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.

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.

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.

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)?

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.

He can't dictate an end to Congressional investigations.

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.