Is he hoping that one of those released will free Clinton from the millstone that Trump has become around her neck?

Is he letting a couple of selected convicts out because either he, his wife or Clinton were involved in the case and the rest are just getting out to cover that fact?

I rarely comment on American politics, as a Brit it is not a subject I know too much about, but sometimes something pops up that makes me think “hello, that’s a bit off”.  This has happened a great deal since the presidential election propaganda ramped up into high gear but there are people way more knowledgable than me to comment on it so I sit back and learn what I can. One thing has caught my eye though, and I am going to risk commenting on it, and that’s the 872 prisoners getting an early release for no other reason then Barack Obama said they could.

What I want to know is why.

Was HRC or even maybe one of the Obama’s themselves involved in the cases of any of those who have been released? They were lawyers after all.

According to ABC news “almost” all of the prisoners have been convicted on non-violent, drugs related crimes that would have seen them getting much shorter sentences had they been convicted a few years later.

And his point is?

Should someone be able to claim back-dated salaries for jobs that commanded a higher wage now that two years ago?

Should a kid get awarded higher grades because the system changed and grades awarded are higher now than they once were?

Maybe homeowners can get recompense because their homes are worth less now because the neighbourhood has declined and their homes used to be worth more.

The whole idea is ludicrous. The law as it stands on the day is what it is and the penalties paid under that law should stand. I also take issue with the word “almost”…what does that mean? 99% were non-violent drug related convictions? 80%? 50%? what is almost?

Apparently it’s all being done in the name of taking pressure off the prison system, well that doesn’t impress me if I’m honest. Just like here in the UK Americans are taxed and charged to within an inch of our lives by Federal government, maybe they should take some of the money they have removed from hard-working honest citizens and build more prisons with it.

That by return would be a major boost to the construction industry with more jobs available, guards and other staff would be needed and companies involved in furnishing and otherwise kitting out a brand new penitentiary would see a rise in the orders on their books. This in turn would see an increase in orders for some of the few manufacturing industries have left in the United States who supply the companies that supply inventory to government facilities.

The major benefit of course is that those convicted of offences that affect the law-abiding, decent and honest citizens of the United States would be locked up unable to peddle more of their lethal toxins to kids. Those who have been incarcerated for driving under the influence will not be a threat to those people going about their usual business.

Every pedophile that’s off the streets is a glimmer of good news in a world that’s rapidly descending into madness. Every murderer behind bars is music to my ears.

I don’t kid myself that the justice system of the United States is perfect because it isn’t, nowhere near and it most likely need will be. It has faults, many faults, as do judicial systems around the world.

We are all aware of political activists getting unduly harsh sentences because governments want them out of the way. This situation doesn’t just occur in far-flung nations and as civil liberties are eroded on both sides of the pond there is going to be an increase in cases of journalistic intolerance that sees people jailed as a ‘national security risk’ when in reality they were simply reporting on a situation in a fashion that the government of the day objects to!

There are also examples of people serving sentences purely on jumped up ‘evidence’ that cleared a serious case from the books and allowed police departments to stamped ‘solved’ on the cover of the file.

Why not look at these cases and allow innocent people to walk free?

As in most Western nations there is a parole system whereby those convicted and sentenced for crimes get their chance to speak up. They can explain how they have changed, let the parole board see they have rehabilitated, continued with their education and modified their behaviour. Parole will be granted to those who are deemed to no longer be a threat to society. That does go wrong on occasion but at this point it’s the system on offer and that’s a end to it, why not increase the number of parole review boards and let these people state their case like every other criminal?

I suggest that there needs to be one set of rules for all prisoners – and I don’t think for a single fleeting moment that President Obama has looked at every single offender doing time in Federal penitentiaries before he decided who he would and would not allow to get early release.

That bring us to the question of how it was decided which cases he would review.

• Who put those cases on his desk?
• Which states are involved?
• Which prisons are involved?
• Are the same officials making multiple recommendations?
• Who are those officials? Prison governors, members of Congress, who?
• Who were the lawyers involved in the cases? There are a large number of ex-lawyers who are now serving politicians, including Hillary Clinton and both Barack and Michelle Obama.
• Are any of the released related to prominent families or families of any member of the government?
• Are any of the released from families who have made donations in favour of Hillary Clinton or Obama?

There is no transparency to the process that led up to the decisions Obama has made and even though I am not an American I would really like to know why he chose the people he has from over 2m people serving time in American prisons. (source)

Take care

Liz