Trump’s Promise to Put Hillary Clinton in Jail — and to Undo Democratic Norms.. Charles Krauthammer

[mystery-ak]

 Trump’s Promise to Put Hillary Clinton in Jail — and to Undo Democratic Norms
It’s not the ‘locker room’ talk but the ‘Lock her up’ talk.
By Charles Krauthammer — October 13, 2016

The second presidential debate — bloody, muddy, and raucous — was just enough to save Donald Trump’s campaign from extinction, but not enough to restore his chances of winning, barring an act of God (a medical calamity) or of Putin (a cosmically incriminating WikiLeak).

That Trump crashed because of a sex-talk tape is odd. It should have been a surprise to no one. His views on women have been on open display for years. And he’d offered a dazzling array of other reasons for disqualification: habitual mendacity, pathological narcissism, profound ignorance, and an astonishing dearth of basic human empathy.

To which list Trump added in the second debate, and it had nothing to do with sex. It was his threat, if elected, to put Hillary Clinton in jail.

After appointing a special prosecutor, of course. The niceties must be observed. First, a fair trial, then a proper hanging. The day after the debate, at a rally in Pennsylvania, Trump responded to chants of “Lock her up” with “Lock her up is right.” Two days later, he told a rally in Lakeland, Fla., “She has to go to jail.”

more
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441054/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up-threat-democracy

[Oceander]

Such incendiary talk is an affront to elementary democratic decency and a breach of the boundaries of American political discourse. In democracies, the electoral process is a subtle and elaborate substitute for combat, the age-old way of settling struggles for power. But that sublimation works only if there is mutual agreement to accept both the legitimacy of the result (which Trump keeps undermining with charges that the very process is “rigged”) and the boundaries of the contest. The prize for the winner is temporary accession to limited political power, not the satisfaction of vendettas. Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chávez, and a cavalcade of two-bit caudillos lock up their opponents. American leaders don’t.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441054/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up-threat-democracy

[Oceander]

This is not to say that the investigation into the Clinton e-mails was not itself compromised by politics. FBI director James Comey’s recommendation not to pursue charges was both troubling and puzzling. And Barack Obama very improperly tilted the scales by interjecting, while the investigation was still underway, that Clinton’s e-mails had not endangered national security. But the answer is not to start a new process whose outcome is preordained. Conservatives have relentlessly, and correctly, criticized this administration for abusing its power and suborning the civil administration (e.g., the IRS). Is the Republican response to do the same?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441054/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up-threat-democracy

[Oceander]

How long will it take for Trumpists to start howling for Krauthammer's blood?

[sinkspur]

This election is not just about placing the nuclear codes in Trump’s hands. It’s also about handing him the instruments of civilian coercion, such as the IRS, the FBI, the FCC, the SEC. Think of what he could do to enforce the “fairness” he demands. Imagine giving over the vast power of the modern state to a man who says in advance that he will punish his critics and jail his opponent.

I don't want to hear from the Trumpkins "Oh, but we'll reign him in.  We won't let him do this."  The bastard's crazy and has shown no restraint whatsoever, so acting as if he could be stopped after he has the power of the presidency is ludicrous.

He MUST be stopped.

[TomSea]

Any other American would be in jail for what she's done.

[sinkspur]

Any other American would be in jail for what she's done.

That is not up to Trump to decide.

[TomSea]

That is not up to Trump to decide.

Can Trump appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton?

VERDICT: TRUE
Trump said "If I win, I am going to instruct my Attorney General to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there has never been so many lies, so much deception."
The US Attorney General does have the authority to appoint a special prosecutor, according to Stephen Vladeck, a CNN legal contributor and law professor with the University of Texas School of Law. Such action can be taken when the Attorney General determines that a criminal investigation is warranted and that an investigation by the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest or "other extraordinary circumstance" and that "under the circumstances it would be in the public interest to appoint and outside Special Counsel."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/09/politics/fact-check-presidential-debate/index.html

He can appoint a special prosecutor. The FBI investigation is a sham, any other American would be jail.

[dfwgator]

You mean like when they put Tom DeLay in jail?

[sinkspur]

He can appoint a special prosecutor. The FBI investigation is a sham, any other American would be jail.

The Attorney General can appoint a special prosecutor if there are certain criteria met. 

Thankfully, we won't have to worry about this, as Trump is doomed.

[HonestJohn]

I did point this out the day of the debate.

Just sayin'...

[TomSea]

You can still investigate someone, it doesn't have to be the email scandal; it appears there is a lot of wrongdoing per the Clintons, you don't just get blanket amnesty for all acts one has done.