Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can you honestly say that if a Republican SoS one election away from the WH did what Hillary did, you wouldn't think it was worthy of scrutiny?
In my last post, that is exactly what I discussed.
Heck I was beginning to buy into the (D) talking points of how many more investigations. I didn't understand why this kept dragging on.
As it turns out it was because Hillary & Co were doing everything in their power to delay, obfuscate, and ultimately lie about the missing emails.
So do you blame her and the Obama controlled SD for any of the delays, and cost considering they were behind having Congress chase their own tale, trying to unearth where the emails were?
The GOP "scrutiny" has been in force for 23 years now. I've lost count of the number of futile (but expensive, tax dollar wasting) investigations.
The result: no charges. None.
Zero
Zip
Nada
But we still have LOTs of GOP sniveling and sniping.
I recognize a political witch hunt. Took me awhile, but I got there.
Address the chronological lies pointed out by the video.
Anyone making a good faith effort to dispute what is in the videos, or try to justify Hillary's behavior/actions will be responded to in a respectful way. A civil discussion must stay on the topic of Hillary, not deflect to Trump, Bush or Lincoln.
`
It's not that hard, actually. The Director of the FBI and his team with far more legal expertise than you or the partisan guy in your video reviewed all the evidence and didn't recommend indictment. He found that Hillary was careless in her handling of classified material but no evidence that she had any intent or acted on such intent to provide the information to any unauthorized person. Prosecution and culpability is not judged only off of the literal words of the statute but also the precedent of how the statute has been enforced - and it has only been enforced in such a way that intent matters for indictment. It's easy for someone to take some snippets out of context and play quarterback attorney; doesn't mean they're right.
Conclusion: Clinton was careless in her handling of the information, but it does not reach the bar of criminal punishment, no matter how much conservatives with zero legal knowledge wish it would.
As for her health, a lot of conspiracy theories there about seizures in public and whatnot..not really worth engaging on that one.
Finally, Youtube videos with a guy who uses fire and brimstone visuals for his anti-Clinton videos... don't kid yourself into thinking that you're going to get an unbiased, objective view there.
Address the chronological lies pointed out by the video.
Anyone making a good faith effort to dispute what is in the videos, or try to justify Hillary's behavior/actions will be responded to in a respectful way. A civil discussion must stay on the topic of Hillary, not deflect to Trump, Bush or Lincoln.
`
As a democrat I admit that Hillary lies, covers up the truth, is power hungry, and is immoral (I heard a recording of attorney Hillary Clinton laughing/bragging about getting a pedophile rapist proven innocent in court.)
And I could say similar things about Donald Trump, but whats the point?
Washington politics is about voting for the lesser of 2 evils. And politics is about deficits, debt, spending, and America's future (not the social lies our politicians say.)
The bottom line is Hillary Clinton is better for the future of the United States of America compared to Donald Trump (and I could care less about the social lies our politicians say, I am concerned about the deficits, debt, and spending.)
As a democrat I admit that Hillary lies, covers up the truth, is power hungry, and is immoral (I heard a recording of attorney Hillary Clinton laughing/bragging about getting a pedophile rapist proven innocent in court.)
And I could say similar things about Donald Trump, but whats the point?
Washington politics is about voting for the lesser of 2 evils. And politics is about deficits, debt, spending, and America's future (not the social lies our politicians say.)
The bottom line is Hillary Clinton is better for the future of the United States of America compared to Donald Trump (and I could care less about the social lies our politicians say, I am concerned about the deficits, debt, and spending.)
Exactly. That is why , all we can do is vote for the candidate that aligns with our values. I'm opposite of you though, I don't think HRC will be good for the future of this country, at least the country I want to see. I have not been happy with the direction our country has headed in the past 8 years and I feel she will be must more of the same. I , for one am not for the whole global thing...HRC is. I don't think we can tax our country into prosperity, I think it will backfire. And I highly doubt she will raise taxes on her and elitist friends. Nor do I think giving breaks to the rich will help either, now tax breaks for corporations will. Provided that they utilize American workers (for items that will be sold here), if they offshore or outsource they get penalized. College should not be free, it should cost the exorbitant amount that it does, but it shouldn't be another entitlement, we have enough of those. She panders to criminals and minorities, and blames our law enforcement for the issues we have. I'm not a fan of her immigration reform, we need to focus on our own citizens first. And lastly, and this is a big one for me, she will attack the 2A. There is no such thing as "common sense" gun laws. Not from her camp.
I will never vote for HRC.
Investigation after investigation had lead to nothing. Here's a question; if it's so obvious that she's guilty of something why did the FBI not act? Now, we can say it's corruption, but whose? Clinton's? What about the FBI? I mean, surely their corruption would be worse in this context, right? Clinton's a politician. We can all act like our favorite politician is pure and whatever, but I'm not that stupid. Just about every single person who ran in this election is some kind of corrupt. Maybe Hillary's the most corrupt, but at the scale we're talking, does it even matter? But the FBI's corruption is deeper. It indicates law enforcements willingness to do things for money or favors or whatever.
Realistically, which is worse? Corruption in a politician or in a federal level law enforcement agency? Which is actually more dangerous?
As another poster put it; I'm not a moron. I can see what the issue is here. Clinton. It's just about her and that nasty (D) that follows her name. This is politics. Conservatives and liberals may not outright deny that corruption occurs on their side, but they really only push it when it's the other side doing it, as is evident by the "don't deflect to this list of Republicans."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
