Hillary Clinton says Donald Trump should be treated as any other citizen in DOJ investigation

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/11/...n-donald-trump-investigation-cnntv/index.html

I’m curious whether ANYONE can disagree with what she says. Should trump be treated like any other citizen, or should he enjoy special privileges as a FPOTUS?

I say - treat him the same as anyone else. Nobody is above the law.

 

Except Hillary.

 

Why would anyone care about what Clinton thinks?

 

She was investigated and was not given any 'special master'.

Should Trump be investigated? Yes, and the GOP needs to stop being so darn anti-LE in their attempts to defend their leader.

 

No one is above the law, and no one is beneath it either. If the DOJ feels there's a case, it should pursue that case and present a formal indictment if it feels confident in doing so.

 

How's it go? Baaaa. Baaaa. Baaaa. That's the best imitation of a democrat sheep I can muster. I'm trying to believe we have equal justice being applied by the weaponized DOJ/FBI but it's so darn hard when the evidence of their corruption is so clear.

 

Trump should be investigated, indicted and incarcerated along with about half the Republican Congress. Anyone who actively supported Trump should have their franchise revoked
The Coup was on the wrong side.

 

Bring forth the evidence so we can take look.

Trump and his apologists always play the victim card and its getting old.

 

What's getting really old is having to spoon feed information that's easily available with a simple Google/Bing search. And then after feeding it to someone it will just be ignored or claimed to be an unreliable/questionable news source. The "evidence" has been peppered throughout several threads on the topic, so I'm skeptical of your sincerity of really wanting to look at it and I'm inclined not to waste any more of my time.

 

Nothing? Ok, I didn't think so.

 

Too bad for Hillary that she didn't get Obama to install her on the Supreme Court, because if he had then her opinion would matter. The Supreme Court is where all the pivotal decisions will be made in this "Great Mar-a-Lago Raid" cluster-fugg... wait and see.

 

You're making my point for me.

 

All I did was ask you to back up your claims, which you failed to do.

Not everything is a conspiracy against your dear leader.

Supreme court is taking over criminal law? Figures.

Does her opinion matter? No, but it doesn't mean she is wrong about this.

 

It won't take over criminal law, but there is a more than reasonable possibility that if the case gets to the SCOTUS, they can revisit Nixon V GSA and as I mentioned on other threads: Is the Presidency a political puppet position? The personhood of the President is something that needs to be clearly defined and thoroughly fleshed out. Because as of right now, the argument that's prevalent in Nixon V GSA, makes the sitting president a puppet to his own administration.

 

Sure, but then you revealed your preconception. You didn't expect anything which makes me wonder what was your point in asking.

 

I challenged your claim, and it folded like a house of cards. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.

 

Opinions don't need to be supported; simply accepted or rejected. You're confusing opinion statements with factual ones.

 

he should have to sit in front of congress like Hillary did

 

She committed a felony. Not being prosecuted for it does not change that. Which means, by definition, she was treated differently. This is inarguable. How hypocrisy helps you I’m not quite sure but by all means keep it up.

I’ll bet if Trump gets arrested and let loose on a $100 bail you’ll be like “whaaaaa I don’t understand he’s treated so differently!” Lol. You win the obliviousness award

 

You claimed the evidence is "peppered" everywhere, but since you are downgrading the claim to a mere personal opinion, then so be it.

 

In my opinion it is. Have you never heard of how two people can view the same event (fact) and yet interpret it differently? This topic has been discussed ad nauseam with "evidence" being peppered throughout. I find it difficult to believe that you haven't seen any of it leading me to the conclusion that you really don't want to consider it. You confirmed my conclusion when making the statement that it was what you expected from me. You shouldn't ask for info you really don't expect to see. With that mindset it's very unlikely that you would acknowledge it even if presented. Why? Confirmation bias gets in the way.

 

Have I seen opinions and unfounded claims? Yes. Have I seen evidence? No. Do I expect to see any? No, because by now someone would be provided already, but no one has been able to.

Its how populists roll. They play the victim card and insist everything is a conspiracy against their political leader, even thought they can never provide any evidence. Its like listening to sports fans whine about unfair referees even thought their team go blown away 37-3.

 

I say we treat him just like Hillary Clinton was treated...lol

 

Coming from her that takes probably the most extreme amount of nerve I've ever heard from a human being in my entire life.

I have a lot of things to say about her but none of them are very nice so I'll simply refrain at this point.

 

You should dig deeper into the way evidence is defined.