Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, November 25, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump signaled he would break one of his most authoritarian campaign-promises: His vow to do everything he could to jail his political rival Hillary Clinton. "It's just not something that I feel very strongly about," Trump told reporters and columnists at the New York Times Tuesday afternoon. "I don't want to hurt the Clintons, I really don't. She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways." Trump told the Times, regarding his supporters, "I don't think they'll be disappointed." He thought wrong.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Trump told Clinton during a presidential debate in October, "I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation ... we're gonna have a special prosecutor." He then added that if he were in charge, she'd "be in jail."

But now that he's entering office, Trump is not so sure -- and it raises questions about how serious he was about any of his promises, to the chagrin of his most ardent backers.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"There's a sucker born every minute" -- P.T. Barnum

#1 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-11-25 08:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Wait until they find out there isn't going to be a wall, either.

#2 | Posted by REDIAL at 2016-11-25 08:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Wait til they find out you have to be convicted of a crime in order to go to prison. Imagine the faux outrage then.

#3 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-25 08:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

awwwwwwww shucks.... the deplorables feel betrayed... Ya know...onsidering they went for that okie doke ....the thing that really surprises me is that they possess sufficient intelligence to feel something as complex betrayal. The clown brigade has used and abused them like sailors on shore leave passing around a gaggle of floozies.... First Karl Rove... gag... and now Trumpling... barf... its really a tragic thing to see... and yet so intriguing I can't bring myself to turn away.

#4 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2016-11-25 08:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I think i have figured all this out, you will never see it coming.

#6 | Posted by tmaster at 2016-11-25 08:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

So he'll keep everyone guessing until the day after he is sworn in. After that...

Can you smell the desperation?

#7 | Posted by 726 at 2016-11-25 08:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#5 | Posted by Pegasus

Either you're joking or you're appallingly stupid.

#8 | Posted by Angrydad at 2016-11-25 09:02 PM | Reply

Either you're joking or you're appallingly stupid.

To what post are you referring to? I don't see anything here?

It's all in your mind - your seeing Trump everywhere...

#9 | Posted by Pegasus at 2016-11-25 09:22 PM | Reply

Wait 'til they find out Santa and the Easter Bunny are fairy tales as well... Never give a sucker an even break, never set a chump straight.

#10 | Posted by b_al at 2016-11-25 09:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Wait until they find out there isn't going to be a wall, either.

Or solve their economic woes by forcing corporations to give out better paying jobs with good benefits.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-26 02:13 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Most don't care, they just wanted to win at whatever cost. The likes of Limbaugh and Coulter are just trying to retain the marketable clumps in the sifter.

#12 | Posted by memyselfini at 2016-11-26 02:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It would be long until they start coming up with how the evil liberals are keeping Trump from going after her.

#13 | Posted by memyselfini at 2016-11-26 02:19 AM | Reply

#13 | POSTED BY MEMYSELFINI

would = won't

#14 | Posted by memyselfini at 2016-11-26 02:23 AM | Reply

I don't know why they're angry. Sure, their trust was misplaced and they were betrayed. But it isn't like they weren't warned. They had to know that this was always going to be a possibility. Lord knows they were told about a million times.

I can only surmise that some people are born to be used and abused.

Trump came with a guarantee of 10 miles or ten minutes ~ whichever came first. Now they're left sitting in a ditch with their shiny new clunker.

Caveat emptor, dumbasses!

#15 | Posted by Twinpac at 2016-11-26 03:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

-- P.T. Barnum
#1 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF

A man smart enough to run for office as a Republican.

#16 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2016-11-26 04:08 AM | Reply

Lock her up or lock her out, it does not make much of a difference to this deplorable as long as the Clintons can fade into obscure powerlessness. For me it was always more of a slogan than a promise.

I see Trump's statement as a ruse to lull Obama into complacency so he does not issue a Hillaryous pardon, freeing AG Sessions to prosecute if he sees fit in the coming year. Trump can flip flop or not on this again ... it's like a cat playing with a wounded bird at this point and he can come back for a swift kill or let it languish in pain for a while. The most vocal "this is a broken promise" talking heads on TV are actually Clinton supporters grasping at straws.

The discussion only ends entirely if she is pardoned. Otherwise the statute of limitations may be up to 7 years and he can always bring a potential Hillary corruption prosecution back for the 2018 midterm and 2020 general elections.

#17 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2016-11-26 04:17 AM | Reply

NUKE

Corruption prosecution for what?

Specifically, please . . . that would stand up in a court.

#18 | Posted by Twinpac at 2016-11-26 05:23 AM | Reply

Otherwise the statute of limitations may be up to 7 years and he can always bring a potential Hillary corruption prosecution back for the 2018 midterm and 2020 general elections.

Presidencies don't last forever. Relentlessly pursuing and criminalizing the behavior of the opposition on questionable grounds will only result in the favor being returned when the opposition party is in power.

#19 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2016-11-26 05:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

All shreds of decency will leave D.C. when Obama is gone.

I miss him already.

#20 | Posted by Twinpac at 2016-11-26 06:13 AM | Reply

I see Trump's statement as a ruse to lull Obama into complacency so he does not issue a Hillaryous pardon, freeing AG Sessions to prosecute if he sees fit in the coming year.
--#17

She was never going to get prosecuted, and never will. It's all bluster. Don't get your hopes up.

#21 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-26 07:03 AM | Reply

NUKE

A pardon for what? Don't you first have to have a conviction?

I'll bet you can't name one single thing that would hold up in a court of law. (notwithstanding one of the fantasies you have of yourself as the judge, jury and prosecutor)

So com'mon. Pony up. Or are you just a bunch of hot air?

My money is on "hot air."

#22 | Posted by Twinpac at 2016-11-26 07:24 AM | Reply

Trump: Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You ------ up... you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help.
Flounder: [crying] That's easy for you to say!
Trump: I'll tell you what. We'll tell everyone we were going to lock her up, butwe woke up this morning... and we'd won. We don't need to do anything. She's no longer a problem.
Flounder: Will that work?
Trump: Hey, it's gotta work as good as that lie we told you to get elected.

#24 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-26 07:47 AM | Reply

Mein Drumpf is gonna disappoint a lot of people, most of whom voted for him. Not me, I expect nothing from the -----. And that's exactly what I'm going to get.

#25 | Posted by HugoSLavia at 2016-11-26 08:29 AM | Reply

"She was never going to get prosecuted, and never will"

Bears repeating.

Jason Chaffetz, head of the House Oversight Committee, said he had material for two years of hearings on HRC. I wonder what the over/under is on how much time JC will spend holding hearings.

Two months?
Two weeks?
Two days?
Two hours?
Two minutes?

My guess: I'll take the latter, and the under.

It's all a charade, and always was. Kevin McCarthy admitted as much.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 09:46 AM | Reply

#26 - yep.

said he had material for two years of hearings on HRC
---

Hearings are EZ. Actual prosecutions or convictions, not so much.

#27 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-26 10:01 AM | Reply

"Hearings are EZ."

But JC won't have any, despite his statements to the contrary. Why do you think that is?

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 10:04 AM | Reply

I'd like to see pendulum swing swing back a bit in '18. Single party rule is -------- in general, single party Republican rule is a recipe for disaster, and I'd like to see some endless hearings on President Trump's many corruptions. What's good for the goose...

#29 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-26 10:08 AM | Reply

"I'd like to see some endless hearings on President Trump's many corruptions.'

Chaffetz has scheduled those for the 12th. Of Never.

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 10:18 AM | Reply

Don't you first have to have a conviction?
#22 | Posted by Twinpac

No. Nixon was pardoned prior to any conviction. He just got a blanket pardon for anything he might have done. That headed off any prosecution.

#31 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2016-11-26 11:38 AM | Reply

For me it was always more of a slogan than a promise.

"I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation" is not a slogan. It's a promise of a specific action and he's already broken it.

If you're letting him off the hook for this lie so easily, what incentive does he have to keep any promise he made to you?

Why vote for someone if you don't care whether he keeps any of his promises?

#32 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-26 11:42 AM | Reply

No. Nixon was pardoned prior to any conviction. He just got a blanket pardon for anything he might have done. That headed off any prosecution.

Posted by SomebodyElse at 2016-11-26 11:38 AM | Reply

Oh an acceptance of a pardon is an admittion of guilt too.

#33 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-26 11:46 AM | Reply

That's just as wrong as assuming a plea agreement is an admission of guilt.

#34 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-26 11:52 AM | Reply

That's just as wrong as assuming a plea agreement is an admission of guilt.

#34 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-26 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

en.wikipedia.org

Later use

After Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, intimates said that the former President privately justified his pardon of Richard Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of the Burdick decision that suggested that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries an imputation of guilt. Legal scholars have questioned whether that portion of Burdick is meaningful or merely dicta. [3] Whether or not that is true, President Ford made reference to the Burdick decision in his post-pardon written statement furnished to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives on October 17, 1974.[4] However, Ford's reference to Burdick in his post-pardon written statement related only to the portion of Burdick that supported the proposition that the Constitution does not limit the pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even indicted offenders.[5]

#35 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-26 11:57 AM | Reply

Nothing you've quoted changes the reality of the situation: A person could take a plea or accept a pardon even if they are innocent. The decision is about whether they believe they will be convicted, not whether they consider themselves innocent of the crime.

The state often convicts innocent people and even executes some of them.

#36 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-26 12:44 PM | Reply

Nothing you've quoted changes the reality of the situation: A person could take a plea or accept a pardon even if they are innocent. The decision is about whether they believe they will be convicted, not whether they consider themselves innocent of the crime.

The state often convicts innocent people and even executes some of them.

Posted by rcade at 2016-11-26 12:44 PM | Reply

If you are indeed innocent you had better not take a pardon. Because when you do you accept you are guilty.

#37 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-26 12:49 PM | Reply

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

Unless the pardon expressly states that it is issued because of a determination that the recipient was innocent, a pardon does not imply innocence. It is merely a forgiveness of the offense. It is generally assumed that acceptance of a pardon is an implicit Acknowledgment of guilt, for one cannot be pardoned unless one has committed an offense.The Constitution allows two other pardon powers besides the power of commutation. It expressly speaks about the president's power to grant "reprieves." A reprieve differs from a pardon in that it establishes a temporary delay in the enforcement of the sentence imposed by the court, without changing the sentence or forgiving the crime. A reprieve might be issued for the execution of a prisoner to give the prisoner time to prove his or her innocence. A related power is the power to grant "amnesty," which is also implicit in the pardon power. Amnesty is applied to whole classes or communities, instead of individuals. The power to issue an amnesty and the effect of an amnesty are the same as those for a pardon.

#38 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-26 12:53 PM | Reply

If you take a pardon it doesn't matter whether you are innocent or not because the state can't prosecute you.

That's all a pardon is about. It's not about winning public opinion.

#39 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-26 12:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Given Hillary's joining with Jill in contesting the election, after purging sedatious elements of the government, Trump should direct the IRS and FBI to thoroughly investigate the Clinton Foundation, Soros and the Democrat Party.

#40 | Posted by visitor_ at 2016-11-26 02:23 PM | Reply

"Trump should direct the IRS and FBI to thoroughly investigate the Clinton Foundation, Soros and the Democrat Party."

That's illegal.

Of course, that's fine with the Trump --------, right?

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 02:27 PM | Reply

It's not illegal when the President does it. Besides how else will we find out if there's criminal activity unless they investigate?

#42 | Posted by visitor_ at 2016-11-26 02:34 PM | Reply

"how else will we find out if there's criminal activity unless they investigate?"

But enough about Trump's foreign entanglements.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 02:41 PM | Reply

Given Hillary's joining with Jill in contesting the election, after purging sedatious elements of the government, Trump should direct the IRS and FBI to thoroughly investigate the Clinton Foundation, Soros and the Democrat Party.

This comment is fascist. That's not even hyperbole. What you're recommending is to punish the opposition because they are exercising the right to verify that election results were accurate. It's straight out of places like Russia and Venezuela.

#44 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-26 02:55 PM | Reply

"It's not illegal when the President does it."

Nonsense.

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 03:24 PM | Reply

It's not illegal when the President does it.

Gee where have we heard that before?

I love it how righties hate government until they want it as their cudgel. Then not only is it perfectly fine, but it's actually for freedumb!

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-26 03:42 PM | Reply

Righties really are outing themselves as dangerous, fascist retards.

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-26 03:43 PM | Reply

"It's not illegal when the President does it."

It was illegal when Nixon did it and it would definitely be illegal today. Using the FBI or the IRS to attack political enemies is an offense that would justify impeachment.

#48 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-26 03:59 PM | Reply

"It's not illegal when the President does it."

Then why on earth did the Obama administration get so much flack from Republicans for something the IRS director in Cinncinnati did? If it's all fine and good, what's wrong with targeting your political opponents?

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 04:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Using the FBI or the IRS to attack political enemies is an offense that would justify impeachment.

Tricky Dick really set the bar using the CIA to intimidate the FBI. Now that's ballsy.

#50 | Posted by REDIAL at 2016-11-26 04:04 PM | Reply

A prospective pardon may issue for, example, any alleged wrongdoing found in the 33,000 emails (if found) or the pay for play stuff for the Foundation. Sure the current DOJ left it up to the FBI to decide whether or not to prosecute (!) but the incoming administration may take a more conventional approach. So if this really seems like a broken promise, maybe with all our voices we can convince the president-elect to ask his executive branch folks to take a hard look at this. But really, do DR readers really want HRC prosecuted? It may be a 'careful what you wish for, you may just get it' scenario.

I don't even think it makes good theater any more. I just want them to implement sound economic policy to MAGA. Of course, maybe HRC supporters want to see Trump distracted going after HRC so he does not have enough time to do the things in government they've been led to believe will damage the USA or perhaps scarier, succeed in making things better.

#51 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2016-11-26 04:37 PM | Reply

"the 33,000 emails"

This, from someone who didn't care about the millions of emails lost by GWB.

Get ready for four years of It's Okay If You're A Republican.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-26 04:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"A prospective pardon may issue for, example, any alleged wrongdoing found in the 33,000 emails (if found) or the pay for play stuff for the Foundation."

You've been told by the Director of the FBI that there is no crime there, when you want to believe a stupid talking point there is no stopping you no matter how ridiculous you look.

#53 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-26 09:03 PM | Reply

#51 - BTW, I do like your brother, Dirk. A bit odd, though.

#54 | Posted by YAV at 2016-11-26 09:46 PM | Reply

Chaffetz has scheduled those for the 12th. Of Never.
#30 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2016-11-26 10:18 AM

I know, and that's disappointing. Where there's smoke, there's fire, and in Trump's case he's a billowing cloud of it.

#55 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-11-26 09:58 PM | Reply

The whining and ad hominem attacks only make us stronger and lost Hitlery the election just a couple of weeks ago. Member?

Also, reminder that this thread is about the article's thesis that Trump supporters are angry that HRC may not get locked up. I supported The Donald and personally do not care if we put her in a prison pants suit.

We've not seen all the evidence, and both sides have already called Comey's judgement into question, most recently the Democrats right before HRC lost the election. And she did lose an election that she should have won, in part, because of her criminal activity, even if a discredited FBI chief (a cop, not a prosecutor making the decision in the wacky Obama administration) thought that a conviction woud be unlikely. Even without a conviction, an investigation and capitol hilll hearings might be nearly as satisfying to those with blood lust. So maybe we'll do it for Ann Coulter, but definitely not for Karl Rove. But the fact is, without a pardon, you won't know when or if the other shoe will drop. Sleep well.

#56 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2016-11-27 06:59 AM | Reply

FBI chief (a cop, not a prosecutor making the decision in the wacky Obama administration)

He was a US Attorney and later Deputy Attorney General under the Bush administration. IOW, a prosecutor, showing that he has previous experience deciding what is a prosecutable case.

#57 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-11-27 01:09 PM | Reply

"making the decision"

The FBI chief didn't make the decision, he made a comment, albeit a misplaced one. The DOJ made the decision, and reported it was unanimous among all the career litigants in the office.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 01:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The FBI chief didn't make the decision, he made a comment, albeit a misplaced one. The DOJ made the decision, and reported it was unanimous among all the career litigants in the office.

#58 | Posted by Danforth

There you go again, with the facts. Don't you know we are now in the "post-truth" era?

post-truth
adjective

Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief en.oxforddictionaries.com

#59 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-11-27 01:42 PM | Reply

"Don't you know we are now in the "post-truth" era?"

I'm beginning to fear we're entering the "post-intelligence" era.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 01:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

In a time and place where "might makes right" truth doesn't matter. Neither does intelligence.

#61 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-27 02:06 PM | Reply

I'm beginning to fear we're entering the "post-intelligence" era.

We started that slide decades ago.

I think we've finally bottomed out. Or at least I hope we've bottomed out.

#62 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-27 02:52 PM | Reply

"I think we've finally bottomed out. Or at least I hope we've bottomed out."

We ain't seen nuthin' yet.

Wait till Betsy DeVos takes over the DOE.

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 03:18 PM | Reply

Wait till Betsy DeVos takes over the DOE.

I've just begun reading into her.

I'm getting the sinking feeling that we're going to see a Texas evolution debate-type problem nationally.

#64 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-27 03:27 PM | Reply

#63 Saw an interesting post of fb recently about a Trump voter who is a teacher and who, according to a friend, "lost her ----" when she heard about the DeVos appt. Heard another story about a Trump supporter who believes in climate change and called into the FAN when he heard about Trump's preference for climate deniers. Said caller asked, "What should I do now?" I personally know of someone who was a big Bernie supporter and who did vote for Clinton but took great pride in not doing anything else to support her campaign. The day after the election I was surprised to see this person encouraging people of fb to sign a petition asking the electoral college to elect Clinton instead of Trump. Uh, sorry, too little, too late. All these folks should have put as much thought into their choices before the election as they are putting into their angst about the results of the result.

#65 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-27 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We'll see what the incoming AG says, as no statute of limitations has passed. Here's an article detailing that. Comey does not have the final say, and actually, neither does Trump. Also the state AGs where the Clinton Foundation operated may still take action against it and its principals.

www.wnd.com

#66 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2016-11-27 06:28 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort