"Who's the crook now", as between H .Clinton and N
Post# of 65629
Posted On: 03/26/2016 5:39:23 PM
"Who's the crook now", as between H .Clinton and Nixon?
I'm going to go with Tricky Dick, forced from office because there was not enough political support in Congress for him to avoid conviction and removal based upon one or all 3 Articles of Impeachment.
Thats the equivalent of an indictment, and what would have certainly been trial and conviction
So Hillary is 3 steps short of Nixonian levels of crime.
Now I get that the Hillary Derangement Syndrome whackos are either ignorant of American jurisprudence, or simply not big fans of the protections afforded by it when applied to Dems.
But to that I reply, tough sh*t!
Exactly none of the following is 'opinion':
The following IS 'opinion', that of a member of the Bar. And this is an example of why some opinions are sounder, better INFORMED than are some other opinions.
I'm going to go with Tricky Dick, forced from office because there was not enough political support in Congress for him to avoid conviction and removal based upon one or all 3 Articles of Impeachment.
Thats the equivalent of an indictment, and what would have certainly been trial and conviction
So Hillary is 3 steps short of Nixonian levels of crime.
Now I get that the Hillary Derangement Syndrome whackos are either ignorant of American jurisprudence, or simply not big fans of the protections afforded by it when applied to Dems.
But to that I reply, tough sh*t!
Exactly none of the following is 'opinion':
Quote:
This is the full text of the Articles of Impeachment adopted by House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974.
watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment
The following IS 'opinion', that of a member of the Bar. And this is an example of why some opinions are sounder, better INFORMED than are some other opinions.
Quote:
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/no-hillary-di...w-today/2/
Quote:
Conclusion
To be clear, none of this means Clinton won’t be charged. There may be a trove of non-public evidence against her about which we simply do not know. It’s also possible that the FBI recommends charges and federal prosecutors decide not to move forward as occurs in many cases. No question, that could create an explosive and politicized showdown.
But based on what we do know from what has been made public, there doesn’t seem to be a legitimate basis for any sort of criminal charge against her. I fear many commentators are allowing their analysis to become clouded by a long standing distrust, or even hatred of Hillary Clinton.
In fact, I recently expressed my view of this investigation to a friend who retorted “I didn’t know you are a Hillary guy?” I guess there is almost no way to analyze this case without being accused of partisanship but then please also mischaracterize me in this context as a Dennis Hastert guy, a George Zimmerman guy, a Brendan Dassey guy, a gun control guy and an anti-Obama guy (just to name a few).
Hillary bashing is good clean political sport but a federal criminal indictment is serious business, saved for serious crimes and hopefully based on serious evidence, which as of yet, has not materialized.
(3)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼