Why is there no prosecution for the crimes?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

https://www.facebook.com/NBCNews/videos/1226365437459706

[TBoneTX 45,308]

Because the prosecutors' suicides would subsequently be scheduled at inconvenient times?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Because the 'crimes' are just RW Echo Chamber nonsense without proof or substance?

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Caution, Tin Foil Hat Area.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

[smilesammich 10,727]

question: if trump wins is the election still rigged; are our cities still rife with corruption?

[jg121783 3,915]

My question is how is it not a conflict of interest that Bill Clinton met privately with the Attorney General days before a decision not to prosecute was made? The bottom line is people have gone to prison for far less than what Hilary Clinton did. Trump is far from perfect but at least he isn't a criminal or a threat to our national security.

Edited October 20, 2016 by jg121783

[Jacque67 7,328]

Just a threat to the constitution. Carry on.

[Dashinka 24,512]

question: if trump wins is the election still rigged; are our cities still rife with corruption?

Only the cities lead by the corrupt Democrats.

Despite facing federal corruption charges, embattled Clinton Township Trustee Dean Reynolds says he has no plans to step down from office.

Reynolds, a Democrat who was named in a criminal complaint for bribery in U.S. District Court last week, said in an email message to The Macomb Daily over the weekend that he intends to stay in office and challenge Republican township Supervisor Bob Cannon in the Nov. 8 election.

http://www.macombdaily.com/article/MD/20161016/NEWS/161019715

[jg121783 3,915]

Just a threat to the constitution. Carry on.

How so? He defends the second amendment while Hillary wants to dismantle it.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Oooooooo, where can I get me one of those shiny aluminum assault rifles? The CABA Wolfpack might want to put that flashy vest into their Christmas catalog, it could double as a bib for Cheetos dust.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Only the cities lead by the corrupt Democrats.

Despite facing federal corruption charges, embattled Clinton Township Trustee Dean Reynolds says he has no plans to step down from office.

Reynolds, a Democrat who was named in a criminal complaint for bribery in U.S. District Court last week, said in an email message to The Macomb Daily over the weekend that he intends to stay in office and challenge Republican township Supervisor Bob Cannon in the Nov. 8 election.

http://www.macombdaily.com/article/MD/20161016/NEWS/161019715

oh but of course, how silly of me.

seriously though, what does any of what you posted have to do with the election we're stuck with right now and rigging? i couldn't read your link for popups, so..http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/macomb/2016/10/17/clinton-township-trash-rizzo-bribe/92308492/

How so? He defends the second amendment while Hillary wants to dismantle it.

YEE-HAW!

[Dashinka 24,512]

oh but of course, how silly of me.

seriously though, what does any of what you posted have to do with the election we're stuck with right now and rigging? i couldn't read your link for popups, so..http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/macomb/2016/10/17/clinton-township-trash-rizzo-bribe/92308492/

YEE-HAW!

The relevance to the presidential election is that you have a Democrat politician under investigation for political corruption that simply refuses to step down and resign. Wouldn't the Democrats been better served by a presidential candidate other than Hillary? Of course her ego would not have allowed her to step down and let a better candidate take over.

[Dashinka 24,512]

How so? He defends the second amendment while Hillary wants to dismantle it.

Personally I think Trump would take the oath of office seriously and actually defend the entire constitution. I don't think Hillary would do the same thing particularly with the direction of her party.

Freedom: Hillary Clinton and other leaders in her party always talk about how they want to grant new rights to Americans. They talk about the "right to affordable health care," the "right to a college education," the "right to a livable wage." But at the same time, many of these same Democrats have been agitating to restrict or outright repeal existing rights enshrined in the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In just the past few months, in fact, members of the Democratic party have targeted the 1st, 2nd and 5th Amendments for attack. Here are the details, in reverse order:

Denying Due Process

Last week, House Democrats staged a sit in to demand a vote on a gun control bill that would have denied anyone on the government's "no fly" list the right to buy a gun.

The problem is that someone can make it on the list "no fly" based on the flimsiest of evidence, mere suspicion, or for no apparent reason at all.

As a result, denying everyone on this list the right to buy a gun would risk denying them due process, a protection guaranteed by the 5th Amendment, which says among other things that no one can "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Even the gun-control-supporting ACLU game out against such bills for that reason, saying that the watch list is "error-prone and unreliable" and that it would "place individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government error and clear their names."

Liberal reporter Glenn Greenwald was even more emphatic. "In the lexicon of the leading liberal lights of the Democratic Party, someone deemed by the U.S. government to be suspicious -- placed in secret on a list, with no evidence presented and no court process -- is the equivalent of 'ISIS.' And to demand due process be accorded is to arm ISIS."

It's not as though the Democrats staging the sit in didn't understand this. In fact, they were protesting because the House leadership would only bring up a bill that included due process protections. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., complained that "due process is what's killing us right now" when it comes to denying gun purchases to people suspected of having ties to terrorism.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/democrats-now-attack-3-of-the-10-bill-of-rights/

Edited October 20, 2016 by Bill & Katya

[smilesammich 10,727]

The relevance to the presidential election is that you have a Democrat politician under investigation for political corruption that simply refuses to step down and resign. Wouldn't the Democrats been better served by a presidential candidate other than Hillary? Of course her ego would not have allowed her to step down and let a better candidate take over.

so, you want democrats to offer a different presidential candidate 18 days before the election, when absentee ballots have been cast and early voting underway, because a democrat is under investigation for making money off of trash contracts in macomb county and refuses to step down from is supervisory position (similarly the county is not dropping their contract with the trash company that was paying dude off at this time). seems like a bit of a leap of reason to me.