• 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!

The laughable hypocrisy of the "lock her up" crowd.

Vetplus40 said:
In many ways, tRump fans remind me of the laughable crowds at WWE events. I am talking about the ones that don't realize it is fake and actually think that it is for real. These folks get so worked up and are simply hilarious to observe. I actually attended one WWE (WWF at the time) event years ago and had a great time. In fact, it was the best comedy show I have ever seen. The punches thrown clearly missed their target by a good six inches, yet heads snapped back as though the punches actually connected.

Now to the point: The "lock her up" crowd quickly points out that there is no evidence on DJT. I have to agree. Although there are SEVERAL very "questionable" events regarding tRump and Russia, no concrete proof has yet to surface. So, that begs the following question:

Where is the EVIDENCE to lock up Hillary?
Click to expand...

*Where is the EVIDENCE to lock up Hillary?*

Read US 18 U.S. Code § 793 f, then read Comey's presser.
 
celticwar17 said:
James Comey did change his wording on Hillary Clinton, in an early memo he accused her of being grossly negligent.

There are technicalities Hillary used to be able to get away from it, she was not currently under criminal investigation when she deleted the emails. You can certainly put forth a good argument that that server was government property and she was not authorized to delete anything. At the time they did not know she had classified emails on that server(later they figure out she did in fact have illegal classified information on the server, which alone could have got her in trouble).
Click to expand...

I know about the wording change. So what's the statute that makes "grossly negligent" a crime, assuming those words stayed in there? I'm asking because I'm not at attorney.

If she in fact committed a crime, I'd enjoy seeing her locked up as much as anyone else would. But I haven't seen it yet, and as far as I know, Sessions hasn't charged her with one.
 
tres borrachos said:
I know about the wording change. So what's the statute that makes "grossly negligent" a crime, assuming those words stayed in there? I'm asking because I'm not at attorney.

If she in fact committed a crime, I'd enjoy seeing her locked up as much as anyone else would. But I haven't seen it yet, and as far as I know, Sessions hasn't charged her with one.
Click to expand...

Why hasn't she been charged for a crime? One, probably because of the precedent and line it would cross... going after political rivals after you win an election. Two, the FBI was obviously wanting to be lenient with Hillary.... not everyone is treated the same unfortunately.... if an random underling did the same thing Hillary did, they for sure would have dropped the hammer. There are people who have been jailed for thing FAR less significant than Hillary Clinton did. Three, Hillary has had advising lawyers every step of the way making sure the FBI could only get the minimal amount of cooperation and evidence.... they even manged to get immunity for the server technician and four other staff for just disclosing how they set up the server... not it's contents.
 
tres borrachos said:
Driving over the speed limit is a crime in every state. So is not wearing your seat belt when it's the state law, which it isn't here. I can cite the NH statutes and Google them for every state.

Now, what does any of that have to do with what we're discussing here? I can't verify the statements I just made. Now please cite something to show everyone how being careless with emails is a crime. What is the statute?
Click to expand...
Mishandling classified materials is a crime

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
tres borrachos said:
Driving over the speed limit is a crime in every state. So is not wearing your seat belt when it's the state law, which it isn't here. I can cite the NH statutes and Google them for every state.

Now, what does any of that have to do with what we're discussing here? I can't verify the statements I just made. Now please cite something to show everyone how being careless with emails is a crime. What is the statute?
Click to expand...

*emails* ?? She was intentionally careless with national security.
 
celticwar17 said:
Why hasn't she been charged for a crime? One, probably because of the precedent and line it would cross... going after political rivals after you win an election. Two, the FBI was obviously wanting to be lenient with Hillary.... not everyone is treated the same unfortunately.... if an random underling did the same thing Hillary did, they for sure would have dropped the hammer. There are people who have been jailed for thing FAR less significant than Hillary Clinton did. Three, Hillary has had advising lawyers every step of the way making sure the FBI could only get the minimal amount of cooperation and evidence.... they even manged to get immunity for the server technician and four other staff for just disclosing how they set up the server... not it's contents.
Click to expand...

So you don't know the specific law that she broke?

I didn't think President Trump had a problem going after political rivals after he won an election, considering he accused Obama of committing crimes, and he constantly talks about his former political rival Clinton.
 
Superfly said:
Be.. be.. because HILLARY!
Click to expand...

Heard this morning Comey told staffers he would fire them if they had a server like Hillary's. Whether that was enough for him to indict...don't know.
 
tres borrachos said:
I know about the wording change. So what's the statute that makes "grossly negligent" a crime, assuming those words stayed in there? I'm asking because I'm not at attorney.

If she in fact committed a crime, I'd enjoy seeing her locked up as much as anyone else would. But I haven't seen it yet, and as far as I know, Sessions hasn't charged her with one.
Click to expand...

*So what's the statute that makes "grossly negligent" a crime,

18 U.S. Code § 793 f

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
 
celticwar17 said:
The evidence is gone, and there wasn't a criminal investigation yet.
Click to expand...
If there wasn't an ongoing criminal investigation, then how can that be obstruction?

She's right to deny Republicans access to her personal data.
 
tres borrachos said:
So you don't know the specific law that she broke?

I didn't think President Trump had a problem going after political rivals after he won an election, considering he accused Obama of committing crimes, and he constantly talks about his former political rival Clinton.
Click to expand...
Mishandling of classified information for one... and I think, if they treated the investigation properly, she would be guilty of obstruction of justice and deleting government documents(Protection of Government property https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimin...rnment-property-protection-public-records-and).

He said after the election he would not go after Hillary. Congress has continued to investigate the FBI on the matter if they mishandled the investigation.

anyway... this is not about Trump lol...This is about Hillary
 
Mach said:
If there wasn't an ongoing criminal investigation, then how can that be obstruction?

She's right to deny Republicans access to her personal data.
Click to expand...

It was the FBI.
 
Mach said:
If there wasn't an ongoing criminal investigation, then how can that be obstruction?

She's right to deny Republicans access to her personal data.
Click to expand...

Because though there wasn't technically investigation at the time.... she was committing a crime for hosting a private server with classified information.... and with certainty, deleted evidence off of that same server before it could be turned over to authorities. I don't know what you call it, maybe obstruction is not right, but destruction of evidence might be the correct term.

listen, she may have been 100% innocent in this portion of her violations, her 31k emails could have all been totally personal...but her actions show that she deleted in anticipation of an investigation. She was currently committing a crime at the time holding classified information on that server, deleting half of it's contents was NOT smart. You can't just delete documents like that in a timeline like that when you have illegal material on your platform. That server was government property.

You can't just try to cover up your tracks by deleting **** before an impending investigation without having consequences for it. This is NOT how a normal citizen would be treated.
 
Last edited:
trouble13 said:
Obama told whoppers

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You will never be able to compare the few "lies" you think Obama told, with the every day non stop lies of Trump.
 
Vetplus40 said:
In many ways, tRump fans remind me of the laughable crowds at WWE events. I am talking about the ones that don't realize it is fake and actually think that it is for real. These folks get so worked up and are simply hilarious to observe. I actually attended one WWE (WWF at the time) event years ago and had a great time. In fact, it was the best comedy show I have ever seen. The punches thrown clearly missed their target by a good six inches, yet heads snapped back as though the punches actually connected.

Now to the point: The "lock her up" crowd quickly points out that there is no evidence on DJT. I have to agree. Although there are SEVERAL very "questionable" events regarding tRump and Russia, no concrete proof has yet to surface. So, that begs the following question:

Where is the EVIDENCE to lock up Hillary?
Click to expand...

By evidence I am presuming you mean direct evidence of wrongdoing and not mere circumstantial evidence or things that seem to be on the darker shades of gray when it comes to the point of contact between legality and illegality. The EVIDENCE, as you put it, to lock up Hillary Clinton was her gross negligence in handling of classified information on a private server in contravention of the law, specifically 18 U.S.C. Section 793, subsection (f). Keep in mind, this section does not require a public officer to intentionally mishandle or knowingly give over classified information, but makes it a chargeable offense if they are simply grossly negligent in mishandling the information. Thankfully for Mrs. Clinton, FBI Director James Comey essentially rewrote the standard of the law (and misstated the law itself) when making his recommendation against prosecution.

So there was evidence there for a criminal prosecution. But there was no political will to undertake that prosecution.
 
Last edited:
Vetplus40 said:
In many ways, tRump fans remind me of the laughable crowds at WWE events. I am talking about the ones that don't realize it is fake and actually think that it is for real. These folks get so worked up and are simply hilarious to observe. I actually attended one WWE (WWF at the time) event years ago and had a great time. In fact, it was the best comedy show I have ever seen. The punches thrown clearly missed their target by a good six inches, yet heads snapped back as though the punches actually connected.

Now to the point: The "lock her up" crowd quickly points out that there is no evidence on DJT. I have to agree. Although there are SEVERAL very "questionable" events regarding tRump and Russia, no concrete proof has yet to surface. So, that begs the following question:

Where is the EVIDENCE to lock up Hillary?
Click to expand...

OMG comey spent 45 minutes spelling out everything that she did wrong.
there was a ton of evidence sitting right there.

Everything from gross negligence to classified data to destroying government emails and government property.

what do you mean where is the evidence?

there is no hypocrisy.

If trump broke the law i expect him to be put on trial for it.
just like expect hillary would be. we are not supposed to have a 2 tier justice system.
 
Felis Leo said:
By evidence I am presuming you mean direct evidence of wrongdoing and not mere circumstantial evidence or things that seem to be on the darker shades of gray when it comes to the point of contact between legality and illegality. The EVIDENCE, as you put it, to lock up Hillary Clinton was her gross negligence in handling of classified information on private server in contravention of the law, specifically 18 U.S.C. Section 793. Keep in mind, this section does not require a public officer to intentionally mishandle classified information, but makes it a chargeable offense if they are simply grossly negligent in mishandling the information. Thankfully for Mrs. Clinton, FBI Director James Comey essentially rewrote the standard of the law (and misstated the law itself) when making his recommendation against prosecution.

So there was evidence there for a criminal prosecution. But there was no political will to undertake that political prosecution.
Click to expand...

^^ this ^^
 
tres borrachos said:
The evidence is "gone"? You said what she did was a crime - obstruction. That evidence still exists because we know there were emails deleted. What is Trump waiting for?

James Comey never changed. He said she was careless. She was. What he said was there was no evidence of a crime - no evidence that she or her staff intended to break laws.

Last I checked, being careless isn't a crime?
Click to expand...

his first memo stated that she was grossly negligent. that is the standard by which she would have been charged.
he re-wrote it after other clinton supporters in the FBI pointed that out.

Then he invented the whole "intent" thing that is no where to be found in that entire statute.

here is the statute for you to read.

(f) 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.

you will find no where in there is intent a criteria only gross negligence.

Comey did change.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...accused-clinton-of-gross-negligence-on-emails

An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey’s statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former secretary of State of having been “grossly negligent” in handling classified information, newly reported memos to Congress show.

you should do some research.
 
Felis Leo said:
By evidence I am presuming you mean direct evidence of wrongdoing and not mere circumstantial evidence or things that seem to be on the darker shades of gray when it comes to the point of contact between legality and illegality. The EVIDENCE, as you put it, to lock up Hillary Clinton was her gross negligence in handling of classified information on a private server in contravention of the law, specifically 18 U.S.C. Section 793, subsection (f). Keep in mind, this section does not require a public officer to intentionally mishandle or knowingly give over classified information, but makes it a chargeable offense if they are simply grossly negligent in mishandling the information. Thankfully for Mrs. Clinton, FBI Director James Comey essentially rewrote the standard of the law (and misstated the law itself) when making his recommendation against prosecution.

So there was evidence there for a criminal prosecution. But there was no political will to undertake that prosecution.
Click to expand...

It was all fixed. She was supposed to win the presidency.

if she had been charged it would have disqualified her for president.
at bare minimum even if she wasn't put in jail her clearances are revoked and
according to some laws she is never allowed to hold office again.

so the fix was put under the obama administration that she would get off.

comey with the help of those other 2 corrupt FBI agents re-wrote the statute without authority
and invented a way to get her off so she could continue.

If that wasn't enough all those emails were found on a PC that they never should have been on.
that right there is utter gross negligence.
 
ludin said:
It was all fixed. She was supposed to win the presidency.

if she had been charged it would have disqualified her for president.
at bare minimum even if she wasn't put in jail her clearances are revoked and
according to some laws she is never allowed to hold office again.

so the fix was put under the obama administration that she would get off.

comey with the help of those other 2 corrupt FBI agents re-wrote the statute without authority
and invented a way to get her off so she could continue.

If that wasn't enough all those emails were found on a PC that they never should have been on.
that right there is utter gross negligence.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. This is my own personal perspective and supposition on my part, but I believe that Comey and many other members of the F.B.I. (who people ceaselessly point out are themselves Republicans) believed at the time Donald Trump was too dangerous in any number of ways (to national security, to the rank and structure of Washington, to their own comfortable positions within the Washington Bureaucracy (take your pick), etc.), and wanted to make sure that someone like Hillary would win because Clinton is the definition of "the status quo." Whatever one's political position, I do not think anyone here would tell me that this was the person who would bring dramatic change to Washington. Hence they did what they could to let Hillary Clinton off the hook. I understand why they did what they did. It is not excusable, but I do understand it.
 
Felis Leo said:
I agree with you. This is my own personal perspective and supposition on my part, but I believe that Comey and many other members of the F.B.I. (who people ceaselessly point out are themselves Republicans) believed at the time Donald Trump was too dangerous in any number of ways (to national security, to the rank and structure of Washington, to their own comfortable positions within the Washington Bureaucracy (take your pick), etc.), and wanted to make sure that someone like Hillary would win because Clinton is the definition of "the status quo." Whatever one's political position, I do not think anyone here would tell me that this was the person who would bring dramatic change to Washington. Hence they did what they could to let Hillary Clinton off the hook. I understand why they did what they did. It is not excusable, but I do understand it.
Click to expand...

what they did amounts to obstruction of justice,
criminal mischief
and conspiracy.

they technically all should be arrested and put on trial.
that is what would happen to any of us if we tried that nonsense.
 
celticwar17 said:
Mishandling of classified information for one... and I think, if they treated the investigation properly, she would be guilty of obstruction of justice and deleting government documents(Protection of Government property https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimin...rnment-property-protection-public-records-and).

He said after the election he would not go after Hillary. Congress has continued to investigate the FBI on the matter if they mishandled the investigation.

anyway... this is not about Trump lol...This is about Hillary
Click to expand...

It is about Trump. He is the President. Please tell me why she has not been charged with a crime? This isn't hard, celtic.
 
tres borrachos said:
It is about Trump. He is the President. Please tell me why she has not been charged with a crime? This isn't hard, celtic.
Click to expand...

I have already told you my thoughts on why...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom