Jump to content

November 9 2016


FatMike

Recommended Posts

Evidence in the sense of anything pointing directly at her. But the actions taken by her and her agents is evidence in and of itself.  Either way though, you're right- good talk!


EDIT: As for Comey's speech, come on. Even mishandling classified information is a felony and I promise you there have been people who were fired and or jailed for less. Those people didn't have a husband who could summon Lynch nor an army of lawyers if she was brought to court. Not to mention the retaliation he would face if he brought the case but failed in conviction.

This goes back to believe what you want. For example. Did Al Capone kill a bunch of folks? Absolutely. Was he ever arrested or convicted for Murder? Nope. But he wasn't running for president either. So, anyone who wants can say HRC did nothing until they're blue in the face, but BBC News wouldn't have polls at 49% to 46% if people believed it. What makes me mad, is because of her, Trump may become president. Because of the DNC. And even if he doesn't she's no better. It's all a wash in a race to the bottom. So now all like "ooooooh vote for HRC or Trump wins!" from everywhere. If the Democrats cared about beating Trump, rather than it be one specific person, this wouldn't have happened. Bit late in the game to even give that mentality the time of day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply

As Kyzarius so eloquently pointed out earlier, "come on" is not an argument.  Don't promise me that people have been criminally charged for the same acts, provide examples, because we have the Republican FBI director saying that in his consideration of the history of such cases, that is not what has happened.  Do not simply assert that he is wrong or lying, provide evidence of it.

 

Edit: And no, do not believe what you want.  Believe what can be demonstrated based upon reliable evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Implementor

Uh.. General David Petraeus? Wasn't he Court Martialed (sp) for mishandling and retention of classified information? He avoided jail time as a plea agreement, but he was put on probation for 2 years for 'gross misconduct of mishandling classified information'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The charge against Petraeus was that he provided classified information to another person, the plea bargain was to mishandling of classified information.  Comey noted that charges have been brought due to "clearly intentional and willful mishandling", which Petraeus demonstrated by directly providing classified material to someone not cleared for it.  Clinton did not give material to anyone in such a manner.  As Comey noted, she still mishandled information, and yes, she was negligent - but not in such a way that Comey thought a reasonable prosecutor would bring to trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Republican FBI director appointed by Democratic President Barrack Obama......... So that argument is pretty well moot. Either Obama picked an impartial fbi chief (big props to him if this is the case) or he is a idiot at a level beyond understanding (appointing top cop someone from an enemy faction who will harass at every chance?).


The government prosecutes people all the time for even the smallest infraction. A lot of my family members have clearances and they have said the same. I can get wanting specifics but disregarding that it happens at all because of a lack of specific example? Pfft. Moreover I'm not trying to prove anything at this point. If you want to prove me wrong you can cite to the contrary, but googling mishandling of classified information yields 277k results, so it's not like it's unheard of.




http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-10-punished-less/

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/292064-troops-using-clinton-defense-in-classified-information-cases

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/heres-the-other-gross-negligence-case-comey-cited-in-clinton-email-testimony-225266

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what partisan politics produces. If someone hates Donald Trump then no matter what Hillary has done she is better. And vice versa. As for Hillary. I can't believe it's even a point of contention that she receives benefits above and beyond what normal Americans would if they had even accidentally tripped up, let alone purposefully decided to hide said trip ups, if they even were that from the beginning!

You don't set up private email servers to insure that FOIA requests are fullfilled lmao.

This reminds me of that email leak about America being an oligarchy.
(Paraphrased)

"Hey dude! Did you hear, they did a study and  America isn't a democracy, but rather an oligarchy?"

"Yeah well, I guess they need a study to prove the obvious."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pali said:

*sigh* You know, it's not exactly ending a discussion on a good note if you have to end your "I'm done" post with a "but here's one last point first."  Which you have now done twice.

Right on, Kettle. :) To be fair I said "pretty over it" which by definition would be the level right before completely over it, but, you know, semantics. Lol, but in all seriousness it's all good. Really over it now.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still hoping for that 11th hour miracle where the democrats magically get their heads out of their asses and disavow HRC for Bernie. Short of that... we're all screwed. Sorry world, but we'll probably drag you down with us. That said, I'm shocked it's even this close between HRC and Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...