New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

[Educational Post]
Just out of curiosity, do you think your President, Barack Obama, has never been responsible for murdering another human being? Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama has presided over a horrific record of drone attacks internationally that have murdered thousands of innocents. There is a very good chance that he has presided over numerous domestic murders as well. If he is willing to murder abroad, do you think his proclivities are suspended when dealing with domestic matters? That's quite a naive position to take.

GOOD DAY

 

That's not impeachable. Impeachable is having a blow job and lying about it. Or having your own email server.

But lying to the American people about reasons to go to war - perfectly fine. Making back door deals with Halliburton and allowing for the taxpayers to be taken to the cleaners? Perfectly fine.

Get with the program!

 

Anyone catch GMA and see that 5 million dollar home in D.C. that Obama is going to live in. I wonder who's going to foot the bill for that nice piece of real estate.

 

I believe the Obamas will be paying for that. Even if the taxpayers were paying for that, it would end up be being taken to the cleaners for a couple of pennies at the most.

 

You really need to *gasp* read the report. It was very objective, pointing out, for instance, that yes indeed, Colin Powell likely violated some of these constructs as well.

Plenty of things to go after Clinton about, that just happened to be one of them. And it was a pretty clear indication of a character issue.

Interestingly, it also fits the very definition of implied power and sexual assault. Guess Dems don't care about that when it's your guy doing the assaulting though. But it also means you don't really care at all about women, or women's rights...just about getting elected.

We can continue this all day, and I would wager a fair sum you you will end up the worse for it. It's just a classic example of the problem with politics today....too many willing to support anything 'their' guy does, while castigating the other side for the very same things. Which is why I'm neither a Republican or a Democrat.

Could be true, although you need to factor in that the Dems don't really have a plan for defeating Al Queda, so defeating them then equates to defeating Al Queda.

For reasons that quite likely were true, that he initiated the attack for political reasons. Which seems fine by you when your guy does it, going back to the problem I mentioned earlier.

Yes, indeed.

 

He's gonna sell crack since he obviously can't make money using his Harvard Law Degree...

 

Doubtful, and why wait until then? We already know about a variety of things she violated..and that the only reason she set this system up was to prevent any of her records from being able to be recalled.

[quote I suspect if Trump is elected his crimes will be more along the lines of murder, torture, obstruction of justice, and embezzlement rather than breaking Justice Department email policy so perhaps you're not really thinking that one through.[/QUOTE]

Ahh, I get it now. Stereotyping and unfounded allegations is your thing. So, you're fine with all the known violations Hillary committed, but are all too anxious to hold Trump accountable for things he never even did, or is even rumoured to have done.

You are the epitome of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. Throw in your stereotyping, and you're pretty much the poster child for why politics and political discussions are the way they are. Congratulations!

 

Donald Trump is accused of committing fraud, and is scheduled to actually go to trial for that.

Hillary isn't scheduled to go to trial for anything as of yet.

 

I'm by no means a Trump supporter, but c'mon, let's be fair here. Trump's fraud case (which I think he should lose) is a civil trial, Hillary's potential case would be a criminal trial. There's a huge difference. Hillary could potentially go to jail over the crimes she committed while Secretary of State (but she won't), Trump could potentially have to pay some money as a result of the civil trial.

If Trump was accused of committing fraud in a criminal case, it would be VERY different.

 

Didn't the IG already slam Clinton for her email use. I don't see any new news here.

 

Yes, Hillary's potential wrongdoing is far more serious than Trump's. I agree 100%. But the likelihood of Hillary going to trial or facing charges is significantly less than Trump's chance of going to trial.

So Trump may actually face the charge of fraud, while Hillary probably won't face the more serious charge of mishandling classified information.

 

Did you seriously just compare Obama's future residence to Bush spending trillions of dollars of taxpayer money in the Middle East? Republican logic in a nutshell.

 

Why wait... until she's convicted of a crime? Is that serious? heh

Stereotyping? What the hell are you talking about? I'm holding him accountable for the laws he said he would break. Where have you been?

Murder

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," Trump said.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/


Torture

Trump has long called for the return of waterboarding, and he has seemed to embrace the idea of torture in the past without using the term himself. During a Feb. 7 interview on ABC's "This Week," host George Stephanopoulos asked Trump whether he "would authorize torture." Trump responded: "I would absolutely authorize something beyond waterboarding."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../donald-trump-on-waterboarding-torture-works/

Mkay, rookie.

 

I agree, but to me what really matters is that she did it. OJ wasn't convicted, but everyone with a fully functional brain that has heard the details of the case knows he did it. Hillary's case is no different IMO. Even if she uses political influence to avoid facing charges for her crimes, it doesn't change the fact that she did it.

I mean, Trump's a total scumbag too and IMO he's nothing but a con man that should be ineligible to be president....just like Hillary should be ineligible to be president so it's not like I'm playing favorites here. Hell if I vote at all it'll probably be for her as the lesser of the two evils, but even that doesn't change that she shouldn't be eligible to be president due to crimes she's absolutely guilty of.

It just sets a terrible precedent letting people get away with serious crimes simply because they are going to be a major party candidate for president.

 

Keep talking yourself into voting for her. In the end I know there is no way you are going to put her name on a ballot, your conscience won't let you. You have two posts in this thread alone that are enough proof to say that she is definitely NOT the lesser of two evils. She has been given an opportunity to lead and she has proven herself to be unfit without question.

Bernie Sanders may be a cartoon character but he is not the morally bankrupt person that Hilary is. Trump may be a loud mouthed con man but he isn't the type of person that would do nothing about our soldiers being killed and blame it on a movie so he doesn't have to answer to the american people for doing nothing.

Voting for Hilary is spitting in the face of our military. They do not deserve to be lead to war by this person who would let their brothers die without lifting a finger and then crap on their memory by trying to save herself from looking bad. She would have shot them herself to save face.

 

Republican? LMAO! I don't have any party affiliations. I think we're screwed either way the election goes. Nice try though.

 

You just act like one in every thread. Got it.

 

I could have worded it better, but it's not very difficult to understand the IG and the reports of this audit carry no legal authority (hence my comments about the material in this report not necessarily indicating any laws were broken; that's not up to the IG to decide).

This was an administrative inquiry; not a criminal investigation. This is 100% a point worth emphasizing. Why? Because with all of the partisan bickering and election-year fireworks, the results of this report are being presented as something focused entirely on Hillary Clinton when in reality it was a comprehensive review of the State Department's cybersecurity protocols; including those of her successors too. Hell, people need to read the damn thing. Look at the conclusion. It doesn't mention Clinton's name once.

As for my challenge to you name her what you style as a lengthy list of "apparent crimes" you supplied a link that mentioned up to four. All connected with this e-mail scandal; more specifically, implying she violated the Espionage Act. A law with next to no precedent for this type of thing, so my advice to you: don't hold your breath.

 

Being that I'm prior service Army, I can tell you that voting for either Hillary or Trump is spitting in the face of our military. Voting for Trump is pissing on them after the spit dries.

The fact that the whole thing could come down to either Hillary or Trump is a national embarrassment.

You might be right, in the end, I may not be able to justify voting for Hillary so I might vote for Gary Johnson or just not vote at all but there's no way I'll vote for any Republican on the ballot with Trump as the head of that party. I'm tempted to vote straight party Democrat due to that alone.

 

What does that have to do with a VP hiring a company he holds equity in at exorbitant prices to the tune of over $100 billion?

I mean, do you understand that money is flowing from taxpayers right into Cheney's pocket? That level of corruption...and GOP think it's fine. No outrage. None at all.

Yet you are outraged by Obama's rental while in DC? God help you.