• 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!

Based on what we already know... Should Hillary be Imprisoned?

Based on what we know, should Hillary be imprisoned?

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
zimmer

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Should she?

Yes.
No.
 
Nah, let her run for Mayor of New York City - a perfect match. And keep her tied to Billy Boy, to protect young women everywhere.

I love that she stuck with Billy Boy and Billy Boy stuck with her, both believing they'd get back to the White House for another go round on the public teat, and now they're just stuck with each other.
 
I just want them to have a nice long drawn out public trial on a cable channel dedicated just to them, after all the co constrictors and enablers are waltzed in in pink jumpsuits to to testify.
 
Should she be imprisoned? I dunno. Should she be indicted? 100% yes.
 
chuckiechan said:
I just want them to have a nice long drawn out public trial on a cable channel dedicated just to them, after all the co constrictors and enablers are waltzed in in pink jumpsuits to to testify.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the relevant crimes were from Mena, Arkansas and the Financial Development Corporation of Arkansas. Laundering drug money from the CIA arms/cocaine operation flourishing at Mena, Arkansas. Oliver North (CIA) Congressional testimony documents the history.
/
 
zimmer said:
Should she?

Yes.
No.
Click to expand...

Yup.....she should be held to the same standards as anyone else who did something as illegal and stupid as setting up a rogue unsecure server for the expliict purpose of undermining FOIA subpoeana request
 
We know she for certain violated national security and Freedom of Information Act laws so many times as to probably fill up numerous pages of an indictment. Should she be put on trial first? Of course. But we already know she is guilty. Its simply undeniable except to the occasional fully blind partisan. Messages need sent throughout the system.

Does not matter how high on the food chain you are, do the crime and then expect to do the time.
 
Yes. The reason politicians continue to **** over the average person is because when they violate the laws, our nation's ADHD attention span doesn't hold them to account once it leaves the media's narrative.
 
TheGoverness said:
No. Just let her fade into irrelevancy.
Click to expand...

Why?

If she committed serious crimes, shouldn't she be held accountable like any other citizen of the USA?

You would let other treasonous types "fade" away?

Do they not teach critical thinking in high school?
 
Last edited:
There's enough evidence to charge her.
 
I feel like recent events are deterrent enough for someone doing something similar in the future. Plus, the political complications of appearing to imprison a political adversary, and consistency problems (does Colin Powell also have to go to jail?), make imprisonment impractical and unattractive. I really don't see the plus side, other than to feed red meat to rabid partisans, who are far more dangerous than Clinton ever will be.
 
The danger is over, thank G-d. We should not be vengeful. Let her be.
 
Imprisoned? No. Not without Due Process under the law. Which means that all the evidence should be brought before a federal grand jury and then let them decide if she has potentially broken any laws and then they can either issue a true bill or dismiss her case. We need to start there, then see where it leads. I have a problem with a single person deciding whether to even bring charges to the grand jury. At the very least, the case needs to be taken before a grand jury. The lady has rights. If the grand jury refuses to indict, then the cloud over her head will evaporate. Until then, the rest of her life is clouded by accusations and unresolved charges of illegal actions.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Imprisoned? No. Not without Due Process under the law. Which means that all the evidence should be brought before a federal grand jury and then let them decide if she has potentially broken any laws and then they can either issue a true bill or dismiss her case. We need to start there, then see where it leads. I have a problem with a single person deciding whether to even bring charges to the grand jury. At the very least, the case needs to be taken before a grand jury. The lady has rights. If the grand jury refuses to indict, then the cloud over her head will evaporate. Until then, the rest of her life is clouded by accusations and unresolved charges of illegal actions.
Click to expand...

Of course there is due process for her to be sent to el Hotel... but this is our court... and based everything we know already.

There is more than ample info to make a decision if one has being paying attention.

The server alone is evidence enough.

Anyone from the FBI or CIA doing this would be fired into the hole faster than a speeding bullet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom