Charges against arms dealer dropped to protect HRC!

[Anonymous]

Wow. DOJ indicts a guy for illegal arms dealing then drops the charges when State Department is implicated.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/marc-turi-libyan-rebels-hillary-clinton-229115

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. DOJ indicts a guy for illegal arms dealing then drops the charges when State Department is implicated.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/marc-turi-libyan-rebels-hillary-clinton-229115

Wow. Just wow. But really, should we be surprised anymore?

[Anonymous]

Do you think she will be asked about this by anyone in the press?

[Anonymous]

October Surprise!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think she will be asked about this by anyone in the press?

Good question. It is a strange story. Of course we'll never get the full story about whether the US was complicit in arms sales to Libyan rebels. But who cares! We have useless tax returns to moan about!

[Anonymous]

Read your link again, OP. The request to drop charges included an agreement from both parties to resolve the dispute in a civil settlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think she will be asked about this by anyone in the press?

Good question. It is a strange story. Of course we'll never get the full story about whether the US was complicit in arms sales to Libyan rebels. But who cares! We have useless tax returns to moan about!

If we had REAL investigative journalists who actually gave a damn about the important stuff, this would get investigated.
I doubt it will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read your link again, OP. The request to drop charges included an agreement from both parties to resolve the dispute in a civil settlement.

That doesn't look good for the government. They wouldn't permit the defendant to put on a defense because that would have required disclosure of lots of information. DOJ would not have indicted then dropped on the basis of a discovery ruling unless it was really bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read your link again, OP. The request to drop charges included an agreement from both parties to resolve the dispute in a civil settlement.

Some “civil settlement.”

"Under the deal, Turi admits no guilt in the transactions he participated in, but he agreed to refrain from U.S.-regulated arms dealing for four years. A $200,000 civil penalty will be waived if Turi abides by the agreement.”

In other words, “We have secrets to keep and we don’t want them getting out. Could be damaging.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read your link again, OP. The request to drop charges included an agreement from both parties to resolve the dispute in a civil settlement.

That doesn't look good for the government. They wouldn't permit the defendant to put on a defense because that would have required disclosure of lots of information. DOJ would not have indicted then dropped on the basis of a discovery ruling unless it was really bad.

I don't see the need for discovery to air lots of unrelated dirty laundry. I also don't think the override of Obama's Saudi Arabia suit veto is a good idea either. We can agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read your link again, OP. The request to drop charges included an agreement from both parties to resolve the dispute in a civil settlement.

That doesn't look good for the government. They wouldn't permit the defendant to put on a defense because that would have required disclosure of lots of information. DOJ would not have indicted then dropped on the basis of a discovery ruling unless it was really bad.

I don't see the need for discovery to air lots of unrelated dirty laundry. I also don't think the override of Obama's Saudi Arabia suit veto is a good idea either. We can agree to disagree.

You might not see the need for discovery, but criminal defendants do. And that pesky little constitutional mandate about due process requires it. So whether you personally think discovery is unnecessary kind of puts you in the Star Chamber courts and Courts of the Soviet Union. Hope your proud.

I agree though the override was stupid.

[Anonymous]

This reeks to high heaven.

Last year, in his only extended television interview, Turi provided Fox News with documents and email exchanges he had with high-level members of Congress as well as military, and State Department employees to back up his claim that the Obama administration authorized in 2011, at the height of the Arab Spring, a covert weapons program that spun out of control.

"That's where I came up with this 'zero footprint' Arab supply chain, whereby, our foreign ally supplies another, Arab country," Turi said. In this case, the US would supply conventional weapons to a US ally-Qatar, who would inturn supply them to Libya, as a kind of workaround.

"If you want to limit the exposure to the US government, what you simply do is outsource it to your allies," Turi said, describing the practice. "The partners-the Qataris, and the Emiratis did exactly what they were contracted to do."

Turi told Fox he never supplied any weapons to Qatar, and it was in the hands of the U.S. government and the State Department's Bureau of Political and Military Affairs which was headed by a key Clinton aide, Andrew Shapiro. Shapiro was responsible to oversee the export control process at the State Department.

“They don’t want this stuff to come out because it will look really bad for Obama and Clinton just before the election,” an associate of Turi told Politico, claiming that information sought by Turi’s team would show Clinton’s own role in arming Libyan rebels fighting former strongman Col. Muammar Qaddafi while she was secretary of state.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/05/doj-abruptly-drops-case-against-gun-runner-who-threatened-to-reveal-clintons-libya-dealings.html

[Anonymous]

This DOJ is probably the most politicized in the history of this country. SAD!

[Anonymous]

Hopefully the MSM will give this story at least the same amount of coverage as given to Miss Piggy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully the MSM will give this story at least the same amount of coverage as given to Miss Piggy.

Doubtful. It would not be beneficial to their chosen candidate.