when asked whether we've been given a monarchy or a republic...
Posted on 07/05/2016 1:30:55 PM PDT by richardb72
Hillary Clinton likely dodged criminal charges Tuesday for a simple reason: the bar for bringing criminal charges against a politician, particularly a high public official, is so much higher than they are for anyone else. Prosecutions against such high public officials only go forward when there is “definitive” evidence. Evidence that prosecutors know will lead to a certain conviction.
Why do I say that? Because earlier in my career I was chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission. I worked frequently with prosecutors. The reputational loss public officials face from criminal charges can be so great that prosecutors feel that they need to be sure of a conviction before going forward. For someone running for president, such as Hillary, that loss of reputation would be tremendous. -- It isn’t as if she will be able to pick right back up where she is now in the 2020 presidential race.
So much of debate during this election has been over a different standard applying to the Clintons. FBI Director James Comey’s decision Tuesday didn’t treat Hillary differently from other high public officials, but he clearly treated her differently from other Americans.
But politicians aren’t unique. CEOs of major companies or public figures in other areas also face loss of careers simply by being charged. Possibly, prosecutors are simply more sensitive to politicians because they work for them. Politicians also have a lot of political connections. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Surely someone in this rats' nest of corruption is chargeable with violations of mishandling secure information.
Comey had a very easy decision. Be set for life or face the end of his life.
Obviously false.
Wasn't David Petraeus a high public official when he was charged?
“Hillary may not have been treated differently than other high public officials, but when has such a high level public official ever previously faced such “gross negligence” in handling America’s most important security secrets?
Answer: Never.”
~~~~~~~~~~~
“Answer: Never.”
...AND Hillary and her criminal cohorts and defense team knew that from the beginning.
You mean like Scooter Libby, or Petraus?
Ilse Koch was thrown in prison for far less than Hillary Clinton.
Clinton is the new Bitch of Buchenwald and deserves the same fate as Ilse Koch.
Bravo Sierra. The bar is only unobtanium when a RAT is involved. Just ask Ray Donavon, Labor Secretary under Ronald Reagan. After exonerated of all charges asked, where he can go to get his reputation back.
I agree with you.
Time for Vlad Putin and Wikileaks to dump / dribble documents.
I seem to remember a lot of high-minded blather from the press, Hollywood and other elites back in 1974 about someone named Richard Nixon who had been elected less than two years earlier with 49 states and 61 percent of the vote: “No man is above the law”; “National security is the last bastion of the scoundrel”; “Equal Justice under Law means the President, too”. I remember them howling for years about the 18.5 minute gap in the tapes (20,000 missing emails, anyone?) and what a brave man Alexander Butterfield of the FBI was for disclosing the taping system at the WH. Now we see the FBI is just as slimy as the press which is cooing about how Madame beat the system for the nth time. Times sure have changed, haven’t they?
Or by being on the wrong side of homosexual (and other favored group issues).
It all depends on what the meaning of IS IS.
when asked whether we've been given a monarchy or a republic...
Not just her, but the whole Leftosphere.
Read about it on the various left-sites: HuffPo, DU, Slate, Kos, ABC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC/NBC, WashPo/LAtimes/NYT...
They’re all in your face and high-fiving. They know she’s a crook, but she’s a democrat, a Clinton and a liberal so the ends justifies the means.
We must all vote for Trump and do not allow her to win.
That’s all there is to it.
So the author is saying we are no longer a nation of laws?
Seems so to me.
I’m hoping the local constabulary will buy my excuse...*But, but officer I didn’t intend not to wear my seatbelt. I’m sorry. I didn’t intend to not buckle it. K?*
Just where is wikileaks when you need them?
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that “intent” has little to do with lawbreaking. The next time I am stopped for a speeding ticket I will simply say, “I didn’t intend to be speeding.” It also appears to me that the law, any law, that is broken through ignorance, or gross negligence, must be prosecuted, if we are to have a rule of law. This is a flimsy excuse for acquittal.
“Hillary Clinton likely dodged criminal charges Tuesday for a simple reason: the bar for bringing criminal charges against a politician, particularly a high public official, is so much higher than they are for anyone else. Prosecutions against such high public officials only go forward when there is “definitive” evidence. Evidence that prosecutors know will lead to a certain conviction”
I’ll take who is Scooter Libby for 100 Alex.
That one reason? A sitting president would be subpoenaed to testify against a party nominee running for president.
Clinton sent Obama emails from that account.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.