Video and Audio
See other Video and Audio Articles
Title: Trump will NOT pursue investigations into Hillary: 'If Donald Trump can help her heal, then perhaps that's a good thing'
Source:
Daily Mail Online
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... mp-help-heal-s-good-thing.html
Published: Nov 22, 2016
Author: Francesca Chambers, White House Correspo
Post Date: 2016-11-22 11:25:29 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 28827
Comments: 62
Donald Trump will not sic federal investigators on Hillary Clinton once he's in the White House. Kellyanne Conway, a senior official on the Republican's presidential campaign and now his transition team, told Morning Joe the president-elect has a lot on his mind and 'things that sound like the campaign aren't among them.' 'I think Hillary Clinton still has to face the fact that a majority of Americans don't find her to be honest or trustworthy, but if Donald Trump can help her heal, then perhaps that's a good thing,' Conway said. Trump threatened Clinton with jail time and promised to appoint a special prosecutor to look into her deleted emails. He likewise alleged that Clinton and her husband Bill used their charity for 'criminal enterprise.' 'Lock her up!' became a rallying cry for Trump supporters attending his events. The president-elect's inner circle had doubted publicly that Trump would follow through, and the incoming president said himself in a 60 Minutes interview that he doesn't want to 'hurt' Bill and Hillary. 'They're good people,' he said. Morning Joe hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough said Tuesday that the president-elect will not pursue charges against his former White House opponent for her emails or the pay-for-play schemes he accused her of on the campaign trail. A source with 'direct knowledge' of Trump's plans shared the information, Brzezinski said on the program early Tuesday am. Trump feels Clinton has been 'through enough,' the source told the program. Scarborough referenced Gerald Ford's pardoning of Richard Nixon at the beginning of his term for charges associated with Watergate and observed that Trump 'could say there are echos of 1974.' 'But at the same time I'm sure there's gonna be a lot of members of the Trump base that are gonna be angry that he did this,' he said. The MSNBC host said: 'You don't want to go into a new year chasing somebody out of public life....It's just not good for the country.' Clinton has rarely been seen in public since her electoral defeat two weeks ago. A hiker spotted the Democrat near her home, walking her dogs, in Chappaqua, New York. On Sunday bookseller posted a photograph of Clinton in Westerly, Rhode Island. Clinton was there with her husband, daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren, the woman said. Clinton delivered a speech last Wednesday in Washington, D.C. before the Children's Defense Fund, the first organization she worked at after college. Conway confirmed to Scarborough this morning, on air, that Trump would not add injury to insult and work to put Clinton behind bars. Republicans on Capitol Hill said they would spend 'years' investigating her after the election. 'I think they were looking toward a Clinton administration,' Brzezinski said Tuesday. Conway said she expects them to back down, too. 'I think when the president-elect, who's also the head of your party now, Joe, tells you before he's even inaugurated he doesn't wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content, to the members,' Conway told Scarborough. She indicated that Trump was changing tack because he has more pressing matters to deal with. 'I think he's thinking of many different things as he prepares to become the President of the United Stats and things that sound like the campaign aren't among them,' she stated. Rudy Giuliani, a vice chairman of Trump's transition, told reporters this morning as he exited Trump Tower, that he'd seen the news but had no additional information. If Trump did reach that conclusion, he said, 'I would be supportive of it. 'I’d also be supportive of continuing the investigation. I think the president-elect had a tough choice there - you could go either way,' Giuliani said. 'If he made the choice to unite the nation, I think all those people who didn’t vote against him, maybe, could take another look at him.' Giuliani said Tuesday, as he's said before, 'There’s a tradition in American politics that after you win an election, you sort of put things behind you. 'And if that’s the decision he reached, that’s perfectly consistent with sort of a historical pattern of things come up,' he stated today. 'You say a lot of things, even some bad things might happen, and then you can sort of put it behind you in order to unite the nation.'
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-22) not displayed.
.
.
.
#23. To: misterwhite (#18)
I agree wholeheartedly. I will be the first to admit that Trump is a very, very smart man. I know he is a chess player. I know he has not been sworn in yet, and all that. But if he disregards your statement, I think that is a huge mistake and he could come to regret making it. Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
She was tried in the court of public opinion, and she lost. So if people want to continue to expend political capital, making jokes of themselves, trying to defend her and her husband's reputations, let them! It only diminishes them generally.
You're going to be disappointed. Trump is not going to expend political capital going after the Clintons, unless they cross him.
Your statement may very well be accurate. But it is equally true that by letting them off the hook, he may lose a lot of political capital. Besides, if he lets them go, it will reinforce to the citizens that we do not have rule of law, that there is one set of laws for the elite, and another for the peons. That is not good. I am sure some ( maybe even you ) will say " Eff the peons, what are they going to do about it, ha ha ? " True, the peons can do nothing about it, just be pissed. Not exactly sowing seeds for good society! He really should have not let Kellyanne release that position to the public. I guess TPTB told him to lay off of her, or they would put airplanes into his tower ??? Many do not seem to care, so why should I ? To hell with it. Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
That wouldn't surprise me. I care. I'd like to see her brought to justice. But putting myself in Trump's shoes, if I were him I would not pursue it. Some people will be really upset. But if he does his signature issues: wall, deportations, jobs, peace with Russia, crush ISIS, the Clintons will be small beer, and nobody will refuse to vote for his re-election in four years because he didn't prosecute them. He didn't come out swinging on prosecution. When they attacked him, he said she should be in jail, and sent an icy blast of fear through the other camp once it was clear he was going to win. I'm not going to care too much if he doesn't bear down on the Clintons, as long as he gets the Wall up and the jobs flowing.
I will agree with that, to a point. Immigration, trade/jobs, crush ISIS, & peace with Russia are very important. But, there is a strong feeling amongst the nation that there is one law for the elite, and another for us peons. That is not a good poison to be flowing through the citizenry. We have already had that for some time. That poison has to be eradicated to have a healthy society. As a lawyer, and of French decent, I would think you would agree with that. If after taking office, Trumps AG lets the Clintons off, I suspect a number ( lg or small ) of his present supporters will lose trust in him. That would be him losing political capital. None of us can predict the future, but sometime in the future he may need that capital. Also, one has to wonder, what is he going to cave on next? Muslims, immigration, the wall, trade, etc, etc ? And, what will be the excuse then ? If the statement released by Kelly Anne is true, one must wonder WHY ? Why would he back up on this? Has he been threatened? I do not know. We are all supposed to be equal under the law. If the Clinton's skate, then that phrase is BS, and everyone will know it. Not exactly a building block to "Make America Great Again". But like I said previously, many apparently do not care. So, why should I ? I can only say that at my age, I guess it does not really matter. But I love my country, and am concerned about its future, and the country my children will inherit, and have to live in. Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Me neither. Although we will never be told. To some, it may sound like outlandish woo woo, but I can see it happening. Let people laugh if they want. Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
If I were standing in Trump's shoes - given how many people have so openly expressed their hatred for him, given the relentless efforts of the political opposition to find charges to trump up against him, given the threats to his life that he has had to endure just to campaign, I would see very clearly that running for the highest office exposes a man, or woman, to the most intense passions of hatred in the country. I would see that partisans are by their nature fundamentally unjust people, content to seek whatever advantage they can. I would see why it is that good people don't run for office: their lives, their fortunes, their liberties, are all put into the hazard. If I were Trump I would see that I myself was probably the only billionaire in the country with the balls and the thick hide to put up with everything it took to win. And I would realize that establishing a precedent of "victor's justice" against the Presidential opponent in a hard fought race would be essentially unleashing a never-ending series of retaliations that would render the presidency a violent gutter fight. I would know the truth: nobody achieves great things without having broken some laws, even if unintentionally. I would recognize that the lawbooks are written to be able to charge virtually every American with several felonies, and that a billionaire spends tens of millions of dollars every year to get legal advice - because nobody even knows what the law IS at any given time. If I were Trump, I would recognize that yeah, being in the Presidential ring is completely unlike any other competition around, that Presidents and candidates ARE different: people want to KILL them, and a whole department of government has to try to keep them alive. And given that every adult in America is a felon many times over, establishing the precedent of "victor's justice" would simply mean that once I Trump myself were out of office, the Democrats who hate me would come after me. If I were Trump I would recognize that the problem is that there is too much law and regulation in America, criminalizing everything, and I would set about doing what I said in the campaign: wipe out laws and regulations, simplify things so that people are not running afoul of the law all the time. And, to prevent retaliation back and forth, with former Presidents and presidential candidates being systematically broken and sent to jail, I would not pursue my opponent directly. I would let the POSSIBILITY hang there, as a deterrent to FURTHER bad behavior on the Clinton's part, most notably to prevent the Clintons from actively and aggressively opposing me. But I would be very chary about going for the jugular, because I would know that I could also be prosecuted by an overzealous prosecutor. I would not set the precedent. I'd let the FBI continue their investigation, and I would not interfere. But if the time came that they were going to prosecute, I'd offer the Clintons a pardon in exchange for an admission of wrongdoing.
I thought the FBI concluded its investigation thanks to FBI Director James Comey. This administration moved way too fast to prosecute Hillary. They should have waited till Trump won the election and then proceed with going after her. For them to re-open this matter would probably fall under double jeopardy violations.
I thought the FBI concluded its investigation thanks to FBI Director James Comey. This administration moved way too fast to prosecute Hillary. They should have waited till Trump won the election and then proceed with going after her. For them to re-open this matter would probably fall under double jeopardy violations. I agree. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I am not a lawyer, but I would think not. I would think big difference between being investigated vs being charged. Maybe some of the lawyers on the board could advise. Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Double jeopardy applies to adjudicated cases, not investigations.
So if the FBI finds wrongdoing in the Clinton Foundation, Trump is going to tell them to drop it?
No, I expect he will let it proceed. But I don't think he's going to call for a special prosecutor.
That not being reported. Just the opposite: "Morning Joe hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough said Tuesday that the president-elect will not pursue charges against his former White House opponent for her emails or the pay-for-play schemes he accused her of on the campaign trail."
It was my understanding concerning Hillary and the FBI investigating her and her going through those Congressional hearings was that she was already being charged and that the allegations or findings made against her had now become the burden for her to prove they were wrong. And of course we all know she lied under oath and that Comey backed her up. The problem is that the Director elected to drop the case against her. So how is it now possible for this matter to be re-opened again when she already went through the Congressional hearings in 2013 and now the recent emailgate scandal? I know what double jeopardy means and it seems to me that Hillary was already charged but that the FBI chose not to proceed with prosecuting her. They know she is guilty. The problem with all this is that the House of Representatives should have called a meeting to halt her candidacy for presidency while she was undergoing these hearings and investigations. The fact that this election was allowed to proceed with her in it all the while the FBI drops the investigation, proves that everybody involved in this election (including Trump) played a role in seeing that she got off free.
Yep, I'm with you on this one. This stinks.
The FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation. Since she has not been charged in the email scandal, that investigation can always be reopened.
What role does the President have in law enforcement investigation or justice department prosecution? None. He will not actively pursue charges, call for a special prosecutor or otherwise exceptionally interfere in a criminal investigative process in which the President has no role at all under anything but highly politicized Obama-like or Clinton-like circumstances. Trump's not a Democrat. He's not going to gin up a political prosecution. He's not going to pressure law enforcement to find guilt and press charges. He's going to let the professionals do their job and, if charges are brought in the normal course of business, over time, in the future, he'll assess then whether or not a pardon is in order. Pardons are by their very nature political. They are political calculations. The Clintons still have vast wealth and a network of loyal Democrats, including governors and members of Congress. If Trump interferes in normal police work, he will be acting in an extraordinary way. All that Trump has really said, if you think about it, is that he's NOT going to politically intervene in law enforcement by pursuing charges. The President normally has nothing to do with pursuing charges. He isn't going to call a special prosecutor. Ok. He didn't say that he's going to stop the FBI from investigating, or the Attorney General from bringing charges in the ordinary course. All he said was that HE is not going to pursue charges. Remember: everything is reported by members of a media that univocally hates Trump, and hates you, and hates me. They are trying to divide us, trying to pretend that Trump is "breaking promises" and "flip-flopping". He isn't.
She was never charged, only investigated. They can reopen investigations whenever they like. There is no double jeopardy here. The House of Representatives has no power to halt elections.
If she was never charged, then there were allegations made which Comey decided had no merit to pursue. If the Director decided there was no merit to pursue the allegations, then the case was closed meaning they cannot re-open this matter. If the House of Representatives has no power to halt elections such as under these circumstances, then who does?
If the House of Representatives has no power to halt elections such as under these circumstances, then who does? Investigation was done to determine whether or not charges would be filed. Nobody. Nobody in our system has the power to halt elections. Elections can't be halted. Force majeur might cause them to not happen, but there is no body that can rule that there won't be elections.
Well apparently, the investigation was halted by Comey. There was no determination of wrongdoing.
Art. 2, Sec. 1, Cl. 4: The date is set by Federal Statute, not the Constitution. A uniform date to choose electors was not even set until 1845. §1. Time of appointing electors The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President. (June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 672.) Why can't Congress move the date to the second Tuesday next after the first Monday in November? Congress seems to have the power to change the date at will. If they pass a revision a day before the scheduled election day, the day is moved.
If Congress has the power to appoint electors in an election, why can't they halt elections when one of the candidates is under investigation? The statutes you referenced seem to apply towards the electoral college. Am I right about this?
Congress does not appoint the electors, they set the date (election day) that the people select the electors (to the electoral college). As I see it, just as a matter of power, Congress can change the date when they please, no reason required. The statute set the date when the people go to the polls. Moving the date back might confront complications such as the electoral college must vote, and the vote must be certified, before the inauguration. If the Congress has the full power to set the day, they should have the power to change it.
Who are "the people", that you are referring to, that select the electors? If you are referring to the John Q. Public, I don't believe that at all.
"Select" may have two meanings. (Prospective) Electors (delegates) may be selected by means that vary by state to stand for one candidate. By their vote, the people select, choose, or vote for which of the prospective electors becomes an actual elector for the electoral college. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States) - - - - - - - - - - The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors. That is election day, the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. On election day, we vote for an elector, a delegate to the Electoral College. A vote for Trump would actually be a vote for the delegate pledged to Trump. Only the electors actually vote for the presidential candidate. This refers to the day on which the delegates will give their votes; the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The day the delegates to the Electoral College (electors) give their vote shall be the same throughout the U.S.
Perhaps they can move it around a little bit - if the Supreme Court doesn't decide that it is, thereby, preventing elections. Elections have to be had on the Constitutional schedule. So, could Congress move the election by a few weeks? Sure, I suppose. Could it CANCEL them and not hold them until the third, or fourth years (for Congress), of the fifth of sixth year, for President? If it did it and the federal courts didn't stop it, maybe. Or maybe that would provoke a revolution.
I've never spent five minutes thinking about it before, but it is an interesting theoretical situation. The 20th Amendment moved inauguration day to January 20th, and provides in Section 3: If they delayed the election to a point where the Electoral College had not voted before Inauguration Day, Congress is empowered to declare who shall act as President until someone is elected.
I think the logical disconnect there is that the Constitution doesn't assume that Congress ITSELF is the reason that the President is not seated. I do not speak here of an impasse in the House in choosing a President after a divided electorate chooses no-one, but rather, the situation offered: that Congress itself postpones the election, and then uses that postponement as the basis to effectively cancel the election by choosing the President. If they did that piece of manipulation, I would expect the Supreme Court to step in and overrule it as unconstitutional, but I would expect the people to explode with rage first, at such an obvious and ham-handed effort to overthrow the constitutional order. I suppose the crisis that precipitated such an act would already have the country on the brink of civil war, so I suppose the Constitution would already be basically broken, a bit like 1861.
Well something like this did happen in 2000 where the election wound up going to the Supreme Court. Remember the case of Bush vs. Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000)?
Yes, but that was different. The election was held, and a determinative state result was in dispute. It was wrangled out in court, and resolved before Inauguration Day. In the scenario posited, Congress moves the election date so that it's after the date of the Electoral College meeting, thereby preventing an Electoral College vote. And so the Congress then declares that the issue must move to Congress, which then picks the President. It'd be brazen. If they were so willing to flout the obvious intent of the laws, it would be because they figured they had the support to essentially effect a coup. Done under present circumstances, the Court would strike it down. if the court didn't, the country would dissolve in endless protests and Congress would be overthrown of have to back down.
This is a great post and something to ponder on.
He can't dictate an end to Congressional investigations. If the committees in Congress ask for a special prosecutor would President Trump refuse ? Investigations into the Clinton crime family racketeering and corruption should not end even if Trump says he has no interest in pursuing the DOS email issues . The two cases are linked however . Her private account was an instrument in the family pay for play scheme.
If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 21)
I don't believe he can initiate them either. But he can ask his head of DOJ as to why there is no investigation. And if he doesn't like he answer, he can find someone else to head up DOJ.
That's because Comey is a crooked cop, under the thumb of Odumbass and the democRats. I signed the same paperwork as Hillary Milhaus Felon and she admitted to multiple felonies on live TV; I'd still be in prison for what we KNOW she's done. The greedy, corrupt, smelly old 'Rat bitch deserves a decade in Federal prison for what she's done. And this doesn't even count her Clinton Crime Family Foundation Slushfund crimes and scams.
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48832
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48850
" I think it's a pretty big issue with us peons to see that there is no legal double standard. "
#24. To: Hank Rearden (#15)
If her crimes aren't investigated and documented, we'll NEVER hear the end of the "She's never even been charged, much less convicted" bullshit trying to deflect from the evil bitch.
#25. To: Stoner (#22)
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
" You're going to be disappointed. Trump is not going to expend political capital going after the Clintons, unless they cross him. "
#27. To: Stoner (#26)
I guess TPTB told him to lay off of her, or they would put airplanes into his tower ???
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#28. To: Stoner (#26)
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
" if he does his signature issues: wall, deportations, jobs, peace with Russia, crush ISIS, the Clintons will be small beer, and "
#30. To: Deckard (#27)
" That wouldn't surprise me. "
#31. To: Stoner (#29)
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
(Edited)
#33. To: goldilucky (#32)
#34. To: goldilucky (#32)
" For them to re-open this matter would probably fall under double jeopardy violations. "
#35. To: goldilucky (#32)
For them to re-open this matter would probably fall under double jeopardy violations.
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
"She was tried in the court of public opinion, and she lost."
#37. To: misterwhite (#36)
So if the FBI finds wrongdoing in the Clinton Foundation, Trump is going to tell them to drop it?
#38. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
"No, I expect he will let it proceed."
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#35)
#40. To: GrandIsland (#33)
#41. To: goldilucky (#39)
#42. To: misterwhite (#38)
the president-elect will not pursue charges against his former White House opponent for her emails or the pay-for-play schemes he accused her of on the campaign trail."
#43. To: goldilucky (#39)
(Edited)
I know what double jeopardy means and it seems to me that Hillary was already charged
#44. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
She was never charged, only investigated. They can reopen investigations whenever they like. There is no double jeopardy here.
#45. To: goldilucky (#44)
If she was never charged, then there were allegations made which Comey decided had no merit to pursue. If the Director decided there was no merit to pursue the allegations, then the case was closed meaning they cannot re-open this matter.
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
#47. To: Vicomte13, goldilucky (#45)
Nobody. Nobody in our system has the power to halt elections. Elections can't be halted.
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
3 U.S.C. § 1 (2014)
#48. To: nolu chan (#47)
(Edited)
#49. To: goldilucky (#48)
If Congress has the power to appoint electors in an election
#50. To: nolu chan (#49)
#51. To: goldilucky (#50)
Who are "the people", that you are referring to, that select the electors? If you are referring to the John Q. Public, I don't believe that at all.
Citizens of the United States vote in each state at a general election to choose a slate of "electors" pledged to vote for a party's candidate.
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
and the day on which they shall give their votes;
which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
#52. To: nolu chan (#47)
Why can't Congress move the date to the second Tuesday next after the first Monday in November? Congress seems to have the power to change the date at will. If they pass a revision a day before the scheduled election day, the day is moved.
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#52)
Perhaps they can move it around a little bit - if the Supreme Court doesn't decide that it is, thereby, preventing elections.
If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
#54. To: nolu chan (#53)
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#54)
If they did that piece of manipulation, I would expect the Supreme Court to step in and overrule it as unconstitutional, but I would expect the people to explode with rage first, at such an obvious and ham-handed effort to overthrow the constitutional order.
#56. To: goldilucky (#55)
#57. To: Vicomte13 (#56)
#58. To: cranky (#0)
#59. To: tomder55 (#58)
He can't dictate an end to Congressional investigations.
#60. To: goldilucky (#46)
Well apparently, the investigation was halted by Comey. There was no determination of wrongdoing.
#61. To: cranky (#0)
(Edited)
#62. To: cranky (#0)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]