.

(no message)

Trump is just washing his hands of it because it would look bad if the President seemed like a sore winner and went after her.

He'll appoint the right people and she'll go down in flames.

What would you rather Trump spend his already severely limited political capital on?

Immigration enforcement, repealing ObamaCare, getting a new Scalia type nominee confirmed and enacting reasonable foreign policy?

Or....

Actually spending it all to go after the Clintons and get a conviction that while it would feel fricking amazing it would completely overshadow what really needs to be done to secure the future of this country and it would embolden democrats to go after the bully pulpit?

There is a lot of wishful thinking in this thread. HRC won't be personally prosecuted and it's the right decision. First, it simply looks bad and sets a bad precedent of prosecuting a political opponent. Second, Trump, in order to be successful, needs to look forward and focus on the people that elected him. Putting Hillary in jail doesn't help any of us in the least bit. I'd rather him focus on fixing immigration, health care, and bringing jobs back then be distracted by the absolute circuit a hillary prosecution would be. Third, on a personal level, I don't watch to watch the news on HRC for the next x amount of years while it's going on. I've had enough HRC new coverage over the last year.

Trump doesn't get to decide which laws are obeyed.

If Trump can't appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Clinton's then he will lose my support because unlike you, I'm not a liberal RINO and a fake conservative.

quote:

---

If Trump can't appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Clinton's then he will lose my support because unlike you, I'm not a liberal RINO and a fake conservative.

---

Trump would not appoint a special prosecutor any way. That is up to the AG I believe. The Special Prosecutor law has been allowed to lapse any way. Iran/Contra, Whitewater - those types of investigations as such, are no more.

"The term is sometimes used as a synonym for independent counsel, but under the former law authorizing the independent counsel, the appointment was made by a special panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Ethics in Government Act expired in 1999, and was effectively replaced by Department of Justice regulation 28 CFR Part 600, under which Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to look into the Plame affair." - wiki

"The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is a United States federal law that was passed in the wake of the Nixon Watergate scandal and the Saturday Night Massacre. It created mandatory, public disclosure of financial and employment history of public officials and their immediate family. It also created restrictions on lobbying efforts by public officials for a set period after leaving public office. Last, it created the U.S. Office of Independent Counsel, tasked with investigating government officials."

Ethics in Government Act

quote:

---

Looks like Trump said he wanted to move on and doesn't want to "hurt the clintons"

---

Sourced to the NYT and CNN.
. . . and FTR, they said "he wanted to move forward", not that "he wanted to move on". There is a big difference.

quote:

---

Trump is just washing his hands of it because it would look bad if the President seemed like a sore winner and went after her.

He'll appoint the right people and she'll go down in flames.

---

This - the POTUS doesn't need to be directing who is or is not being investigate. Appoint people who will do the right thing. I think Sessions is that man.

IF Sessions does not pursue them, then I will be convinced there is really nothing there - from a criminal standpoint anyway. It would really be ironic if the CLinonts went down for something the was NOT illegal - sweet irony. .