Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It wasn't 50k and they found them depotooOutstanding, considering how these Red sympathizers accuse him of being the most lawless ever, while claiming we are a Banana Repbulic.
Tough to have a scandal when the leftist media protects him at every turn, like the NYT, CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Ah yes, the leftist media, which loves to dig into scandals. The problem being that when you dig into the rumours of scandal around the Clintons, they all end up being rumours started by Republicans without evidence or witnesses. When investigated, these "scandals" quickly fall apart.
What about the 50,000 emails that Cheney and Bush deleted from the private servers they installed in the White House. They had private email servers too. And Dick Cheney had them wiped clean. Nothing was turned over. Shouldn't the FBI investigate?
I have also - I still do; however, the difference between THOSE instances and the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton is that Hillary's investigation is NOT classified. If anything it should be HIGHLY TRANSPARENT to the American people, even possibly, dare I say, 'the most transparent evuh'?!I've had to sign agreements not to even say the name of a file in an office hallway because someone might overhear. That's in addition to the non-disclosure agreement and insider trading agreement I signed when I was hired. Such additional non-disclosure agreements are common in such sensitive cases.
The reason there is a gag order in this case is NOT because the information and details are 'sensitive' or 'classified' - IT'S BECAUSE THE SOBs WHO IGNORED THE LAW TO PROTECT HILLARY DON'T WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.
Now is the time for all good patriots to come to the aid of their Country......FBI AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS ARE COMING OUT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT COMEY'S DECISION WAS AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S REFUSAL TO INDICT / PROSECUTE HILLARY TRULY WAS -- A 'TOP DOWN' OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WHITE WASH OF HILLARY'S CRIMES / CASE!
--------------------------------------------------
FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails
"The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged"
FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision”
It sure as hell WAS a 'TOP DOWN' decision...all the way from the VERY TOP!!
“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”
"The claim also is backed up by a report in the New York Post this week, which quotes a number of veteran FBI agents saying FBI Director James Comey “has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his cowardly whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private email server.”
“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time. I hold Director Comey responsible,” Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit, told the Post.
Retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello added to the report, saying, “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.”
No one would have taken this case, according to Comey?! His fellow FBI Agents call 'BULLSHIT'!
-- “I know zero prosecutors in the DOJ’s National Security Division who would not have taken the case to a grand jury,” the source added. “One was never even convened.”
Fbi, Doj Roiled By Comey, Lynch Decision To Let Clinton Slide By On Emails, Says Insider
The OP mentioned a name and position..Did you even read the OP or immediately start bashing trump? GTFOIt's amazing how every career member of the FBI is coming out and saying Justice was Perverted, Hillary should have been indicted, yet 3 people in the entire united States prevented it from happening: Barry, Lynch, & Comey.
MOST CRIMINAL, LAWLESS ADMINISTRATION IN US HISTORY!
Really - name ONE! There isn't a single person named or quoted in that entire story. As usual, it's "sources say", or "sources inside the FBI or the DOJ". Not one person with the courage of their convictions to openly say it?
Maybe this is just another false FOX News hysteria, like Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, where 7 investigations showed that not a single thing that FOX News has been saying about Benghazi for the past 5 years was ever true.
Where in my post did I bash Trump?
Yeah, I read the OP, and I read the POS FOX opinion piece that contains no piece of verifiable fact. It quoted unnamed "sources", which is what bullshit phony news organizations are prone to doing. It's what fuelled 5 years of lie-filled Benghazi coverage.
It says they have connections within the FBI. Active duty FBI agents have also come forward. Let's use some common sense here for a minute, shall we -- WHY would a GAG ORDER be placed on the current GBI Agents if none of them are talking openly about the DIS-JUSTICE that was just done? I am sure some answer can be spun up, but the obvious answer is the right one.The OP named two people who are RETIRED from the FBI, and don't even work there now. They didn't see the evidence, and they weren't even working for the FBI when this happened. There opinions are worthless regardless of their positions before retirement.
It says they have connections within the FBI. Active duty FBI agents have also come forward. Let's use some common sense here for a minute, shall we -- WHY would a GAG ORDER be placed on the current GBI Agents if none of them are talking openly about the DIS-JUSTICE that was just done? I am sure some answer can be spun up, but the obvious answer is the right one.The OP named two people who are RETIRED from the FBI, and don't even work there now. They didn't see the evidence, and they weren't even working for the FBI when this happened. There opinions are worthless regardless of their positions before retirement.
The obvious answer is the right one. Agents assigned to this case were asked to sign the non-disclosure agreement at the START OF THE INVESTIGATION.
Regardless of who these people were in the FBI, they are now retired citizens who have no knowledge of the evidence. If they have spoken to agents currently working for the FBI, those agents either violated their non-disclosure agreements or they didn't work on the case.
There is no way to spin this that makes these two retired FBI people creditable commentators on this situation.
Former U.S. Attorney General Responds To Trump's Special Prosecutor CommentUnless you disagree with separation of powers, I don't see how Trump would be able to do any of that, in the off chance he becomes president. So my question would be. Do you think America should become a dictatorship?This is what the race is really about. We can waste time about bimbo shit but it doesn't really affect much.
Justice under W and O has been completely sold out. Hillary will continue to sell it out and then some. Trump will put the big crooks on trial, starting with Hillary, Ryan, and W....
How does appointing a special prosecutor violate separation of powers?
Former U.S. Attorney General Responds To Trump's Special Prosecutor CommentUnless you disagree with separation of powers, I don't see how Trump would be able to do any of that, in the off chance he becomes president. So my question would be. Do you think America should become a dictatorship?This is what the race is really about. We can waste time about bimbo shit but it doesn't really affect much.
Justice under W and O has been completely sold out. Hillary will continue to sell it out and then some. Trump will put the big crooks on trial, starting with Hillary, Ryan, and W....
How does appointing a special prosecutor violate separation of powers?
Read this excerpt, it is the legal opinion of an attorney general under the Bush administration. I'll copy past some relevant bits.
-the decision has to be made initially by the attorney general as to whether the case warrants reopening at all.
-hardly makes sense for the Justice Department then to redo its own investigation.
-But then you have to determine whether the bringing of charges is proper. And then you start to get into questions of policy and whether doing that would make us look like a banana republic, which I think it would.
-The short answer is that the attorney general is independent in deciding what cases to prosecute and what legal positions to take even if the president says, I think you ought to take a different position.
Note that he isn't a Clinton fan, and even goes as far as to say that the case could have been prosecuted. But appointing a special prosecutor with the express job of jailing your opponent is a clear breach of separation of powers.
I always assumed that it is the judicial branch that prosecutes crimes. Anyways during the debate he clearly said Hillary would be in jail and he would name a special prosecutor to that end. Where is the due process in that. It is not for the president to establish guilt. Which of course is kind of the point. This is why it is a breach of the separation of powers. Trump by his statements has made clear what he wants the justice department to do. And what's more it is clearly politically inspired.Former U.S. Attorney General Responds To Trump's Special Prosecutor CommentUnless you disagree with separation of powers, I don't see how Trump would be able to do any of that, in the off chance he becomes president. So my question would be. Do you think America should become a dictatorship?This is what the race is really about. We can waste time about bimbo shit but it doesn't really affect much.
Justice under W and O has been completely sold out. Hillary will continue to sell it out and then some. Trump will put the big crooks on trial, starting with Hillary, Ryan, and W....
How does appointing a special prosecutor violate separation of powers?
Read this excerpt, it is the legal opinion of an attorney general under the Bush administration. I'll copy past some relevant bits.
-the decision has to be made initially by the attorney general as to whether the case warrants reopening at all.
-hardly makes sense for the Justice Department then to redo its own investigation.
-But then you have to determine whether the bringing of charges is proper. And then you start to get into questions of policy and whether doing that would make us look like a banana republic, which I think it would.
-The short answer is that the attorney general is independent in deciding what cases to prosecute and what legal positions to take even if the president says, I think you ought to take a different position.
Note that he isn't a Clinton fan, and even goes as far as to say that the case could have been prosecuted. But appointing a special prosecutor with the express job of jailing your opponent is a clear breach of separation of powers.
It's not a violation of separation of powers because it is the executive branch that prosecutes crimes. Also the function of a special prosecutor is to review the available evidence to see if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Assuming he feels there is adequate evidence, he then presents that evidence to a grand jury. If the grand jury indicts, then and only then does it go to trial, by either a judge or jury, which is the defendants option. The most any president can do is tell them I think something is fishy and have some one look into it. Much like your dear leader did when he sent the DOJ in to Ferguson and the Zimmerman cases. That's called due process, see the 4th and 14th amendments.
I always assumed that it is the judicial branch that prosecutes crimes. Anyways during the debate he clearly said Hillary would be in jail and he would name a special prosecutor to that end. Where is the due process in that. It is not for the president to establish guilt. Which of course is kind of the point. This is why it is a breach of the separation of powers. Trump by his statements has made clear what he wants the justice department to do. And what's more it is clearly politically inspired.Former U.S. Attorney General Responds To Trump's Special Prosecutor CommentUnless you disagree with separation of powers, I don't see how Trump would be able to do any of that, in the off chance he becomes president. So my question would be. Do you think America should become a dictatorship?This is what the race is really about. We can waste time about bimbo shit but it doesn't really affect much.
Justice under W and O has been completely sold out. Hillary will continue to sell it out and then some. Trump will put the big crooks on trial, starting with Hillary, Ryan, and W....
How does appointing a special prosecutor violate separation of powers?
Read this excerpt, it is the legal opinion of an attorney general under the Bush administration. I'll copy past some relevant bits.
-the decision has to be made initially by the attorney general as to whether the case warrants reopening at all.
-hardly makes sense for the Justice Department then to redo its own investigation.
-But then you have to determine whether the bringing of charges is proper. And then you start to get into questions of policy and whether doing that would make us look like a banana republic, which I think it would.
-The short answer is that the attorney general is independent in deciding what cases to prosecute and what legal positions to take even if the president says, I think you ought to take a different position.
Note that he isn't a Clinton fan, and even goes as far as to say that the case could have been prosecuted. But appointing a special prosecutor with the express job of jailing your opponent is a clear breach of separation of powers.
It's not a violation of separation of powers because it is the executive branch that prosecutes crimes. Also the function of a special prosecutor is to review the available evidence to see if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Assuming he feels there is adequate evidence, he then presents that evidence to a grand jury. If the grand jury indicts, then and only then does it go to trial, by either a judge or jury, which is the defendants option. The most any president can do is tell them I think something is fishy and have some one look into it. Much like your dear leader did when he sent the DOJ in to Ferguson and the Zimmerman cases. That's called due process, see the 4th and 14th amendments.
I always assumed that it is the judicial branch that prosecutes crimes. Anyways during the debate he clearly said Hillary would be in jail and he would name a special prosecutor to that end. Where is the due process in that. It is not for the president to establish guilt. Which of course is kind of the point. This is why it is a breach of the separation of powers. Trump by his statements has made clear what he wants the justice department to do. And what's more it is clearly politically inspired.Former U.S. Attorney General Responds To Trump's Special Prosecutor CommentUnless you disagree with separation of powers, I don't see how Trump would be able to do any of that, in the off chance he becomes president. So my question would be. Do you think America should become a dictatorship?
How does appointing a special prosecutor violate separation of powers?
Read this excerpt, it is the legal opinion of an attorney general under the Bush administration. I'll copy past some relevant bits.
-the decision has to be made initially by the attorney general as to whether the case warrants reopening at all.
-hardly makes sense for the Justice Department then to redo its own investigation.
-But then you have to determine whether the bringing of charges is proper. And then you start to get into questions of policy and whether doing that would make us look like a banana republic, which I think it would.
-The short answer is that the attorney general is independent in deciding what cases to prosecute and what legal positions to take even if the president says, I think you ought to take a different position.
Note that he isn't a Clinton fan, and even goes as far as to say that the case could have been prosecuted. But appointing a special prosecutor with the express job of jailing your opponent is a clear breach of separation of powers.
It's not a violation of separation of powers because it is the executive branch that prosecutes crimes. Also the function of a special prosecutor is to review the available evidence to see if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Assuming he feels there is adequate evidence, he then presents that evidence to a grand jury. If the grand jury indicts, then and only then does it go to trial, by either a judge or jury, which is the defendants option. The most any president can do is tell them I think something is fishy and have some one look into it. Much like your dear leader did when he sent the DOJ in to Ferguson and the Zimmerman cases. That's called due process, see the 4th and 14th amendments.
The judicial is there to insure fair prosecutions and protect the rights of the citizen.
What did you not understand about the roll of a special prosecutor?
Also, if you bothered to listen to the evidence Comey laid out in his press statement you would know the hildabitch is guilty as sin. He laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence, with is the only element required for prosecution under the law. Of course you're also ignoring her perjury in congressional testimony.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed
FBI AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS ARE COMING OUT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT COMEY'S DECISION WAS AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S REFUSAL TO INDICT / PROSECUTE HILLARY TRULY WAS -- A 'TOP DOWN' OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WHITE WASH OF HILLARY'S CRIMES / CASE!
--------------------------------------------------
FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails
"The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged"
FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision”
It sure as hell WAS a 'TOP DOWN' decision...all the way from the VERY TOP!!
“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”
"The claim also is backed up by a report in the New York Post this week, which quotes a number of veteran FBI agents saying FBI Director James Comey “has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his cowardly whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private email server.”
“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time. I hold Director Comey responsible,” Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit, told the Post.
Retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello added to the report, saying, “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.”
No one would have taken this case, according to Comey?! His fellow FBI Agents call 'BULLSHIT'!
-- “I know zero prosecutors in the DOJ’s National Security Division who would not have taken the case to a grand jury,” the source added. “One was never even convened.”
Fbi, Doj Roiled By Comey, Lynch Decision To Let Clinton Slide By On Emails, Says Insider
All FBI agents quit in disgust about Hillary's emails. There are no FBI agents left in the agency as I type this. They thought they were doing important work and when Hillary didn't get persecuted over handling of emails they got depressed and felt like they had nothing to give to the world anymore.
True story from un-named sources yo.
Let's talk about gross negligence. By your logic both Colin Powell and condoleezza Rice should be in the same boat as Clinton. Both used private E-mail accounts yet neither are being threatened by Trump with jail time. Establishing again the clear political motivation for going after Clinton. I'm not trying to claim appointing a special prosecutor is outside his purview. My claim is that doing so after the judicial system already said they were unwilling to prosecute the case further is stepping out of his role as a potential president and doing something that threatens the integrity of the judicial branch.I always assumed that it is the judicial branch that prosecutes crimes. Anyways during the debate he clearly said Hillary would be in jail and he would name a special prosecutor to that end. Where is the due process in that. It is not for the president to establish guilt. Which of course is kind of the point. This is why it is a breach of the separation of powers. Trump by his statements has made clear what he wants the justice department to do. And what's more it is clearly politically inspired.Former U.S. Attorney General Responds To Trump's Special Prosecutor CommentUnless you disagree with separation of powers, I don't see how Trump would be able to do any of that, in the off chance he becomes president. So my question would be. Do you think America should become a dictatorship?
How does appointing a special prosecutor violate separation of powers?
Read this excerpt, it is the legal opinion of an attorney general under the Bush administration. I'll copy past some relevant bits.
-the decision has to be made initially by the attorney general as to whether the case warrants reopening at all.
-hardly makes sense for the Justice Department then to redo its own investigation.
-But then you have to determine whether the bringing of charges is proper. And then you start to get into questions of policy and whether doing that would make us look like a banana republic, which I think it would.
-The short answer is that the attorney general is independent in deciding what cases to prosecute and what legal positions to take even if the president says, I think you ought to take a different position.
Note that he isn't a Clinton fan, and even goes as far as to say that the case could have been prosecuted. But appointing a special prosecutor with the express job of jailing your opponent is a clear breach of separation of powers.
It's not a violation of separation of powers because it is the executive branch that prosecutes crimes. Also the function of a special prosecutor is to review the available evidence to see if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Assuming he feels there is adequate evidence, he then presents that evidence to a grand jury. If the grand jury indicts, then and only then does it go to trial, by either a judge or jury, which is the defendants option. The most any president can do is tell them I think something is fishy and have some one look into it. Much like your dear leader did when he sent the DOJ in to Ferguson and the Zimmerman cases. That's called due process, see the 4th and 14th amendments.
The judicial is there to insure fair prosecutions and protect the rights of the citizen.
What did you not understand about the roll of a special prosecutor?
Also, if you bothered to listen to the evidence Comey laid out in his press statement you would know the hildabitch is guilty as sin. He laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence, with is the only element required for prosecution under the law. Of course you're also ignoring her perjury in congressional testimony.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed
The law was applied to her, and she was not found guilty- and thats the end of the story- period!I always assumed that it is the judicial branch that prosecutes crimes. Anyways during the debate he clearly said Hillary would be in jail and he would name a special prosecutor to that end. Where is the due process in that. It is not for the president to establish guilt. Which of course is kind of the point. This is why it is a breach of the separation of powers. Trump by his statements has made clear what he wants the justice department to do. And what's more it is clearly politically inspired.Former U.S. Attorney General Responds To Trump's Special Prosecutor CommentHow does appointing a special prosecutor violate separation of powers?
Read this excerpt, it is the legal opinion of an attorney general under the Bush administration. I'll copy past some relevant bits.
-the decision has to be made initially by the attorney general as to whether the case warrants reopening at all.
-hardly makes sense for the Justice Department then to redo its own investigation.
-But then you have to determine whether the bringing of charges is proper. And then you start to get into questions of policy and whether doing that would make us look like a banana republic, which I think it would.
-The short answer is that the attorney general is independent in deciding what cases to prosecute and what legal positions to take even if the president says, I think you ought to take a different position.
Note that he isn't a Clinton fan, and even goes as far as to say that the case could have been prosecuted. But appointing a special prosecutor with the express job of jailing your opponent is a clear breach of separation of powers.
It's not a violation of separation of powers because it is the executive branch that prosecutes crimes. Also the function of a special prosecutor is to review the available evidence to see if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Assuming he feels there is adequate evidence, he then presents that evidence to a grand jury. If the grand jury indicts, then and only then does it go to trial, by either a judge or jury, which is the defendants option. The most any president can do is tell them I think something is fishy and have some one look into it. Much like your dear leader did when he sent the DOJ in to Ferguson and the Zimmerman cases. That's called due process, see the 4th and 14th amendments.
The judicial is there to insure fair prosecutions and protect the rights of the citizen.
What did you not understand about the roll of a special prosecutor?
Also, if you bothered to listen to the evidence Comey laid out in his press statement you would know the hildabitch is guilty as sin. He laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence, with is the only element required for prosecution under the law. Of course you're also ignoring her perjury in congressional testimony.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed
Thankfully the law does not apply to her. It's for other people...
Let's talk about gross negligence. By your logic both Colin Powell and condoleezza Rice should be in the same boat as Clinton. Both used private E-mail accounts yet neither are being threatened by Trump with jail time. Establishing again the clear political motivation for going after Clinton. I'm not trying to claim appointing a special prosecutor is outside his purview. My claim is that doing so after the judicial system already said they were unwilling to prosecute the case further is stepping out of his role as a potential president and doing something that threatens the integrity of the judicial branch.I always assumed that it is the judicial branch that prosecutes crimes. Anyways during the debate he clearly said Hillary would be in jail and he would name a special prosecutor to that end. Where is the due process in that. It is not for the president to establish guilt. Which of course is kind of the point. This is why it is a breach of the separation of powers. Trump by his statements has made clear what he wants the justice department to do. And what's more it is clearly politically inspired.Former U.S. Attorney General Responds To Trump's Special Prosecutor CommentHow does appointing a special prosecutor violate separation of powers?
Read this excerpt, it is the legal opinion of an attorney general under the Bush administration. I'll copy past some relevant bits.
-the decision has to be made initially by the attorney general as to whether the case warrants reopening at all.
-hardly makes sense for the Justice Department then to redo its own investigation.
-But then you have to determine whether the bringing of charges is proper. And then you start to get into questions of policy and whether doing that would make us look like a banana republic, which I think it would.
-The short answer is that the attorney general is independent in deciding what cases to prosecute and what legal positions to take even if the president says, I think you ought to take a different position.
Note that he isn't a Clinton fan, and even goes as far as to say that the case could have been prosecuted. But appointing a special prosecutor with the express job of jailing your opponent is a clear breach of separation of powers.
It's not a violation of separation of powers because it is the executive branch that prosecutes crimes. Also the function of a special prosecutor is to review the available evidence to see if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Assuming he feels there is adequate evidence, he then presents that evidence to a grand jury. If the grand jury indicts, then and only then does it go to trial, by either a judge or jury, which is the defendants option. The most any president can do is tell them I think something is fishy and have some one look into it. Much like your dear leader did when he sent the DOJ in to Ferguson and the Zimmerman cases. That's called due process, see the 4th and 14th amendments.
The judicial is there to insure fair prosecutions and protect the rights of the citizen.
What did you not understand about the roll of a special prosecutor?
Also, if you bothered to listen to the evidence Comey laid out in his press statement you would know the hildabitch is guilty as sin. He laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence, with is the only element required for prosecution under the law. Of course you're also ignoring her perjury in congressional testimony.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed
