Originally posted by Ian-S
View Post
Why do you think I have said -not- charging her was the best gift the FBI gave Trump?
We had something very similar here, there was an MP, Lord Janner, who was accused of child abuse, there was lots of evidence against him but the crown did not prosecute him because he was dying (and did die), to his fans that proved his innocence, but in reality all it proved was the crown decided not to persue charges, there's a massive difference between the two.
People want Clinton put on trial so the evidence can speak to her guilt or not, not be told no "we're not pressing charges because", as all that does is undermines the legal system in place.
Remember that, -PROVE YOU INNOCENT-, the very antithesis of the legal system, the assumption of guilt before proof.
At the very least the evidence is clear she lied under oath, it was bought up by the host in the debates, so she should be prosecuted for that anyway, let alone anything else (over here we call that perjury and iirc Jeffrey Archer got 7 years for it).
I have utterly no issue with Hillary having to "pay for her sins", I am not a Hillary fan in the slightest, I don't like her really, I just found Trump to be more dangerous.
You'd probably find if she actually was put on trial and found innocent, people would either accept it, or claim the case was rigged, that seems too be a popular argument ATM for some reason, can't remember who started that trend.... Oh hang on lol
Thus proving my point really.
Comment