I understand it correctly, you seem to be saying all activities should be looked at on their surface to see whether crimes may have been committed. If so, follow the evidence wherever it leads, but only according to due process. Nobody should be above the law. The punishment should fit the crime. All good axioms.
Some things that come to mind that I think Trump should avoid:
Targeting the political opposition. Investigating a target and looking for a crime. This is what Mueller and whoever he is working for are doing to Trump and Trump associates. He’s not starting with a crime and following evidence, he’s not using due process - he’s on an endless political witch hunt - targeting a suspect and looking for a crime - and he won’t stop until he finds one.
What Mueller is doing is wrong. It would be tempting to retaliate - Trump should avoid retaliation and make sure his underlings avoid it. Retaliation is by definition targeting. Instead, identify potential crimes and follow the evidence wherever it leads. Do not pick suspected targets and look for crimes. That’s backwards.
In a sense, a lot of conversations about this on FR start off on the wrong foot. We have our list of targets (basically the entire Obama administration. This gives the appearance of targeting suspects and looking for a crime - this is wrong.
The correct way to go about it in my opinion is to go back for example to the point where the investigation into HRC improper use of email case got dropped and if it got prematurely dropped, then pick it up again - follow the evidence - not HRC. If it leads to HRC or somebody else or leads nowhere, then so be it.
I think it is extremely important that the American people see the Justice system operate fairly and impartially under Donald Trump, especially after Obama administration abused it.
Trump and his supporters have to do some real soul searching and ask ourselves whether our motive is true Justice, or revenge for what the Left has done to us. If our motives are pure, that will come through and the American people will respect and support it.
I don’t know about you, but sometimes my motives are impure. Sometimes I’m just angry and want to see some top Lefties’ heads on pikes. We shouldn’t act like a lynch mob and Trump shouldn’t endorse or lead any kind of lynch mob.
I notice whenever the crowds start chanting “lock her up” at rallies, Trump never joins in. He joins in with “build the wall”, “drill baby drill” and “USA “ but never “lock her up” - this is because he realizes it’s the wrong approach to justice. It’s exactly backwards. You investigate a crime and follow the evidence to find a suspect, not the other way around.
Anyway, if it’s done with pure motives and impartially, I think it’s a good idea for Trump to pursue justice wherever the evidence leads, and I think he will.
I think that this won’t be enough for some of the more zealous supporters - they’ll always want more indictments, stiffer punishments and they’ll be looking to “even the score”. I hope Trump continues to ignore this faction.