AlwaysWrite
Addicted Member
Since President Trump’s election, much more has been revealed about Crooked Hillary's mishandling of classified information, and more has been uncovered regarding high-level FBI bias in the investigation, and that mandates that the Clinton e-mail matter requires a fresh look.
Prior to Trump’s Inauguration, we didn’t know about FBI counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok's role in changing a key wording in director James Comey’s draft of Clinton's "exoneration letter" -- written before Hillary and many key witnesses were interviewed -- from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” and we didn't know about the anti-Trump bias of Strzok and Comey.
Ongoing reports now confirm that the FBI believed there was evidence that laws were broken when Clinton and her aides improperly transmitted classified information; and we know that when she was eventually interviewed, her statements weren't recorded and she wasn't under oath.
There are plenty of fair questions that need conclusive answers with regard to FBI favoritism and obvious desire to ignore material violations of the law during the Clinton e-mail investigation. If an assistant secretary of state had done what Hillary did, that person would have been prosecuted, and in fact, Clinton herself had specifically warned State Department employees against doing such things.
Some have suggested that none of this is no longer relevant because Clinton lost the election, but American justice must not work that way. We either have laws and enforce them, or we don’t. America must avoid slipping toward third-world status where incumbent regimes use power to prosecute their enemies, and we must not allow fame and power to shield individuals from guilt and prosecution.
To pursue an unbiased and fully informed inquiry into the investigation of Crooked Hillary's e-mails and numerous other misdeeds would not be partisan or mean-spirited. And not to pursue it would suggest systemic favoritism contrary to the American system.
We don’t need another special prosecutor to uncover what happened with Clinton’s e-mails and who knew about them. We need existing prosecutors with proper oversight to do their jobs.
Keep in mind that the e-mail investigation took place at a time when most everyone thought Hillary was going to win, meaning that many involved in the lawbreaking believed they were likely "auditioning" in front of their future bosses.
Clinton's defenders, including the lamestream media, still insist that a renewed inquiry into her mishandling of classified information is all about payback, but serious law enforcement shouldn't be deterred because of their anti-Trump bias.
The Justice Department needs to get to the bottom of this and set the record straight, and Americans need to be assured that Hillary Clinton isn't treated differently than anyone else would have been.
Bottom line: The American people must have renewed confidence that the rule of law applies to the Clintons and other "swamp creatures" in Washington, D.C.
Prior to Trump’s Inauguration, we didn’t know about FBI counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok's role in changing a key wording in director James Comey’s draft of Clinton's "exoneration letter" -- written before Hillary and many key witnesses were interviewed -- from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” and we didn't know about the anti-Trump bias of Strzok and Comey.
Ongoing reports now confirm that the FBI believed there was evidence that laws were broken when Clinton and her aides improperly transmitted classified information; and we know that when she was eventually interviewed, her statements weren't recorded and she wasn't under oath.
There are plenty of fair questions that need conclusive answers with regard to FBI favoritism and obvious desire to ignore material violations of the law during the Clinton e-mail investigation. If an assistant secretary of state had done what Hillary did, that person would have been prosecuted, and in fact, Clinton herself had specifically warned State Department employees against doing such things.
Some have suggested that none of this is no longer relevant because Clinton lost the election, but American justice must not work that way. We either have laws and enforce them, or we don’t. America must avoid slipping toward third-world status where incumbent regimes use power to prosecute their enemies, and we must not allow fame and power to shield individuals from guilt and prosecution.
To pursue an unbiased and fully informed inquiry into the investigation of Crooked Hillary's e-mails and numerous other misdeeds would not be partisan or mean-spirited. And not to pursue it would suggest systemic favoritism contrary to the American system.
We don’t need another special prosecutor to uncover what happened with Clinton’s e-mails and who knew about them. We need existing prosecutors with proper oversight to do their jobs.
Keep in mind that the e-mail investigation took place at a time when most everyone thought Hillary was going to win, meaning that many involved in the lawbreaking believed they were likely "auditioning" in front of their future bosses.
Clinton's defenders, including the lamestream media, still insist that a renewed inquiry into her mishandling of classified information is all about payback, but serious law enforcement shouldn't be deterred because of their anti-Trump bias.
The Justice Department needs to get to the bottom of this and set the record straight, and Americans need to be assured that Hillary Clinton isn't treated differently than anyone else would have been.
Bottom line: The American people must have renewed confidence that the rule of law applies to the Clintons and other "swamp creatures" in Washington, D.C.
