Hillary and the classified emails

[TonyStalloni]

 

 

No, the precedent should be you go after people when they commit a prosecutable crime.

If you start deciding "meh, close enough," that's a pretty damn slippery slope.

 

 

 

I appreciate the distinction of your point, and I agree with that in general, but you can't act like wrapped inside of that precedent is the reality that if you're rich and powerful you're above the law. This is one of the ugliest realities of our country, and I suppose of the world in general.

 

 

Yes, I agree that definitely exists. People with more resources tend to get better legal treatment than others. They can afford to lawyer up and fight things fiercely in court, whereas a poorer, less important person could be convicted rather easily. This reality can head of legal action before it ever comes to pass.

 

Obviously Trump is going to push that "above the law" narrative full bore. More likely, outrage at lack of indictment indicates a lot of people don't really understand how the legal system works. There may be a bit of both involved in the end result-- there's some gray area here that's up for interpretation. As to how we arrived at where we are today, people will have to assign blame/credit to different factors based on their own beliefs and opinions.

 

For me, I don't really care. Long ago I identified Clinton as the candidate who best represented my values and future for the country. The other candidate is so laughably bad for me that the email thing becomes a blip in the grand scheme of things. A bad blip, but a blip. I'd never vote for that man, and I'll do what I can to make sure he never takes up the mantle.

 

 

I guess that about says all I need to know. Unfortunately I'm afraid too many people feel this same way. This country has now officially become the land of the few highly privileged and the home of the well placed.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

No, the precedent should be you go after people when they commit a prosecutable crime.

If you start deciding "meh, close enough," that's a pretty damn slippery slope.

 

 

 

I appreciate the distinction of your point, and I agree with that in general, but you can't act like wrapped inside of that precedent is the reality that if you're rich and powerful you're above the law. This is one of the ugliest realities of our country, and I suppose of the world in general.

 

 

Yes, I agree that definitely exists. People with more resources tend to get better legal treatment than others. They can afford to lawyer up and fight things fiercely in court, whereas a poorer, less important person could be convicted rather easily. This reality can head of legal action before it ever comes to pass.

 

Obviously Trump is going to push that "above the law" narrative full bore. More likely, outrage at lack of indictment indicates a lot of people don't really understand how the legal system works. There may be a bit of both involved in the end result-- there's some gray area here that's up for interpretation. As to how we arrived at where we are today, people will have to assign blame/credit to different factors based on their own beliefs and opinions.

 

For me, I don't really care. Long ago I identified Clinton as the candidate who best represented my values and future for the country. The other candidate is so laughably bad for me that the email thing becomes a blip in the grand scheme of things. A bad blip, but a blip. I'd never vote for that man, and I'll do what I can to make sure he never takes up the mantle.

 

 

I guess that about says all I need to know. Unfortunately I'm afraid too many people feel this same way. This country has now officially become the land of the few highly privileged and the home of the well placed.

 

 

Well that's not really fair. I think Clinton has an infinitely higher probability of fighting to make things better for everyone, particularly the disadvantaged, than Trump. Johnson doesn't have a realistic chance to win.

 

Elections boil down to choices. We don't have the best choices this cycle. But she's the better choice.

[BigRedBuster]

The only reason Johnson doesn't have a chance is because people say he doesn't have a chance. Too many people are stuck in the R Vs D crap.

 

[funhusker]

Johnson needs to be on the debate stage. If anything, it might be beneficial in forcing Trump and Hillary to focus on "real" issues for some of it. Without him, I think the debates are more about e-mails, walls, and radicals vs. "Islamic" radicals.

 

It would be nice if the candidates talked about education, infrastructure plans, healthcare costs, and budgets. Maybe next time....

[zoogs]

The "only" reason Johnson doesn't have a chance is because he actually doesn't have a chance.

The Libertarian Party represents relatively few people, and like any other party, they'd like to represent a lot more. The day they do represent enough people is the day they become just like any other party that has to cater to a broad constituency: a bunch of squabblers arguing over party direction, and smaller parties attempting to poach the disaffected.

Big Party talking points, Small Party talking points, they're all the same in that way. I mean, it's not wrong to want to build up a party; assembling an electoral coalition is how things get done. But if you don't want to be a Party lemming, don't put stock into any campaign slogan.

Candidates will talk about education, infrastructure, healthcare, and budgets. It'll all be blather, playing to a live crowd for applause -- Johnson or Jill Stein or no. Oh, balance the budget, cut the taxes, MIDDLE CLASS MIDDLE CLASS MIDDLE CLASS ...

[Danny Bateman]

Johnson needs to be on the debate stage. If anything, it might be beneficial in forcing Trump and Hillary to focus on "real" issues for some of it. Without him, I think the debates are more about e-mails, walls, and radicals vs. "Islamic" radicals.

 

It would be nice if the candidates talked about education, infrastructure plans, healthcare costs, and budgets. Maybe next time....

 

I've said it before... Johnson is not a very good debater. It may end his campaign competitively if he gets on a stage with those two. Watch the Libertarian debates. He has a tendency to lose his train of thought and say some really goofy stuff.

 

He's a very cool dude. I do disagree with a lot of his economic policies, but I wouldn't sweat a Johnson presidency. I just like Clinton's policies better.

 

She was on stage with Obama and outlined a five point plan to boost the economy. Trump vaguely mentioned bringing back jobs... and winning so much we're mad at him. One of the candidates is talking about the issues, even if people don't hear it.

[AFhusker]

This is a dark day for the American Judicial System. What has been proved today that there are rules for the average Americans and then there are rules for the cooked Clinton's.

 

She lies to Congress and to the American people (again) and nothing happens to her. I don't know how anyone can vote for someone who lies every time she speaks.

 

Clinton "I only used one portable device for convince." / FBI- She used several devices.

 

Clinton " I never sent or received classified emails on her personal server." / FBI - 110 emails in 52 threads contained classified emails from Top Secret to Classified

 

Clinton " I turned over everything to the FBI." /FBI - 30,000+ emails were deleted and then wiped in a way that they couldn't be recovered

 

Clinton " My server was never hacked" / FBI The numerous servers were hacked, what the hackers got ahold of is unknown

 

Don't even get me started about the BS "you tube video" that she blamed Benghazi on. Even to the families of those who died. IDK how you can lie to families of those who died for our country.

 

Then you bring up that he funneled 141 Million dollars from middle eastern countries to her "Clinton Foundation." Not only is that a conflict of interest as she was SoS at the time, but those countries don't allow women to have any rights and gay's are killed. So how can she claim to be for women and gay people when she takes money from people who persecute them. Not to mention that women make 83K less than men who work for her Foundation. There is nothing that is believable for this woman or her husband. Do we want to bring up how he ruined the numerous women's lives who Bill had affairs with? Then wants to tell people while she is pandering to women saying that rape victims should be heard. I guess that is true as long as it isn't Bill who is committing the crime.

 

Not to mention this last week proves that it was a set up. Bill meets with AD Lynch, then she get interviewed on Saturday and is cleared on the same day that she flies to NC with the President. Which means that they knew before today that she was going to be cleared as they wouldn't take a chance of the President campaigning with someone who was just indited. Also travel plans for the POTUS are made days in advance, so there is another reason as to why she was protected. Not to mention she also said that she will keep Lynch as the AD if she wins the election.

 

I mean is this country that dense that they just overlook the blatant lies of this family and administration? Can people not see through them when they are so blatant that it should be insulting our intelligence?

 

On top of this crap, she has no record other than everything she touches turns out badly for the country. Look at Libya/Syria,

 

With that said I am not a fan of Trump, but this woman isn't qualified to be president, the only thing she is qualified for is prison or retirement.

[AFhusker]

Johnson needs to be on the debate stage. If anything, it might be beneficial in forcing Trump and Hillary to focus on "real" issues for some of it. Without him, I think the debates are more about e-mails, walls, and radicals vs. "Islamic" radicals.

 

It would be nice if the candidates talked about education, infrastructure plans, healthcare costs, and budgets. Maybe next time....

 

Johnson needs to be on the debate stage. If anything, it might be beneficial in forcing Trump and Hillary to focus on "real" issues for some of it. Without him, I think the debates are more about e-mails, walls, and radicals vs. "Islamic" radicals.

 

It would be nice if the candidates talked about education, infrastructure plans, healthcare costs, and budgets. Maybe next time....

He's not at 15% is he? If he isn't then they won't allow him anywhere near the stage. With both candidates being as bad as they are, I am surprised that he isn't at 15%.

[TonyStalloni]

 

 

 

 

No, the precedent should be you go after people when they commit a prosecutable crime.

If you start deciding "meh, close enough," that's a pretty damn slippery slope.

 

 

 

I appreciate the distinction of your point, and I agree with that in general, but you can't act like wrapped inside of that precedent is the reality that if you're rich and powerful you're above the law. This is one of the ugliest realities of our country, and I suppose of the world in general.

 

 

Yes, I agree that definitely exists. People with more resources tend to get better legal treatment than others. They can afford to lawyer up and fight things fiercely in court, whereas a poorer, less important person could be convicted rather easily. This reality can head of legal action before it ever comes to pass.

 

Obviously Trump is going to push that "above the law" narrative full bore. More likely, outrage at lack of indictment indicates a lot of people don't really understand how the legal system works. There may be a bit of both involved in the end result-- there's some gray area here that's up for interpretation. As to how we arrived at where we are today, people will have to assign blame/credit to different factors based on their own beliefs and opinions.

 

For me, I don't really care. Long ago I identified Clinton as the candidate who best represented my values and future for the country. The other candidate is so laughably bad for me that the email thing becomes a blip in the grand scheme of things. A bad blip, but a blip. I'd never vote for that man, and I'll do what I can to make sure he never takes up the mantle.

 

 

I guess that about says all I need to know. Unfortunately I'm afraid too many people feel this same way. This country has now officially become the land of the few highly privileged and the home of the well placed.

 

 

Well that's not really fair. I think Clinton has an infinitely higher probability of fighting to make things better for everyone, particularly the disadvantaged, than Trump. Johnson doesn't have a realistic chance to win.

 

Elections boil down to choices. We don't have the best choices this cycle. But she's the better choice.

 

 

How can you tell if she telling the truth? You trust her?

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

 

 

No, the precedent should be you go after people when they commit a prosecutable crime.

If you start deciding "meh, close enough," that's a pretty damn slippery slope.

 

 

 

I appreciate the distinction of your point, and I agree with that in general, but you can't act like wrapped inside of that precedent is the reality that if you're rich and powerful you're above the law. This is one of the ugliest realities of our country, and I suppose of the world in general.

 

 

Yes, I agree that definitely exists. People with more resources tend to get better legal treatment than others. They can afford to lawyer up and fight things fiercely in court, whereas a poorer, less important person could be convicted rather easily. This reality can head of legal action before it ever comes to pass.

 

Obviously Trump is going to push that "above the law" narrative full bore. More likely, outrage at lack of indictment indicates a lot of people don't really understand how the legal system works. There may be a bit of both involved in the end result-- there's some gray area here that's up for interpretation. As to how we arrived at where we are today, people will have to assign blame/credit to different factors based on their own beliefs and opinions.

 

For me, I don't really care. Long ago I identified Clinton as the candidate who best represented my values and future for the country. The other candidate is so laughably bad for me that the email thing becomes a blip in the grand scheme of things. A bad blip, but a blip. I'd never vote for that man, and I'll do what I can to make sure he never takes up the mantle.

 

 

I guess that about says all I need to know. Unfortunately I'm afraid too many people feel this same way. This country has now officially become the land of the few highly privileged and the home of the well placed.

 

 

Well that's not really fair. I think Clinton has an infinitely higher probability of fighting to make things better for everyone, particularly the disadvantaged, than Trump. Johnson doesn't have a realistic chance to win.

 

Elections boil down to choices. We don't have the best choices this cycle. But she's the better choice.

 

 

How can you tell if she telling the truth? You trust her?

 

 

I trust her to not wreck the country and push for the things that I want to see done in terms of policy. The rest is just noise to me.

[AFhusker]

 

Johnson needs to be on the debate stage. If anything, it might be beneficial in forcing Trump and Hillary to focus on "real" issues for some of it. Without him, I think the debates are more about e-mails, walls, and radicals vs. "Islamic" radicals.

 

It would be nice if the candidates talked about education, infrastructure plans, healthcare costs, and budgets. Maybe next time....

 

I've said it before... Johnson is not a very good debater. It may end his campaign competitively if he gets on a stage with those two. Watch the Libertarian debates. He has a tendency to lose his train of thought and say some really goofy stuff.

 

He's a very cool dude. I do disagree with a lot of his economic policies, but I wouldn't sweat a Johnson presidency. I just like Clinton's policies better.

 

She was on stage with Obama and outlined a five point plan to boost the economy. Trump vaguely mentioned bringing back jobs... and winning so much we're mad at him. One of the candidates is talking about the issues, even if people don't hear it.

 

 

 

Johnson needs to be on the debate stage. If anything, it might be beneficial in forcing Trump and Hillary to focus on "real" issues for some of it. Without him, I think the debates are more about e-mails, walls, and radicals vs. "Islamic" radicals.

 

It would be nice if the candidates talked about education, infrastructure plans, healthcare costs, and budgets. Maybe next time....

 

I've said it before... Johnson is not a very good debater. It may end his campaign competitively if he gets on a stage with those two. Watch the Libertarian debates. He has a tendency to lose his train of thought and say some really goofy stuff.

 

He's a very cool dude. I do disagree with a lot of his economic policies, but I wouldn't sweat a Johnson presidency. I just like Clinton's policies better.

 

She was on stage with Obama and outlined a five point plan to boost the economy. Trump vaguely mentioned bringing back jobs... and winning so much we're mad at him. One of the candidates is talking about the issues, even if people don't hear it.

 

95% of what they said today was lies. Which shouldn't be a surprise because that is all they do is lie.

 

Do you really want this economy to continue?

 

Facts Are Facts=> Obama Owns Worst Economic Numbers in 80 Years, Since 1932

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/07/facts-are-facts-obama-owns-worst-economic-numbers-in-80-years-since-1932/

[Enhance]

 

I think an important distinction to be made here is that the FBI decided not to prosecute not because she's not guilty, but because the prosecution is unlikely to result in a conviction.

 

At no point did the FBI/Comey say she wasn't guilty.

Holy Milquetoast! Knapp. I'll use your word of the day here. I think it is a label the FBI can shamefully wear today.

 

(source) milque·toast [milk-tohst] noun ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a very timid, unassertive, spineless person, especially one who is easily dominated or intimidated: a milquetoast who's afraid to ask for a raise

 

I don't mean to be "that" guy, but this is how our legal system works in many cases. The overwhelming majority of criminal cases never reach a trial because charges are dropped, plea bargains, pretrial motions, etc.

 

Furthermore, as in actual criminal trials, people who are found "not guilty" are not necessarily "innocent."

 

That's also why the burden of proof falls on the prosecution in criminal trials. It should be difficult to prove someone is guilty of a crime, not easy. Otherwise, we'd be testing to see who is a witch by floating very small rocks.

[TonyStalloni]

 

 

I think an important distinction to be made here is that the FBI decided not to prosecute not because she's not guilty, but because the prosecution is unlikely to result in a conviction.

 

At no point did the FBI/Comey say she wasn't guilty.

Holy Milquetoast! Knapp. I'll use your word of the day here. I think it is a label the FBI can shamefully wear today.

 

(source) milque·toast [milk-tohst] noun ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a very timid, unassertive, spineless person, especially one who is easily dominated or intimidated: a milquetoast who's afraid to ask for a raise

 

I don't mean to be "that" guy, but this is how our legal system works in many cases. The overwhelming majority of criminal cases never reach a trial because charges are dropped, plea bargains, pretrial motions, etc.

 

Furthermore, as in actual criminal trials, people who are found "not guilty" are not necessarily "innocent."

 

That's also why the burden of proof falls on the prosecution in criminal trials. It should be difficult to prove someone is guilty of a crime, not easy. Otherwise, we'd be testing to see who is a witch by floating very small rocks.

 

It's pretty hard to prove guilt if she has months to delete emails, change equipment and destroy old equipment. Those emails are government property and to avoid watching eyes (freedom of information act) she (apparently) tried to hide them on her non encripted server. Any non connected person would have been in solitary on a stale bread and water diet.

[Danny Bateman]

As an aside to any of the folks concerned about national security, it's relevant to mention that the State Department servers themselves got hacked pretty badly by the Russians last year. This has happened multiple times.

 

While it's legitimate to wonder if Clinton's server was hacked, it's as legitimate to wonder if the info therein would've been any more safe if it was stored properly.

[chamrocck]

This is a dark day for the American Judicial System. What has been proved today that there are rules for the average Americans and then there are rules for the cooked Clinton's.

 

She lies to Congress and to the American people (again) and nothing happens to her. I don't know how anyone can vote for someone who lies every time she speaks.

 

Clinton "I only used one portable device for convince." / FBI- She used several devices.

 

Clinton " I never sent or received classified emails on her personal server." / FBI - 110 emails in 52 threads contained classified emails from Top Secret to Classified

 

Clinton " I turned over everything to the FBI." /FBI - 30,000+ emails were deleted and then wiped in a way that they couldn't be recovered

 

Clinton " My server was never hacked" / FBI The numerous servers were hacked, what the hackers got ahold of is unknown

 

Don't even get me started about the BS "you tube video" that she blamed Benghazi on. Even to the families of those who died. IDK how you can lie to families of those who died for our country.

 

Then you bring up that he funneled 141 Million dollars from middle eastern countries to her "Clinton Foundation." Not only is that a conflict of interest as she was SoS at the time, but those countries don't allow women to have any rights and gay's are killed. So how can she claim to be for women and gay people when she takes money from people who persecute them. Not to mention that women make 83K less than men who work for her Foundation. There is nothing that is believable for this woman or her husband. Do we want to bring up how he ruined the numerous women's lives who Bill had affairs with? Then wants to tell people while she is pandering to women saying that rape victims should be heard. I guess that is true as long as it isn't Bill who is committing the crime.

 

Not to mention this last week proves that it was a set up. Bill meets with AD Lynch, then she get interviewed on Saturday and is cleared on the same day that she flies to NC with the President. Which means that they knew before today that she was going to be cleared as they wouldn't take a chance of the President campaigning with someone who was just indited. Also travel plans for the POTUS are made days in advance, so there is another reason as to why she was protected. Not to mention she also said that she will keep Lynch as the AD if she wins the election.

 

I mean is this country that dense that they just overlook the blatant lies of this family and administration? Can people not see through them when they are so blatant that it should be insulting our intelligence?

 

On top of this crap, she has no record other than everything she touches turns out badly for the country. Look at Libya/Syria,

 

With that said I am not a fan of Trump, but this woman isn't qualified to be president, the only thing she is qualified for is prison or retirement.

Nice summary and very well put. I am no big fan of Trump but you can't vote for Hillary. She embodies what is wrong with our political system and is the most corrupt politician of our day. You know what you are going to get with her as she brings in her old crooked crony friends perpetuating the same old politics Hillary fans say they are against. She is a perfect storm of corruption, partisan politics, lies to even service family members, abuse of power with her sham foundation, and just stupidity with storing confidential government info. on her half baked lame server...just ewwww.