the first refuge of the intellectually dishonest is to try and change the subject.
you have not shown a single reason Mrs. Clinton could not have been prosecuted.
You have expressed your opinion that since no one else other than the broker was prosecuted, and your opinion that since you dont have a written order from Hillary directing the fraud, that she could not be. This is simply not true.
As I pointed out for you three times, it is quite common to prosecute fraud and bribery crimes by indirect evidence, which is in ABUNDANCE in the cattle futures case.
Go ahead, ignore the obvious and repeat yourself again.
Come on, step up to the plate, post each and every case, since there are many of them,*snicker* that will prove what you have been claiming. Is that asking too much of you, to post some facts for a change?
Even when I wrote as simply as I could, it was still over your head.
What I posted is not true? It is not accurate, factual, nor true? Then prove it, prove it with citations.
You just keep repeating the same thing, word for word, while claiming that it's true and yet, that is what you accuse me of doing, even though I posted specifics, which at the beginning of this, you didn't know. LOL