And The Truth Comes Out

Yes, I've read those things and in two instances I've read in depth. I don't agree with some things he's done however my opinion of him as a man hasn't changed. That opinion is based on a slew of factors. I could explain why but I don't find it necessary. You'll have to accept (or not) that my opinion of him is different than yours.

 

Hitler? Really? You're comparing him to Hitler? There's a unwritten rule on political forums that says if the person you're debating plays the Hitler card then you're wasting your time talking to them.

 

I agree with you that the law applies to everyone. In this country, innocence is assumed and guilt must be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt and with a preponderance of evidence. Comey, after telling how extensive and exhaustive the FBI investigation was, stated there was no evidence in Clinton's case that would be prosecutable. The FBI specializes in investigation. If they couldn't find prosecutable evidence, no one can. Prosecutors don't go to court without evidence, and they don't have any.

Trump already said he has no interest in further investigation of her or prosecuting her. He literally told the country that the situation was used for the campaign and now he doesn't care about it. That's the "law and order" candidate telling his followers that he doesn't care about charging her. There's a clue in that statement.

We could go back and forth on this all day, but I won't. Reading law doesn't give me a headache, and I have done some reading on this subject, which is why I responded to your post asking about evidence.

The FBI didn't recommend charges. She hasn't been charged. Trump has no interest in charges. You don't have to believe she's innocent of everything. At some point, even Clinton haters need to see that being able to prove guilt is quite different from believing she did something wrong. She did do something wrong. She broke departmental regulations, and could have been fired. She was never going to jail over it.

There's no reason for Obama to pardon her. She hasn't been charged with anything. (I know, I know… Ford pardoned Nixon without him being charged. Nixon resigned for a reason tho&#8230

 

You mean like how:
-Trump will not run
-Trump will drop out
-Trump will lose momentum
-Trump will never win the nomination
-Trump will not win the presidency

You guys do not have a history of being correct. Why should anyone believe a word you say?

 

Trump: If the guy is talking... he's lying.

 

In his defense, he wasn't comparing Trump to Hitler, just using Hitler to prove a rhetorical point.

The problem is that Hitler was fervently racist. Racial superiority was baked into his politics, a key component.

 

I just want to post one more bit of info in case anyone is interested in knowing exactly HOW MUCH Hillary Clinton violated State Dept. policy - then they can decide how forgiving they want to be of her actions...especially after pondering what her exact reasons likely were for doing so.

After this, I am off this topic!


The State Department’s policy, as of 2005, is that all day-to-day operations are to be conducted on the official State Department information channel, which Secretary Clinton NEVER used.

If she chose to use a private account, she was obligated to discuss her email setup with several internal offices and demonstrate that it was properly secure, yet she did not.

State Department information security officers told the State Department Inspector General that they never would have allowed the private email server setup - had she asked.

Secretary Clinton did NOT ensure that her work-related emails were preserved on the State Department system in real time, nor did she surrender them immediately when she left office.

State Department policy states that, if a private email account is used, it will NOT be used as the SOLE means of conducting State Department business.

State Department policy further states that in the event that private email accounts are used, all such correspondences MUST be also sent (courtesy copied) to the individual's official (.gov) account in order to properly document those OFFICIAL RECORDS in the event those records are needed. For instance, to satisfy Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests, subpoenaed for official investigations, or required for any routine audits of official records.

Furthermore, as with ALL government agencies, all correspondence conducted in the course of official government business cannot be maintained solely by the individual. All such correspondences are PROPERTY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and maintaining them outside of official channels makes those official records subject to complete destruction at the individual's own discretion.

The fact that other individuals may have copies of those OFFICIAL RECORDS in their official Department email systems does NOT satisfy the requirements for maintaining those records in the official systems. They are considered SEPARATE RECORDS, and must, therefore, be requested via separate requests, which may delay investigations requiring official requests or subpoenas.

Secretary Clinton's violations of policy made her virtually impervious to FOIA requests, official investigations, and audits of records of her official emails while in office and beyond.


In short - anyone who has been alive long enough to have lived coherently through "the Clinton years" should be able to reasonably conclude that Hillary Clinton used her private, unauthorized email server most likely to avoid scrutiny, to be able to destroy information at will, and to eventually evade justice.

There's absolutely no telling what was on that server that was wiped completely clean.

You know - "like with a cloth..."


It's unbelievable that people actually still defend her!

 

OK. Fair enough. And you think Hillary is a terrible person because she has done worse? Not trying to antagonize, here, just curious.

 

My thoughts about that? LOL Well, lies are merely truths outside of their time. We shall see. People busted balls giggling when Obama promised to lower gasoline prices below $2.00 a gallon several years ago but cried an ocean of tears when the consequence of him doing so was the corporate cuts that cost many families their livelihoods. People blame the man in office no matter what the track history is of a movement or how obvious the agenda seems to have been projected. Coal took a devastating hit right after Obama's inauguration yet the multitudes placed every spec of the blame on him without regard to doing any further reading or research. I'm a soft one. My heart breaks for whomever is in THAT office.

 

If one's comments and thoughts aren't based on truth and/or fact based in reality... then they are likely thinking/saying nothing substantial; believe what they will. (Art and other related forms of human expression, are where I'd allow some exception to that.)

I'd say the world needs rational thinkers far more than soothsayers. And we surely are going to have problems with a person who too often relates things that are not 'true'.

 

Ok, fair enough.

 

A terribly mistaken and pernicious belief. There is a difference between Hitler and Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill, it is qualitative as well as quantitative and the fact that you don't seem able to grasp it doesn't bode well for us if our leader is one you approve of.

"We need a strong man to lead us" is the central guiding statement, the warp and weft, of dictatorship and totalitarianism. Examine South and Central America if you want to see where that type of government leads. We have never yet had a real "Caudillo" the "man on horseback" as our President and may we never, for it will almost certainly be our end as what we are.

 

You, sir...are BY FAR the BEST debater on this site!

Everyone should pay attention to the way you substantively and succinctly defend your point!


I might occasionally be as guilty as anyone else with a "poke in the ribs"-type comment - but I LOVE real debate!

Real debate - rather than 100% drive-by sniping comments meant for and posted by people with extremely short attention spans are rampant not only on this forum, but every other forum I visit.

It is one of our problems as a society.

We take snippets of information, misinformation, and disinformation....believe it....repeat it...and fiercely defend it with little regard for accuracy or real concern for the truth.

I tip my hat to you!

Well done!

(Now get back to work moderating!)

 

After this post, I'm off the subject in this thread as well...

There is a difference in exploring the law and defending Hillary Clinton. If you see me as defending her actions, you are mistaken. I've made many posts on the subject, and you're welcome to check my posting history on them. I've been consistent in saying if there was evidence she broke the law, she should be charged. On this subject, my interest is in the application of the law.

I disagree with things in your post, but we can save them for another day… or not.

 

I don't think Clinton is a terrible person and if I wrote those exact words then I misspoke. I do think she was a terrible candidate and I do think she'd be a terrible role model as president.
Trump wasn't my first republican choice. I have issues with him when it comes to being president. However I have bigger issues with Clinton. Clinton seems to put her own self interest before the country. Her private email server and her foundation selling access are examples I use. There are other factors too.

I don't know what's going to become of Trump as president. He'll shake things up at the least.

I do know what we'd get with Clinton. And that's someone who puts herself before country.

If Trump is a bad president then oh well, that is unfortunate. If Clinton was a bad president then she messes up the chance of another woman president for decades. And she becomes a terrible role model for women in this country.

"No Lisa, you can not grow up to be president. We already had a woman president and she really messed up."

- - - Updated - - -

P.S. Don't misunderstand. I didn't vote against Clinton because she is a woman. I voted against her because she is THAT woman.

 

Lies depend on whether the person actually believes them, not whether they eventually become true or not.

Trump has clearly admitted he said things in the election that were about getting votes, not actually promised he intended to follow through on. He said that about both the Carrier promise and jailing Hillary.

So he is a liar, or a bull(*)(*)(*)(*)ter, as his supporters may find more amenable.

 

OK. I don't think that is an unfair assessment of Hillary.

I find your opinion of Trump a bit inexplicable, but respect that it at least seems an informed opinion, and that you express it in a civil manner.

 

I'm just pausing in thought of how many others are either oblivious of these required laws or who disregard them. Not pausing with the intention of passing the blame of any potential wrong doing but perhaps the propaganda behind all this is to make her a necessary example. Before her, I don't recall another such "good bad example".

Sent through Tapatalk

 

When it comes to handling classified information there is clear intent.

She intended to set up a non approved server, she intended to use it for classified information, her and her aides intended to circumvent the protections of classfied information by removing markers, having unauthorized people print them out on unauthorized devices...etc.

Classified information is managed on a "system", for example SIPR network in DoD. Taking information off this system intentionally, as she did, is a crime....and there are multiple examples of such.

Clearly she intended to do all these things. Her server didn't set itself up, her laptop wasn't being used by Weiner by itself, maids weren't printing out classified info by accident......it was ALL intent.

Intent, I suspect, to hide her criminal activities.

Someone does not use special software to delete yoga emails under congressional subpoena.

Clearly, she was hiding something.

We'll continue with the little dance, but I highly suspect this is not the last time this comes up, but with very different results.

Bottom line is she CLEARLY intended to circumvent utilization of government resources tthat protect government information.

 

We got an ENEMY hacking our elections AND we've elected a person whose ineptness and/or character (clearly corrupt and crooked enough) could put us square in the middle of horrible worldwide conflicts... and people are STILL talking about Clinton's friggin' emails??!!

And the racists just LOVE Trump (I don't wonder why). Wow.

(smh)

 

Thank you very much, however, you've obviously not encountered my friend, Meta777. He's the best in my book.

You're a worthy adversary. Have a great day. Imma gettin back to moderatin'

SaveSave​

 

Well yes Barack Obama and his J.V. team has put the U.S. in the middle of a serious conflict.

 

Please use more faux outrage, I'm not emotional enough yet.

Also, you may want to contribute to one of the 50 threads on "omg russians" tin-foil conspiracies, instead of this thread which is about jailing Hillary for her crimes.

But ya know what? What the heck. We're here.

Please explain who is making these claims, what these claims are, and exactly how they were "hacking the election". This should be fun.

 

Get off it. Trump and his gang are coming. You'd better pay attention to them now.

- - - Updated - - -

Try being more realistic about what America is now facing.

 

last I looked the President is in the executive branch of government. The judicial branch determines who gets locked up and when, but of course she will not go to jail because Trump will pardon her, kind hearted soul he is. No need to despair libs, felons can still run for President. Pretty sure 41 % of WVa voted for one in 2012 instead of Obama so Hillary can take a third shot at the brass ring. Would not bet the Clinton Foundation would survive undergoing a RICO investigation