Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that the entire Clinton mess deserves a SP?

It has for a long, long time.

Republicans in Congress haven't been really pushing hard for it.

McConnell just seems to be a non-confrontational kind of guy. Same was true with Boehner. Just absolutely the wrong leaders to face this group of Democrats.

(11-03-2016 08:23 AM)bullet Wrote:  Republicans in Congress haven't been really pushing hard for it.

McConnell just seems to be a non-confrontational kind of guy. Same was true with Boehner. Just absolutely the wrong leaders to face this group of Democrats.

That is probably because some of the Rhino globalists might get caught up int his also.

Brazil’s Supreme Court has authorized a federal investigation into Brazilian President Michel Temer’s role in the sprawling corruption scandal known as Operation Car Wash. If Temer’s presidency does not survive the investigation -- and I’m betting it won’t -- it will be another chapter in what may be the most dramatic anti-corruption enforcement story this world has ever seen.

Brazil’s anti-corruption revolution has already toppled former President Dilma Rousseff, Speaker of the House Eduardo Cunha, and a couple of Temer’s ministers. It is rumored to reach an estimated 60 percent of Brazil’s Congress. Yes, 60 percent. It makes the U.S. Watergate scandal feel like playing in the sandbox.


But more remarkable yet is the number of Brazilian institutions working together to build a credible anti-corruption regime. Brazil’s principal anti-corruption agency (formerly the CGU, now the Transparency Ministry) drafted a dramatic anti-corruption law. Brazil’s Congress in a single year passed that law, as well as an organized crime law. These laws gave Brazil’s federal prosecutors the tools they needed to go after corruption, as they are doing now. The judiciary, particularly Judge Sergio Moro and, separately, the Supreme Court, have not backed down from their constitutional duties. And Brazil’s federal auditing court, the TCU, exposed the accounting improprieties that led to Rousseff’s impeachment...............................................................

http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2016/9/27/a...inues.html

All prosecutors matter!

(11-03-2016 08:45 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  All prosecutors matter!

Marilyn Mosby?

(11-03-2016 09:20 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 08:45 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  All prosecutors matter!

Marilyn Mosby?

All. None of them are special!

(11-03-2016 08:08 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that the entire Clinton mess deserves a SP?

To prosecute what exactly?

There needs to be one.

There are too many conflicts of interest for the system to work as intended.

even if you appoint a special prosecutor, the leftists would say that the special prosecutor is in the tank for the republicans.

(11-03-2016 09:27 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  even if you appoint a special prosecutor, the leftists would say that the special prosecutor is in the tank for the republicans.

They only recognize one if it's against a sitting Republican.

(11-03-2016 09:33 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:27 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  even if you appoint a special prosecutor, the leftists would say that the special prosecutor is in the tank for the republicans.

They only recognize one if it's against a sitting Republican.

You mean like when the Republican Comey said there was no evidence to prosecute Hillary?

(11-03-2016 09:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:33 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:27 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  even if you appoint a special prosecutor, the leftists would say that the special prosecutor is in the tank for the republicans.

They only recognize one if it's against a sitting Republican.

You mean like when the Republican Comey said there was no evidence to prosecute Hillary?

He didn't say that.

(11-03-2016 09:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:33 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:27 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  even if you appoint a special prosecutor, the leftists would say that the special prosecutor is in the tank for the republicans.

They only recognize one if it's against a sitting Republican.

You mean like when the Republican Comey said there was no evidence to prosecute Hillary?

He didn't say that.

Ne he didn't. I wasn't quoting him but he did recommend that no charges be brought on her.

(11-03-2016 09:41 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:33 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:27 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  even if you appoint a special prosecutor, the leftists would say that the special prosecutor is in the tank for the republicans.

They only recognize one if it's against a sitting Republican.

You mean like when the Republican Comey said there was no evidence to prosecute Hillary?

He didn't say that.

Ne he didn't. I wasn't quoting him but he did recommend that no charges be brought on her.

He did not say there was no evidence, period.

(11-03-2016 09:43 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:41 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:33 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  They only recognize one if it's against a sitting Republican.

You mean like when the Republican Comey said there was no evidence to prosecute Hillary?

He didn't say that.

Ne he didn't. I wasn't quoting him but he did recommend that no charges be brought on her.

He did not say there was no evidence, period.

Again. I wasn't quoting him. He recommended no charges so there must not have been sufficient evidence in his expert professional opinion.

(11-03-2016 09:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:43 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:41 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  You mean like when the Republican Comey said there was no evidence to prosecute Hillary?

He didn't say that.

Ne he didn't. I wasn't quoting him but he did recommend that no charges be brought on her.

He did not say there was no evidence, period.

Again. I wasn't quoting him. He recommended no charges so there must not have been sufficient evidence in his expert professional opinion.

So, if you trusted his expert professional opinion then, why don't you trust it now?

(11-03-2016 09:54 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:43 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:41 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He didn't say that.

Ne he didn't. I wasn't quoting him but he did recommend that no charges be brought on her.

He did not say there was no evidence, period.

Again. I wasn't quoting him. He recommended no charges so there must not have been sufficient evidence in his expert professional opinion.

So, if you trusted his expert professional opinion then, why don't you trust it now?

Who says I don't now? I never said that. I think his timing was a mistake but I still think he did the right thing.

If there are Weiner emails related to Hillary, then by all means the FBI can and should investigate them.