You have to buy a clue to understand what happened. The DOJ didn't want it to look blatantly obvious, so they sent their 2nd in command at the DOJ to work for the sleazy NY DA to handle the prosecution. They really do believe the American people are stupid. Unfortunately for you, only dems are stupid enough to believe the BS, Jo at the top of the list.
Ahhh, so your contention is that "the feds" only turned it down due to optics, not the lack of a case? That kind of invalidates your entire point then about how the feds turned it down. It seems like you can't decide whether the state chose to prosecute because the feds turned it down or the feds turned it down so that the state could prosecute it with better optics.
There is no doubt that if the Trump admin had a case for prosecuting Hillary, they would have done it in a heartbeat. Spare us that bullshit about optics.
Yes, that is one of your positions. Here is your position in post 31. So, in this telling of the story, the feds refused to prosecute (with the obvious implication that they did so based on the lack of merits) so the state DA and courts decide to allow a prosecution to advance. Then, in post 61, 30 posts later, you take the opposite position: Now, suddenly, the only reason that the feds didn't prosecute it was for optics. And so the feds decided to prosecute, they just ran it through a state. Obviously, to anybody with a basic understanding of logic, these two theories are incompatible. The only thing that makes them compatible in your mind: they help you emotionally deal with supporting a convicted felon.
There’s a ruling class and a drooling class. The ruling class creates the slogans. The drooling class enthusiastically slaps on the bumper stickers and gets the tattoos. Don’t tread on me with that clean air and water.
The Dems are completely incapable of understanding how we go to this point... and ruling. Lawfare against a Presidential candidate and former President has consequences. They just don't understand how corrupt their understanding of equal protection under the law is skewed.
Why are all righties using the word "lawfare" now? This all happened within a couple hours. It's almost as if they read the same posts then follow like lemmings
I doubt he can order a crime, he's not immune physical crimes. Paper and verbal acts that do no harm to another person is different.
Do you realize what thread your in? Might just mayhaps, have something to do with the topic of the thread. (You are aware of the case the SCOTUS ruled upon, no?)
They rilly rilly hate lawfare.* *They'll next hate whatever their orange spiritual guide tells them is really super bad. Windmills? Windmillfare?
See my posts about it. It’s their new catchphrase they like to use but don’t actually have a legitimate definition of. Right wingers are severely lacking in education and intelligence, lol. It’s a known fact that liberals are more educated than right wingers, and the facts bare it out, which is why we all laugh when some moron on the right calls us “libtards” while sounding like they just got done inbreeding with their cousin.
Why do people keep mentioning past stuff? We went from theoretically being able to hold presidents that are war criminals to account to "total immunity." The fact that they weren't speaks to the lack of political will to do so (America loves our own war criminals), not the legality.
Apples to Oranges comparison. In reality, Nixon would have loved this Supreme Court. I have no doubts that they would have found a way to give him a total pass on Watergate since it was authorized while he was President.
PSA to our resident Lefties--the term "Lawfare" is new to y'all, bc you insulate yourselves in da snowglobe, and it's approved feeder sources. The term has been used for a good while now, amongst non-approved sources. You're welcome.
