That whole "Lock her up!" thing? Yeah, just for show (Shocker!)

[Homerboy]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up-chant/index.html

Donald Trump said Friday he doesn't care about prosecuting Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, after attendees at his rally chanted "lock her up."

After the chants started at the President-elect's post-election "thank you" rally in Michigan, he responded, "That plays great before the election -- now we don't care, right?"

 

[bshole]

LoL! Damn that is something no politician would straight up admit.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

As long as she doesn't do anything to really piss him off, she can probably avoid prosecution. Sounds fair to me.

 

[MrSquished]

As long as she doesn't do anything to really piss him off, she can probably avoid prosecution. Sounds fair to me.

Luckily for our enjoyment, a whole lot of Trumpists like you are really really fucking pissed Trump is pulling back from what he made a tenet of his campaign - to prosecute HIllary. The amount of butthurt on Twitter and in Breitbart comments sections, among others, is so fucking amusing and satisfying to observe. Ahhhhhh.

On a side note, there are a real lot of things to be done to run a country, and the fact that so many regressive deplorable Trumpists were so hyper focused on jailing Hillary Clinton as a top top priority - well that's just fucking sad. There are too too many other things to focus on.

I think it speaks volumes as to how degrading, detrimental and backwards Trumpists really are. Many really are the clueless deplorables Clinton smartly observed. Although she should have done it silently.

 

[Jhhnn]

As long as she doesn't do anything to really piss him off, she can probably avoid prosecution. Sounds fair to me.

Per James Comey-

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

Like Trump said, it played well to the base before the election. Once they get an idea stuck in their heads it's hard for them to get rid of it, no matter how ridiculous it was in the first place. It's a big part of what makes 'em loyal to a fault. It's the Birther/Benghazi headset.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It wasn't a tenet of his campaign, it was an impulsive outburst during the second debate, which he was then obliged to double-down on since the media made a big deal out of it, and since he is unable to apologize for anything.

 

[Balt]

It wasn't a tenet of his campaign, it was an impulsive outburst during the second debate, which he was then obliged to double-down on since the media made a big deal out of it, and since he is unable to apologize for anything.

Threatening to investigate/jail a political opponent actually is a big deal. It happens in all sorts of places over the world that we really don't want to emulate.

 

[Jhhnn]

It wasn't a tenet of his campaign, it was an impulsive outburst during the second debate, which he was then obliged to double-down on since the media made a big deal out of it, and since he is unable to apologize for anything.

Keep telling yourself that. It was a slime campaign reduced to a slogan.

 

[Jhhnn]

Threatening to investigate/jail a political opponent actually is a big deal. It happens in all sorts of places over the world that we really don't want to emulate.

"We" obviously doesn't include Trumpsters.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Threatening to investigate/jail a political opponent actually is a big deal. It happens in all sorts of places over the world that we really don't want to emulate.

The point is, it wasn't something he could quietly brush off or flip-flop on, because to him it would be a sign of public weakness.

 

[Jhhnn]

The point is, it wasn't something he could quietly brush off or flip-flop on, because to him it would be a sign of public weakness.

The point is that he rode it like a pony.

 

[FIVR]

I think you guys are misinterpreting the comment. When he is saying "that plays great before the election" he is referring to what he just said, that he won't prosecute her. Then he gives them some sound advice: "now, we don't care, right?" He's saying "be quiet, stop chanting. I'll get it done.". He's dog whistling to them that he will prosecute her after he's inaugurated.


He's speaking to them in code, hoping some of them pick it up and decrypt it for their fascist buddies.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The point is that he rode it like a pony.

Sure. Let me know when droves of his voters come out and cry "You betrayed us!" and you'll have a meaningful point. Until then, you're pointing out the obvious.

 

[brycejones]

The point is that he rode it like a pony.

More like Sea Biscuit.

 

[MrSquished]

Sure. Let me know when droves of his voters come out and cry "You betrayed us!" and you'll have a meaningful point. Until then, you're pointing out the obvious.

Just go on any conservative news outlets that have an article on the matter and read the comments. Plus plenty of the butthurt is on Twitter as well.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Just go on any conservative news outlets that have an article on the matter and read the comments. Plus plenty of the butthurt is on Twitter as well.

Opinions on the internet don't mean anything in the real world. I could probably find you plenty of super pissed off Berniebros from HuffPo or Salon, but I'd be rightfully laughed at if I pretended that those people represent the mainline Dem voter.

 

[trenchfoot]

More like Sea Biscuit.

Yep, and then he did a galloping dismount, took a bow to the four corners of the earth and let that nag simply ride off into the sunset never to be seen ever again, just like all those other promises he made to those sorry ass folks who voted for him and simply dismissed those vote grabbing lies while telling his supporters that's it's OK and it's all good because that was then and this is now, wash, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.

Trump is going to be jerking his followers around making fools of them and they will still lap it all up because he's "their man" and because they put him in the White House and they're proud of it. Never mind that Trump is already making efforts to take their social services away and drive them back as near to a time when children were working 10-12 hrs a day in factories and the minimum wage was whatever the bosses say it was.

Them glory days are a com'in back uh'gin, y'hear!?

 

[bshole]

Just go on any conservative news outlets that have an article on the matter and read the comments. Plus plenty of the butthurt is on Twitter as well.

Love how his idea of draining the swamp is to fill his cabinet with Goldman Sachs executives. That is something that just about everybody can agree will be horrible. I think dysfunctional retards would be preferable to highly intelligent predators with a strong desire to tilt the table towards billionaire bankers.

 

[bshole]

Opinions on the internet don't mean anything in the real world. I could probably find you plenty of super pissed off Berniebros from HuffPo or Salon, but I'd be rightfully laughed at if I pretended that those people represent the mainline Dem voter.

Are you laughing about his cabinet being filled with billionaire bankers? Think that is gonna work out well for you?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

As long as she doesn't do anything to really piss him off, she can probably avoid prosecution. Sounds fair to me.

Your investigative string has run out. Benghazi has been pursued in a witch-hunting congressional committee that has broken the record for duration -- purely for media, repetitive propaganda to condition the public, and political gain.

The e-mails cannot merit prosecution because the odds that she acted without an accountant's discrimination, with lack of an IT security insight, with a lax State Department IT policy arising from technological change and carelessness during the Bush administration, and only with the desire to take her work home is so much reasonable doubt as to make a costly trial a foolish waste and with insufficient indications even warranting convening a grand jury.

The odds that the "33,000 e-mails" Donald the Traitor defines as being criminally erased have anything to do with the State Department are more likely to be equivalent to the millions I have erased from Home Depot, Sears, my bank, COSTCO, Burpee Seeds, several computer parts resellers and a larger list.

There is no "There" there. Attempting to arrest, convict, sentence and imprison Clinton would violate the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and just about every safeguard we have in our system to protect the Innocent. I would urge massive demonstrations in every city, every state capital, and throughout the greater downtown District of Columbia.

At the same time, I now urge Loretta Lynch to direct Mr. Comey and the outgoing head of NSA to seek authorization from the judiciary body approving warrant a subpoena of a criminal suspect's e-mails, voice-mail, cell-phone conversations and meta-data, and begin to investigate his entourage as a search-tree of evidence unveils itself.

As the CIA report not now known fully to the public proves that the Russians had the Intent to influence the election (whether they were successful or not), its findings could prove instrumental in investigating the communications of Donald J. Trump.

If there is any evidence that Donald J. Trump had foreknowledge of Russian hacking determined to be intended for influencing the American Presidential Election of 2016, I would recommend that the charge of High Treason or the appropriate crime be leveled at Donald J. Trump, his confederates or associates as the evidence proves.

I then urge House and Senate Democrats, together with patriotic legislators from the GOP, to begin impeachment proceedings against Donald J. Trump.

If any stage of the investigation proves to be of unlikely promise given the findings at a previous step, the investigation can be terminated.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Are you laughing about his cabinet being filled with billionaire bankers? Think that is gonna work out well for you?

I didn't vote for Trump and have said many times that I think a Clinton presidency would most likely be less damaging (especially since the R's have full control) than Trump's, so I don't have any personal attachment to any of Trump's actions. I think some people here tend to equivocate billionaires with "the swamp" a little too easily (e.g. DeVos), but if I was a supporter, sure, seeing the Goldman Sachs name would scare me.

 

[MrSquished]

Opinions on the internet don't mean anything in the real world. I could probably find you plenty of super pissed off Berniebros from HuffPo or Salon, but I'd be rightfully laughed at if I pretended that those people represent the mainline Dem voter.

I think online polls are useless but online opinions are great. What are the masses talking about? Sure Coulter, Rush, Breitbart - all pointed out Trump was breaking a major campaign promise and they were not happy, but the real joy of the situation is reading all the right wing comments all over the web about this.

It is joyous to read about their pain and suffering and heartbreak. You should enjoy it too.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Do you want me to lay out a procedure of discovery and evidence gathering through the several other search-tree paths to discover the Crimes of Donald J. Trump?

I will need about two 8.5 x 11" pages-worth for each of those several possibilities. Do you wish to proceed in gumming up this thread?

I only need an example of a primary concern that should resonate with the general public. The US Senate can assign each additional problem to the staff of one or several US Senators, and any congressman who own the appropriate committee chair.

I urge all Republican legislators who place the Truth and their Conscience above partisan loyalty, to support the inquiries and the reasonable investigation and process against Donald J. Trump should the evidence prove sufficient by the best legal standards of an American Judiciary to proceed with a Grand Jury finding and initiate impeachment proceedings against the suspected Traitor, Donald J. Trump.

 

[Sunburn74]

Classic bait and switch.

Either there was no crime and he was lying the entire time about scandals with no basis as he has been lying about everything else. Or there were serious fraudulent white collar crimes committed by HRC and he doesn't care about policing serious corruption at the federal level, with his incoming cabinet being exclusively CEOs who know where the money is.

Take your pick. You can't have it both ways

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The point is that he rode it like a pony.

and won.