• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary iIndictment

Gaugingcatenate said:
Do you have any background knowledge about this at all? Does not appear as though you do. If you did, you would not being saying "that guy on the internet" blah blah blah.

But we are all used to the folks that seem to enjoy putting their hands over their eyes and over their ears... but too rarely over their mouths.
Click to expand...

It's you. You're that guy on the internet.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Ahhh, so maybe you are keeping up then, kinda. Follow the people that do have an understanding, smart move.
Click to expand...

the FBI should move and recommend prosecution. there is enough evidence that she broke the law.
not to mention lying before a federal investigation etc ...

why should they do this? because

1. They have no choice.
2. Any attempt to not prosecute her would be a miscarriage of justice.
3. It will keep the FBI politically neutral which is the way that it should be.

Next will be on the DOJ to actually prosecute her for it.
if they choose not to then the stink of corruption that we know exists at the DOJ
will continue. more so it will be finally be an open book that the DOJ is corrupt.

that would pretty much cost lynch her job or should.
the FBI should stay out of the politics and just do it's job. it has enough evidence for
an arrest or warrant that is what they should do and turn it over to the DOJ.

once the DOJ gets it if they decide not to do anything then congress can step in and do something about it.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Ahhh, so maybe you are keeping up then, kinda. Follow the people that do have an understanding, smart move.
Click to expand...

The funny part is you probably believe this.
 
eohrnberger said:
The information of which I'm referring is a bit more substantial than leaks, but nice try. I'm referring to the results of FOIA information requests and law suits, so not even sourced from the Select Committee that you are referring to.

The ball's in Obama's and DOJ's court. I wonder how they are going to arrange it so that Hillary can weasel out of this one?
Click to expand...

Cling to your straws.........
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Oh, I am pretty sure they are real alright. And I also say, if those under the Bush admin broke the laws, hey, go after them as well.

I don't want ANYBODY to be above the law. Every loyal American should feel the same way.
Click to expand...
this started as an investigation into whether obama lied about whether or not, benghazi was a terrorist attack, or apart of riot, because he wanted to kill an ambassador (if thats not insane enough).....and after 4 years of investigations and hearings and millions of dollars spent....someone accidentally found out that hillary clinton's email account might have been setup in a way that couldve made her email account easily hacked into, and although it never was.... it might have been

and I'm supposed to care why?
 
imyoda said:
I think not............Shall I razz you when they announce there will be no criminal charges made against HRC?
Click to expand...

I don't know what you think that'll get you.

I've stated from the git go that I rather doubt that Obama's politicized DOJ is going to allow criminal charges to be filed against Hillary - you know, Lady justice may be blindfolded, but Obama and the administration have their thumbs on her scales, much to the FBI's continued frustration.

Should it come to pass that Trump becomes the next president, it's rather uncertain if even he'll allow criminal charges to be filed against her, although the chances for that increase.
 
dimensionallava said:
this started as an investigation into whether obama lied about whether or not, benghazi was a terrorist attack, or apart of riot, because he wanted to kill an ambassador (if thats not insane enough).....and after 4 years of investigations and hearings and millions of dollars spent....someone accidentally found out that hillary clinton's email account might have been setup in a way that couldve made her email account easily hacked into, and although it never was.... it might have been

and I'm supposed to care why?
Click to expand...

Hillary's email server was never hacked? Errrr....

Did Guccifer Hack Hillary Clinton's Email Account? | The Daily Caller
https://www.rt.com/usa/complete-emails-guccifer-clinton-554/
Romanian hacker Guccifer: I breached Clinton server, 'it was easy' | Fox News
REPORT: Hillary’s Emails Hacked by Russia – Kremlin Deciding Whether to Release 20,000 Stolen Emails (VIDEO)

Seems a pretty safe bet that it was hacked by multiple parties.
 
eohrnberger said:
I don't know what you think that'll get you.

I've stated from the git go that I rather doubt that Obama's politicized DOJ is going to allow criminal charges to be filed against Hillary - you know, Lady justice may be blindfolded, but Obama and the administration have their thumbs on her scales, much to the FBI's continued frustration.

Should it come to pass that Trump becomes the next president, it's rather uncertain if even he'll allow criminal charges to be filed against her, although the chances for that increase.
Click to expand...

And therefore yall get what yall want no matter the outcome......

Crow if indicted............or B&M if she is not...........In any case a basis/excuse for yall to make a whole lot of noise.......

BTW

How are yall going to wiggle in for blaming the liberal MSM as a reason why she got off?
 
dimensionallava said:
this started as an investigation into whether obama lied about whether or not, benghazi was a terrorist attack, or apart of riot, because he wanted to kill an ambassador (if thats not insane enough).....and after 4 years of investigations and hearings and millions of dollars spent....someone accidentally found out that hillary clinton's email account might have been setup in a way that couldve made her email account easily hacked into, and although it never was.... it might have been

and I'm supposed to care why?
Click to expand...
No, I agree, if one does not care that laws were knowingly broken, and that despite your statements to the contrary state secrets undoubtedly were released [ national security breach] to our enemies, if one doesn't care that we were lied to repeatedly about the whole matter, that some are above the law and are not required to pay for their wrongdoing [rule of law], if one doesn't care that it requires a level of incompetence/arrogance that does not in any manner describe what we need, especially now, in a leader. Also should be mentioned that this may well be a cover up of other criminal mischief [ pay for play ], that one would also not care to value future and current resources of intelligence as who can trust us to keep secrets?

Nah, only matters I guess should there have been an R behind her name. Right?
 
imyoda said:
And therefore yall get what yall want no matter the outcome......

Crow if indicted............or B&M if she is not...........In any case a basis/excuse for yall to make a whole lot of noise.......

BTW

How are yall going to wiggle in for blaming the liberal MSM as a reason why she got off?
Click to expand...

If you consider that Hillary's transgressions of handling classified materials are worse than General Patreus's transgressions, that Patreus retired under duress / force from the WH, you'd think that at least the the same treatment should apply to Hillary, shouldn't it? It's been said that the FBI was pissed off at not getting and charging Patreus, and now here's Hillary with far worse transgressions, they are going to sit still and be silent? I think not.

If the FBI isn't going to get Hillary on criminal charges, I'd expect a sizable leak of the results of their investigation, essentially nullifying Hillary's political clout and political ambitions, holding her up as a person of derision, which she surely deserves (given her torrid history), regardless of if she was elected to the WH or not.

Faced with this, I see her and Bill as quietly retiring from the public eye and politics, which is also surely deserved.
 
eohrnberger said:
If you consider that Hillary's transgressions of handling classified materials are worse than General Patreus's transgressions, that Patreus retired under duress / force from the WH, you'd think that at least the the same treatment should apply to Hillary, shouldn't it? It's been said that the FBI was pissed off at not getting and charging Patreus, and now here's Hillary with far worse transgressions, they are going to sit still and be silent? I think not.

If the FBI isn't going to get Hillary on criminal charges, I'd expect a sizable leak of the results of their investigation, essentially nullifying Hillary's political clout and political ambitions, holding her up as a person of derision, which she surely deserves (given her torrid history), regardless of if she was elected to the WH or not.

Faced with this, I see her and Bill as quietly retiring from the public eye and politics, which is also surely deserved.
Click to expand...


I am finished going around in circles with you.............your mind is made up, can will/never change, not hear any other position than yours..............bye bye
 
imyoda said:
I am finished going around in circles with you.............your mind is made up, can will/never change, not hear any other position than yours..............bye bye
Click to expand...

Seems like you mind is equally made up that Hillary is blameless for anything and everything she's ever laid her corrupt hands on.
Just like a true <*cough*> conservative <*cough*>.
 
BrewerBob said:
Please show me where Colin Powell, or any other Cabinet level official, had the gall to set up a private server inside their private residence to bypass accountability and the FOIA. We aren't talking about forwarding some of your official emails to your gmail account here.
Click to expand...

It really depends on the motives. You are choosing to believe that her motive was to bypass accountability and the FOIA. That's certainly a possibility, but it's not the only one. It's also possible that, like she said, she wanted all of her e-mail in one account so she didn't have to keep track of so many different e-mail accounts. If you choose to believe the former, then you can easily see the fact she had a private server built as evidence that she was trying to hide things. But if you believe the latter, then you see the fact she had her own server built as evidence she was taking steps to secure the e-mails. You wouldn't want sensitive government documents residing on a mail server run by Google. Google may not have adequate controls over which employees can read peoples e-mails.

Both scenarios are quite plausible. She may have wanted to hide things so she set up her own e-mail server. Alternately, she may have wanted to have all of her e-mail forwarded to a single account and had someone build her a server so she could do that securely.

Since we can't read her mind and haven't found any evidence to give us any indication about her motives, it's down to what you choose to believe at this point. She either was trying to hide things, or she made some stupid Opsec mistakes that at least weren't as bad as they could have been had she decided to send the e-mails to a Gmail account or some other third party provider.

Until some evidence surfaces pointing one way or the other, what you believe actually happened probably boils down to your view on Hillary Clinton.
 
Last edited:
dimensionallava said:
theyre being ignored because they're not real, theres a million and one things to indict bush over, that were never brought to court, in fact colin powell admitted to doing the exact same thing hillary clinton did so you would have indict him and probably a whole huge list of others from the bush administration.
Click to expand...

That's a lie, he never said he did the EXACT SAME THING. He had a private email, not a private server. And that goes for Condie Rice as well. NO ONE has done exactly what Hillary did.

Hillary Clinton's email targeted by 'Russia-based' hackers - BBC News

Tell me about the Russians who hacked Colin Powell.
 
sKiTzo said:
That she is somehow above the law while everyone else pays for crimes they commit is not a good message for the FBI and DOJ to send to the people, much less that she can commit crimes of national security, have those crimes ignored, and be allowed to run for president. WTF is going on here? Can the people start a petition demanding an indictment so that nobody is above the law?
Click to expand...


The idea that any poster on here has a clue what is going on is absurd.
 
Anyone else find the irony here of not prosecuting Hillary and the situation of those 6 Freddie Gray cops or George Zimmerman who are/were prosecuted based on public demands?

I'm actually kind of curious as to just who has argued in favor of those 6 cops being prosecuted or Zimmerman being prosecuted and yet with Hillary they're giving her a pass... I'd post a poll but doubt anyone would answer honestly. And frankly I'm not going to go look up the history to find out either. I'm not THAT curious. ;)
 
sKiTzo said:
That she is somehow above the law while everyone else pays for crimes they commit is not a good message for the FBI and DOJ to send to the people, much less that she can commit crimes of national security, have those crimes ignored, and be allowed to run for president. WTF is going on here? Can the people start a petition demanding an indictment so that nobody is above the law?
Click to expand...

You want indictments to be subject to petition? Did you read that out loud before hitting "post?"
 
CrabCake said:
It really depends on the motives. You are choosing to believe that her motive was to bypass accountability and the FOIA. That's certainly a possibility, but it's not the only one. It's also possible that, like she said, she wanted all of her e-mail in one account so she didn't have to keep track of so many different e-mail accounts. If you choose to believe the former, then you can easily see the fact she had a private server built as evidence that she was trying to hide things. But if you believe the latter, then you see the fact she had her own server built as evidence she was taking steps to secure the e-mails. You wouldn't want sensitive government documents residing on a mail server run by Google. Google may not have adequate controls over which employees can read peoples e-mails.

Both scenarios are quite plausible. She may have wanted to hide things so she set up her own e-mail server. Alternately, she may have wanted to have all of her e-mail forwarded to a single account and had someone build her a server so she could do that securely.

Since we can't read her mind and haven't found any evidence to give us any indication about her motives, it's down to what you choose to believe at this point. She either was trying to hide things, or she made some stupid Opsec mistakes that at least weren't as bad as they could have been had she decided to send the e-mails to a Gmail account or some other third party provider.

Until some evidence surfaces pointing one way or the other, what you believe actually happened probably boils down to your view on Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

Hillary appears to have established a long history of being secretive, which lends credence to that assumption about her motives for her own private email server.

Hillary Clinton’s Top Five Clashes Over Secrecy
Hillary’s penchant for secrecy rattles Dems | TheHill
Secrecy is the root of the Clinton email scandal | Power Line
Clinton's penchant for secrecy: Our view
Hillary Clinton's email secrecy is hurting her, Ron Fournier says - CNNPolitics.com
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...to-firms-lobbying-federal-government-n2152497
 
If Hillary Clinton is ever indicted come back and tell us all about it.
 
eohrnberger said:
Hillary appears to have established a long history of being secretive, which lends credence to that assumption about her motives for her own private email server.

Hillary Clinton’s Top Five Clashes Over Secrecy
Hillary’s penchant for secrecy rattles Dems | TheHill
Secrecy is the root of the Clinton email scandal | Power Line
Clinton's penchant for secrecy: Our view
Hillary Clinton's email secrecy is hurting her, Ron Fournier says - CNNPolitics.com
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...to-firms-lobbying-federal-government-n2152497
Click to expand...

Like I said, what you choose to believe is going to boil down to your view on Hillary Clinton. If you view her as a secretive person, which you obviously do, you will be more likely to see this as a ploy for secrecy rather than as an attempt at being more efficient or convenient.

I personally believe that it's more likely that this was simply a matter of her trying to circumvent the rules for the sake of convenience. Why do I believe that? Because I've worked on countless government contracts where I've caught countless government officials doing similar things. Everything from Generals using Dropbox to work on stuff at home to high ranking officials forwarding government e-mail to their Hotmail accounts. This kind of OpSec nightmare is a daily occurrence in the government. It's dumb, it's illegal, it goes against policy, and everyone who does it should know better; yet when I worked IT Security for the government, we caught people doing that all the time. Thus this fits with a pattern I am well familiar with. This isn't something unusual to me, I've seen it a million times. The result is always the same, the senior officials come from a generation before the Internet and fail to comprehend the gravity of what they are doing; they just wanted things to be convenient and it didn't occur to them that maybe installing "Go to My PC" on their government computer or whatever nonsense they came up with wasn't a great idea. So, when I see something like this from Hillary Clinton it fits a pattern I am well familiar with and I merely think "well...at least she built her own server rather than forwarding everything to Hotmail" (yes, people old enough to be doing this kind of nonsense tend to use Hotmail, not Gmail).
 
Last edited:
CrabCake said:
Like I said, what you choose to believe is going to boil down to your view on Hillary Clinton. If you view her as a secretive person, which you obviously do, you will be more likely to see this as a ploy for secrecy rather than as an attempt at being more efficient or convenient.

I personally believe that it's more likely that this was simply a matter of her trying to circumvent the rules for the sake of convenience. Why do I believe that? Because I've worked on countless government contracts where I've caught countless government officials doing similar things. Everything from Generals using Dropbox to work on stuff at home to high ranking officials forwarding government e-mail to their Hotmail accounts. This kind of OpSec nightmare is a daily occurrence in the government. It's dumb, it's illegal, it goes against policy, and everyone who does it should know better; yet when I worked IT Security for the government, we caught people doing that all the time. Thus this fits with a pattern I am well familiar with. This isn't something unusual to me, I've seen it a million times. The result is always the same, the senior officials come from a generation before the Internet and fail to comprehend the gravity of what they are doing; they just wanted things to be convenient and it didn't occur to them that maybe installing "Go to My PC" on their government computer or whatever nonsense they came up with wasn't a great idea. So, when I see something like this from Hillary Clinton it fits a pattern I am well familiar with and I merely think "well...at least she built her own server rather than forwarding everything to Hotmail" (yes, people old enough to be doing this kind of nonsense tend to use Hotmail, not Gmail).
Click to expand...

Nice attempt at dismissing legitimate citations, most of which were non-computer related, BTW.

But I guess you are right, "what you choose to believe is going to boil down to your view on Hillary Clinton". Apparently you believe she can do no wrong.

Given the long and torrid, scandal ridden history of Hillary, I have no inclination to believe her, or any of her excuses. She's not earned that trust.

Since when was stupidity an excuse? No wonder the government is such a mess. The private sector has this all figured out for at least 10 years or more by now. SO there's something that the private sector can do, that the government cannot? An interesting reality that. Needs to be applied more. Much, much more.

Let me guess. 'Boo Hoo, we need more budget to afford all those nice things'.

I call bull****. Because incompetency is a bottom less pit to be casting money into. How about taking some of the money from the most stupidest spending that the government does first? You know, the shrimp on the treadmill thing? Yeah, and all the rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom