Appointing a Special Prosecutor to Charge Hillary does NOT Violate Due Process

a reply to: introvert

Why are you trying so hard to derail the topic and turn it into your strawman claims or interpretations of comments I made on other threads?

If you want to argue those views, by all means respond in that thread and we can discuss it there where it's on topic.

You know the rules. Enough games.

If Trump does win, I hope he challenges the grants of immunity in court. I think there is an excellent argument to be made that they should be considered null & void, because they were made as part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Is anyone seriously going to argue that the government should have unlimited power to break the law, and then use immunity grants to escape justice? Even if Obama pardons everyone, the same logic applies: Why should a pardon be considered absolute & unreviewable, particularly when there is a long track record (by both major parties) of pardons being used as a means for officials to commit crimes with impunity?

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: introvert

Why are you trying so hard to derail the topic and turn it into your strawman claims or interpretations of comments I made on other threads?

If you want to argue those views, by all means respond in that thread and we can discuss it there where it's on topic.

You know the rules. Enough games.

Just so that I can get a better footing on your leanings and the direction you wish to this see move forward.
1) Are you a Trump supporter?
2) Do you feel the same applies to police officers who have been involved in situations that have caused them to end a life?

Currently based on your last few comments on this thread you seem high agitated, defensive and triggered and i'd like to be able to approach your intention with a light a hand as possible. That way we can return to a more parallel debate.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: introvert

You know the rules. Enough games.

Did lots of people say what you claim, or did you just make it up?

If not, the premise of the OP is itself a strawman. You are trying to argue against a claim that was never made.

And a new investigation would do what? The FBI already investigated. Congress has already investigated. Countless attorneys have investigated going back twenty five years. WTF do you think would come of yet another? Unless Trump manufactures false evidence which he most certainly is capable of ordering.

But it's a moot point since that trumpster fire is out of control and out of this race.

Newest polls give PA and FL to Clinton. His path is narrower than a tight rope now. If it's even possible at all.

originally posted by: MagicCow
a reply to: muzzleflash

Personal attack, really?
I was being friendly and commenting on your comment.
Be accountable for your comments and do not attempt to deflect with baseless accusations.

My sensitivity is off topic.
My relaxation habits are off topic.
My messiahs or gurus are off topic.

Muzzleflash is not the topic here!

You said originally:

LOL LOL LOL Sensitive much? Relax man he's not attacking your messiah.

My accusations that you are trying to DERAIL this topic with personal attacks is based on reality.

You're being disingenuous and disrespectful.

originally posted by: MagicCow

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: introvert

Why are you trying so hard to derail the topic and turn it into your strawman claims or interpretations of comments I made on other threads?

If you want to argue those views, by all means respond in that thread and we can discuss it there where it's on topic.

You know the rules. Enough games.

Just so that I can get a better footing on your leanings and the direction you wish to this see move forward.
1) Are you a Trump supporter?
2) Do you feel the same applies to police officers who have been involved in situations that have caused them to end a life?

Currently based on your last few comments on this thread you seem high agitated, defensive and triggered and i'd like to be able to approach your intention with a light a hand as possible. That way we can return to a more parallel debate.

Off topic.
Start your own thread to discuss who supports who.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Your answering of those questions will help me better understand your reason for this thread.
It will help me form my answer for you.
I just want to make sure you're not being hypocritical and disingenuous which I currently believe you are.
You're being disrespectful of my attempts to try to understand you by deflecting.
You're derailing your own thread being this abrasive.
Those tactics may prove star worthy on GLP or Breitbart but this is AboveTopSecret.
I am sorry I have triggered you when all I was trying to accomplish is answer your question.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: introvert

You know the rules. Enough games.

Did lots of people say what you claim, or did you just make it up?

If not, the premise of the OP is itself a strawman. You are trying to argue against a claim that was never made.

You are absolutely determined to derail this and I find it extremely disrespectful and immature.

I will repeat one last time for you:

Other threads are their own topics, you will not derail this one by attempting to drift it into other disputes about other topics.

a reply to: MagicCow

My reason for this thread is to educate people about how the legal process works.

You started in with insults. And you are still insulting the OP.

You haven't discussed the topic at all. You're just continually attacking the messenger. You aren't going to set me up.

You got nothing of substance to add.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
And a new investigation would do what?

I don't know the future well enough to say. I haven't had any visions or divined any fortunes about it.

It would be valid legally to investigate any allegations of criminal activity at any time though. Better safe than sorry.

What's the point of the Law anyway?

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: introvert

You know the rules. Enough games.

Did lots of people say what you claim, or did you just make it up?

If not, the premise of the OP is itself a strawman. You are trying to argue against a claim that was never made.

You are absolutely determined to derail this and I find it extremely disrespectful and immature.

I will repeat one last time for you:

Other threads are their own topics, you will not derail this one by attempting to drift it into other disputes about other topics.

I'll ask again, one more time. Prove your following claim:

I see a lot of people claiming prosecuting Hillary for a crime would violate Due Process, and this is completely untrue.

Whom has said that?

Hilliary for Prison 2016!2nd.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: MagicCow

My reason for this thread is to educate people about how the legal process works.

You started in with insults. And you are still insulting the OP.

You haven't discussed the topic at all. You're just continually attacking the messenger. You aren't going to set me up.

You got nothing of substance to add.

No one is insulting you MUZZLEFLASH. Calm down.
So, you want Hillary investigated again - right?
That's the gist of this thread, isn't it?
I have no interest in attacking you but if you feel that way we
can talk about it if it will make you feel better.
This is a community and everyone's feelings count.

Do you believe Hillary should be in jail?

I'll be back later.

ATS please speak up in my absence and prevent the bad guys from perpetuating their villainy.

Remember this is about Due Process rights, prosecutorial discretionary powers, how no one's above the Law, etc. Stay on topic...

Thanks!

a reply to: introvert

Politico is throwing a fit

GOP ex-prosecutors slam Trump over threat to 'jail' Clinton

And they're muddying the issue.


They've introduced, or are helping to foster, the 'fractured GOP,' angle.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Throwing a fit? How do you come to that conclusion? They simply wrote a piece discussing the opinions of former prosecuters and such. There are only two mentions of due process in it.

It’s absurd and, if it were serious, it would be absolutely terrifying because it suggests there’s no due process.

They also said some other interesting things.

Former Justice Department officials said the White House can properly direct prosecutors to focus on certain kinds of crimes, like environmental offenses, terrorism or obscenity, depending on the priorities of a specific president or his aides. But they said that it’s never appropriate for a president to direct Justice to investigate specific individuals.

Prosecutors said it would be a violation of legal ethics for an attorney general to accept such a direction, although they said it was less clear whether it would be outright illegal. “It would be, at the very least, unethical, and it may be a violation of law,” Charlton said. He also said anyone prosecuted in such a situation would have a strong argument that his or her constitutional rights to due process had been violated.

In regards to whether or not there is sufficient evidence to further investigate, recall the Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson both have limited immunity; I would imagine that Paul Combetta's immunity is also limited in scope.

The immunity grants to Mills and Samuelson were narrow, covering only their handover of laptops used in 2014, after Clinton left State, to conduct a review of the former secretary's emails to separate work-related messages from those purely personal in nature. The immunity came after the women were interviewed by the FBI and did not cover any of their statements. People familiar with the immunity offer said it was not related to the lawyers' testimony, noting that FBI Director James Comey said in July there was no evidence of a deletion aimed at frustrating the investigation.

Except for the fact that now we have the reddit posts of Paul Combetta in which he was instructed to alter records under congressional subpoena. That and the fact that Combetta lied to FBI agents in his interviews should render his immunit null and void.

A lawyer for Mills and Samuelson, Beth Wilkinson, said she requested the immunity grants because of inter-agency disputes about whether some information in Clinton's emails was classified.

As noted above, the immunity Mills and Samuelson received was limited, as a result all of the information obtained through Paul Combetta's reddit posts represents a separate line of inquiry from the laptops. Samuelson's immunity might still be in effect, but Mills' and Combetta's should now be scrapped.

Top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills granted partial immunity in email investigation

Mills and Combetta should be looking at conspiracy, interference, and obstruction at the very least.

If they were really bold, they'd be looking into RICO charges for a good number of people, but that might implicate a few too many in high places.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

They've introduced, or are helping to foster, the 'fractured GOP,' angle.

Who is doing that?

The Republican ex-prosecutors?

Politico?

Paul Ryan?

The 30% of sitting Republican senators who have unendorsed Trump?

We have a bigger problem though. You guys are missing it.

The question of course is, did Hillary commit a crime or not. We look to the Attorney General and the FBI to answer that question for us. If you still think she's guilty after they said no and you want a special prosecutor and all the rest, you're missing the point!

You should be calling for an investigation of the FBI and Attorney General's office. Isn't that where the problem is, then?