Five seperate FBI field offices investigating Clinton Foundation

Wasn't trying to make it seem innocent. Its breaking the law, or at least bending it regardless of the outcome. Politicians should not bend or break the law... so its not innocent whatsoever either way. However I was putting an example where we assume Clinton was embracing "pay to play" politics within her foundation, but the ends justified the means.... which is IMO the more likely scenario IF she did in fact utilize pay to play scenarios. I believe if she bent or broke the law, she has reason to do so... which doesn't make it OKAY, but there is likely a story behind it (just like the Colin Powell explanation of why she used a personal server & email).

The FACT is though, that we don't even know if she engaged in pay to play, and thus far everything has been reported that although there looks to be smoke, no illegal activity has been discovered.

However the far right will fantasize about scenarios like you mentioned such as human trafficking to justify their disdain. Even though she hasn't even been found guilty of "The Cigar Scenario". The far right wants to fantasize about her being the closest thing to the devil himself, when its more likely that she's actually just a normal politician who get their hands dirty in order to get sh$% done. Its a dirty business, and you have to have the stomach for it if you want to get anything done.

Hillary Clinton is no different... She just pissed off old white America back in the 90's for being a feminist before it was mainstream to do so. Ever since then the right has tried and tried to crucify her at every turn, and she keeps coming back and punching them between the legs. We will see Tuesday night who gets the final blow.

 

I would pay decent money for a GIF of Clinton punching Gowdy between the legs.

 

There are only two people that can be President. Logically and practically, I have to make a choice between the two. Any other choice is a throw-away vote for me. Even if I agree with every single things you stated above, I would not blink to vote for Clinton. Trump just simply is that worse of a choice even against a Clinton of your view above.

I don't agree with much of anything you stated above and don't have an issue voting for Clinton.

You should learn and realize that what you believe is "proven" is actually your opinion. And people have different opinion. Naturally I believe my opinion is right and your is wrong, although I don't hold onto it that strongly and will change with new info. And guess what - the more I learn about Clinton (compared to what I know 6M ago), the more I support Clinton, independent of Trump.

 

This seems to be a common theme this election cycle, especially with Trump supporters.

Passing off an opinion with no substantive evidence is not a fact.

This is happening quite a bit with the Clinton Foundation and wikileaks.

 

Passing off opinion as fact isn't new. It's been going on for years and is largely how we've gotten to the place where we are at politically.

 

Yep we probably did. Been too long on Clutchfans so now just repeating myself.

 

Is it courage or is it extreme political bias? You're defending agents who outrightly are admitting they are politically motivated. Are you saying that since there is other bias that it is fair that they are acting on theirs? If that is the case then you've basically acknowledged that there is no higher principle of justice here just political camps trying to get even.

The sad truth is that probably is closer to the truth.

 

This is a fair point. Where is your stance with the DOJ. Do you feel they are also to blame for this?

 

Actually I do. I think it was a huge mistake for Lorretta Lynch to meet with Bill Clinton. Even though I'm a Clinton supporter I do think given the political sensitivities this should've been referred to a special prosecutor.

This issue has been to politicized and my own view has been that while I don't think that the email server scandal is enough to disqualify Clinton I agree it was reckless on her part and also that the investigation into it hasn't been conducted well. I don't agree with ThereTheDagger that the answer then is to politicize it more.

 

Let's say that there is substantial evidence (I'm not saying there is), would you change your stance or still let it go due to the bias?

 

We're the voters.

Leaking information isn't courageous. If they said it with their names attached, with full expectation and acceptance of the punishment that would await them, I could call that courage (and probably foolhardiness).

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/fc3ecc3a-cdf8-35eb-9878-8970dc3c4089/julian-assange-predicts.html

In other words, "we tried our damndest to turn the American public against Clinton, we turned up zero smoking guns, and now I'm having to come up with a bullshit excuse." Assange the Pathetic.

 

You are not having to defend the entire FBI. You are defending a select group. The FBI person who I worked with seemed to be an upstanding guy, but it's certainly understandable that you're going to have bad apples in every group.

 

This is the statute cited by many:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Fair enough- but according to this: "relating to the national defense"- how do we know specifically that the classified emails found regarded national defense? And who classified them? These are not questions to be obtuse- it is an evidence-based approach- if someone is going to be accused of a crime- first of all, they are still innocent until proven guilty- and second, doesn't the evidence have to be examined in detail before we can draw a conclusion?

That's fair, correct? Donald Trump should be held to that same standard- if he has not been found guilty of rape, he should not be called a rapist, period.

 

Anything classified TS-SCI is inherently related to national defense. There was information classified TS-SCI on her server. Even one of those should be enough to lead to jail time if it was someone not protected by political connections.

 

Fair enough. Comey's explanation, then, doesn't make sense.

 

So, the 2nd and 4th ones apply to Clinton, correct? The 2nd was given probation, and the 4th was dismissed from the Marine Corps.
But neither were imprisoned.