Posted on 05/14/2019 9:58:51 AM PDT by Hojczyk
They can prosecute obummer, but they won't prosecute him.
Sorry, but I don't understand your point...I made no reference to SDNY and would agree that SDNY is controlled by democrats.
The McCabe IG report did have a criminal referral on McCabe, which was sent to the US Attorney for D.C. To date, I have heard nothing on this referral. It should be a slam dunk.
John Henry Durham is the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, not SDNY.
So, I stand by my original comment: "From what I have read on other threads, Durham is the right person to conduct the criminal investigation. Time will tell."
You are fake news. You have no way to know who he interviewed. But feel free to pass along other fake news from the fake news media.
Wake me for the perp walks.
“It is not going to be possible to prosecute Obama.”
There are statutes that protect government officials and agents under the concept of sovereign immunity.
They were designed to protect people acting in good faith to accomplish their duties.
However, nothing protects an ex POTUS from charges under the Civil Rights act when they act, or conspire to deny somebody’s civil rights under the color of law.
It’s a very specific and powerful exclusion to Sovereign Immunity laws.
There are multiple reports that Huber has done nothing from our side of the isle. Before the name calling, please produce one report or news story of him doing anything other than sitting on his hands.
Once you do that, I will humbly say I am sorry. I am always willing to admit I am wrong when proven otherwise. All I expect is an intelligent response and a discussion without name calling.
“It is not going to be possible to prosecute Obama.”
Why not? The filthy democrats are crowing about going after Trump after he leaves office. But then again Obama is semi-black.
“It is not going to be possible to prosecute Obama.”
Why not? The filthy democrats are crowing about going after Trump after he leaves office. But then again Obama is semi-black.
I’m not saying he can’t be prosecuted LEGALLY. He can be impeached, and he can be prosecuted.
I’m saying that the act of convicting the immediate predecessor of a sitting President is fraught with danger, and, were it done, our system would be changed in many ways, some of them unpleasant.
Ignoring crimes because a person was elected to the office is also fraught with dangers, like giving a license to do wrong. Although i do agree, this is the way it is, and not just for presidents either.
Our system is infested with people who twist the rules for self-benefit. We are not a nation of laws, except "laws for the little people." Nothing new under the sun.
Nothing will ever happen.
If the crimes are of such a significant nature such as sedition, and conspiracy to commit sedition, the country cannot afford to not prosecute Obama.
President Obama will always have several degrees of plausible deniability. Untouchable.
We should be content with the destruction of his reputation.
I agree, in principle.
There are emails between Obama’s office, the DOJ, and the FBI.
Obama knew about Hillay’s unauthorized server because he sent and received emails from it. Obama lied when he said he learned about it from the media. That claim is provably false, so in a legal sense, Obama is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
But could they get a veto-proof majority....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.