Fine. Whatever.

Exactly.

The FBI will find 'no intent' to break the law.

And Trump can do no wrong.

'They're good people,' he said.

And Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Watch the Trump cultists here spin this as the right thing to do.

I can't believe anybody is surprised by the anouncement.

Exactly.

The FBI will find 'no intent' to break the law.

And Trump can do no wrong.

Trump started on immigration and jobs. That was his focus. That's always been his focus. Other sideshows were thrust upon him. He was never interested in them.

He knows that his administration will live or die, soar or crash, by jobs and economics. If the working class and lower middle class perceive that their lives improve under Trump, and if they perceive that the tide of illegals is subsiding, he will be popular and be re-elected by a landslide.

Republicans have mostly been butthurt since Trump started rising. Some loved the Bushes. Some loved Marco Rubio. Some loved Cruz. Some loved Paul. But Trump won, and Trump is none of those people. He never pretended to be a vindictive partisan like the Republicans are. He promised to build a wall, from the beginning, and from the beginning he promised to be about jobs, jobs, jobs.

That's where he's going to focus - on what HE wants to focus on, and NOT on what the partisan Republicans who supported other candidates are ate-up about.

Hillary Clinton was a bitch, and her agents tried to bring him down with stale sexual harassment allegations. That pissed him off, so he showed her some teeth. He COULD persecute her and put her in jail. He has the POWER to do it. So now the Clintons have to play nice with him, have to be quiet, have to pussyfoot. They cannot simply continue to attack him as before. They have to call off their agents and stand down, or he CAN open the investigation and put them in jail.

If he just charges, as some partisan Republicans would love, right in to carry on a witch hunt against them, he gains nothing. But if he simply saunters past the subject and lets it hang there, unresolved, he retains a collar and noose around the Clintons' neck that he can yank any time he needs to if they get out of line.

The people on jihad against the Clintons did not win the election. Donald Trump and the working people of America who have been screwed over and over did. The Republicans as a party did not win big - Trump won and dragged them over the finish line.

This is not going to be done the way that traditional Republicans and bitter partisans want. They lost. They will now proceed to the back of the bus and shut up, because the only reason they have power is because of Trump, not the reverse.

Working class people and people sick of illegal immigration are the reason Trump won and the Republicans held on. Not the dream of prosecuting Clinton, not any other thing.

Trump is going to press ahead on immigration, the infrastructure package, taxation, peace with Russia, crushing ISIS. That's what HE cares about, and HE's the President.

He has no particular desire to crush the Clintons more than he already has. If they get out of line and become a threat, THEN he'll jerk the leash and put them in jail. Right now, their continued liberty and ability to retire in peace is determined by his grace. There is no reason for him to cede that power to silence and channel the Clintons in order to satisfy other people.

It serves TRUMP'S interest in success best to have the Clintons on a leash, not in prison. Through the Clintons, Trump can get Democrat support when he needs it - and he will need it because the Republican Establishment does not agree with the President-Elect on Russia or on Trade or on the Infrastructure bill he wants. So he's going to need Democrat support to get it done.

Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham think that they're going to use the thin Republican majority in the Senate to hold up Trump. But Trump is going to have some Democrat backing, and Graham and Paul are going to be kicked to the curb AGAIN if they try to stand up to him.

He's going to bulldoze ahead with what HE wants to get done, and torturing the Clintons right now does not serve that goal. If they get uppity - THEN he'll throw them into jail, to put the fear into others who would challenge him.

America elected a silverback gorilla, a bully, not a standard politician. He's going to get what he wants, and he's going to use men and women well in order to get it.

Paul and Graham and McCain are not going to "stand up to him" effectively. And the reason they won't is because Trump controls the Clintons, and the Clintons still have allies in the Democrat party.

They're not going to jail, unless they stop cooperating with him.

Trump started on immigration and jobs.

I think I'll wait for some results before jump on the bandwagon.

Leaving this floating out there until Jan 20th may convince Odumbass not to take the political risk of pardoning the old bitch, leaving a stain on his empty 'legacy' of failure.

Then, after the inauguration, the new and real Justice Dept. can find all sorts of evidence to call a grand jury for indictment and Trump can simply say "I never announced any policy positions and besides, if crimes have been committed, the AG should prosecute. Now f'off."

Trump's simply headfaking the leftist media/politicians again.

I hope so but I'm skeptical.

"She's never even been charged, much less convicted"

There's also "That's old news", "there's no there there", etc.

Any excuse is good enough for these clowns.

Next to "Build that wall" was "Lock her up". I think it's a pretty big issue with us peons to see that there is no legal double standard.

A clear message has to be sent that nobody is above the law.

That's what I thought.

But it looks like the fix is in.

What a bunch of made up bullshit. The whole thing. Speculation and fairy tale land.

If Trump doesn't get the wall built, the deportations started and the jobs back, he'll be a one-termer.

Trump will NOT pursue investigations into Hillary: 'If Donald Trump can help her heal, then perhaps that's a good thing'

Hillary is not seeking healing. She is seeking the persidency and will not be healed until she is in a position to impose a crackpot destructive ideology on all of us.

" America is not going to heal by seeing a law for elites and one for ordinary citizens. "

That bears repeating !! Everyone, including those trying to defend / rationalize this announcement should keep that firmly in mind!

If that healing is not performed, every thing else will be for nought.

" I think it's a pretty big issue with us peons to see that there is no legal double standard. "

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.

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.

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.

I guess TPTB told him to lay off of her, or they would put airplanes into his tower ???

That wouldn't surprise me.

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.

" if he does his signature issues: wall, deportations, jobs, peace with Russia, crush ISIS, the Clintons will be small beer, and "

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.

" That wouldn't surprise me. "

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.

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 agree.

" For them to re-open this matter would probably fall under double jeopardy violations. "

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.

For them to re-open this matter would probably fall under double jeopardy violations.

Double jeopardy applies to adjudicated cases, not investigations.

"She was tried in the court of public opinion, and she lost."

So if the FBI finds wrongdoing in the Clinton Foundation, Trump is going to tell them to drop it?

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.

"No, I expect he will let it proceed."

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."

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.

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."

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.

I know what double jeopardy means and it seems to me that Hillary was already charged

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.

She was never charged, only investigated. They can reopen investigations whenever they like. There is no double jeopardy here.

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 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?

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.

Nobody. Nobody in our system has the power to halt elections. Elections can't be halted.

Art. 2, Sec. 1, Cl. 4:

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.

The date is set by Federal Statute, not the Constitution. A uniform date to choose electors was not even set until 1845.

3 U.S.C. § 1 (2014)

§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.

The statutes you referenced seem to apply towards the electoral college. Am I right about this?

If Congress has the power to appoint electors in an election

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)

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.

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.

and the day on which they shall give their votes;

This refers to the day on which the delegates will give their votes; the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

The day the delegates to the Electoral College (electors) give their vote shall be the same throughout the U.S.

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.

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.

Perhaps they can move it around a little bit - if the Supreme Court doesn't decide that it is, thereby, preventing elections.

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 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.

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.