• 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!

What If? Had Hillary been Elected, Would You Support A Special Counsel Investigation?

What If? Had Hillary been Elected, Would You Support A Special Counsel Investigation?

  • Total voters
    17
Captain Adverse

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
20,271
Reaction score
28,076
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I find myself curious about role reversals, so I posit this "What If?" Poll.

Let's say that Hillary Clinton was successfully elected November 2016 instead of Mr. Trump.

Then the following information we now know (or in some cases strongly suspect) to be true came to light:

1. The DNC emails showing all those sordid campaign shenanigans,

2. The evidence that she was involved in "collusion" to defeat Trump via the Steele Dossier,

3. That the fix was in when it came to the Email Server investigation and her Election:
  • Clinton - Lynch "Airport meeting" confirmed it.
  • Comey Memo change from Grossly Negligent to Extremely Careless months before Clinton's FBI interview.
  • The Strzok - Page FBI email exchange history showing bias and support by those tasked with the investigation.
  • The same investigation team allowing Clinton unsupervised access to delete emails claimed personal, but discovered to be work related and classified.
  • The FBI surveillance of Carter Page based on the Dossier.

4. The evidence that some of the Russian Hacking during the campaign was actually supportive of Clinton.

5. Evidence that the Clinton Foundation was used for influence peddling.

6. Anything else I may have forgotten to add, criminal or politically problematic. (Feel free to do so in your reply)

So, the question:

Would you demand a Special Prosecutor be appointed to investigate this history, and given wide powers to investigate any past history of possible criminality which might lead to her impeachment...yes or no?

Other is always an option. :)

Explain.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I find myself curious about role reversals, so I posit this "What If?" Poll.

Let's say that Hillary Clinton was successfully elected November 2016 instead of Mr. Trump.

Then the following information we now know (or in some cases strongly suspect) to be true came to light:

1. The DNC emails showing all those sordid campaign shenanigans,

2. The evidence that she was involved in "collusion" to defeat Trump via the Steele Dossier,

3. That the fix was in when it came to the Email Server investigation and her Election:
  • Clinton - Lynch "Airport meeting" confirmed it.
  • Comey Memo change from Grossly Negligent to Extremely Careless months before Clinton's FBI interview.
  • The Strzok - Page FBI email exchange history showing bias and support by those tasked with the investigation.
  • The same investigation team allowing Clinton unsupervised access to delete emails claimed personal, but discovered to be work related and classified.
  • The FBI surveillance of Carter Page based on the Dossier.

4. The evidence that some of the Russian Hacking during the campaign was actually supportive of Clinton.

5. Evidence that the Clinton Foundation was used for influence peddling.

6. Anything else I may have forgotten to add, criminal or politically problematic. (Feel free to do so in your reply)

So, the question:

Would you demand a Special Prosecutor be appointed to investigate this history, and given wide powers to investigate any past history of possible criminality which might lead to her impeachment...yes or no?

Other is always an option. :)

Explain.
Click to expand...

Other.
You seem to be implying that the investigation into Russian meddling was initiated by parties hostile to Trump, but it was Trump's administration that started the investigation and hired Mueller to be in charge of it. It may have been at Trump's request that Mueller was hired- the A-G's office hired him the day after Trump interviewed him about coming back to head the FBI.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I find myself curious about role reversals, so I posit this "What If?" Poll.

Let's say that Hillary Clinton was successfully elected November 2016 instead of Mr. Trump.

Then the following information we now know (or in some cases strongly suspect) to be true came to light:

1. The DNC emails showing all those sordid campaign shenanigans,

2. The evidence that she was involved in "collusion" to defeat Trump via the Steele Dossier,

3. That the fix was in when it came to the Email Server investigation and her Election:
  • Clinton - Lynch "Airport meeting" confirmed it.
  • Comey Memo change from Grossly Negligent to Extremely Careless months before Clinton's FBI interview.
  • The Strzok - Page FBI email exchange history showing bias and support by those tasked with the investigation.
  • The same investigation team allowing Clinton unsupervised access to delete emails claimed personal, but discovered to be work related and classified.
  • The FBI surveillance of Carter Page based on the Dossier.

4. The evidence that some of the Russian Hacking during the campaign was actually supportive of Clinton.

5. Evidence that the Clinton Foundation was used for influence peddling.

6. Anything else I may have forgotten to add, criminal or politically problematic. (Feel free to do so in your reply)

So, the question:

Would you demand a Special Prosecutor be appointed to investigate this history, and given wide powers to investigate any past history of possible criminality which might lead to her impeachment...yes or no?

Other is always an option. :)

Explain.
Click to expand...

If Hillary had won, and if she did half the insane **** Trump has done, we'd have had an impeachment hearing already. :roll:
 
Grand Mal said:
Other.
You seem to be implying that the investigation into Russian meddling was initiated by parties hostile to Trump, but it was Trump's administration that started the investigation and hired Mueller to be in charge of it. It may have been at Trump's request that Mueller was hired- the A-G's office hired him the day after Trump interviewed him about coming back to head the FBI.
Click to expand...

That's not correct. The counterintelligence investigation began in the summer of 2016. Mueller's mandate upon appointment was to continue that investigation.
 
Grand Mal said:
Other.
You seem to be implying that the investigation into Russian meddling was initiated by parties hostile to Trump, but it was Trump's administration that started the investigation and hired Mueller to be in charge of it. It may have been at Trump's request that Mueller was hired- the A-G's office hired him the day after Trump interviewed him about coming back to head the FBI.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and Nixon's AG appointed Archibald Cox and Nixon agreed...under massive pressure.

If the Dems and the Reps in Congress hadn't pushed with the public clamoring for it, do you think one would have been appointed by Trump either?

In any case, thanks for voting, and your comment. :)
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
That's not correct. The counterintelligence investigation began in the summer of 2016. Mueller's mandate upon appointment was to continue that investigation.
Click to expand...

Far as I know you're talking about an FBI investigation. I'm talking about Mueller being hired by the A-G's office, the day after being interviewed by Trump about heading up the FBI.
Do you mean the FBI was conducting that investigation while Trump was interviewing Mueller?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Yeah, and Nixon's AG appointed Archibald Cox and Nixon agreed...under massive pressure.

If the Dems and the Reps in Congress hadn't pushed with the public clamoring for it, do you think one would have been appointed by Trump either?

In any case, thanks for voting, and your comment. :)
Click to expand...

Trump interviewed Mueller about coming back to head the FBI. That wasn't because of pressure from anyone.
 
Grand Mal said:
Trump interviewed Mueller about coming back to head the FBI. That wasn't because of pressure from anyone.
Click to expand...

Well...he's interviewed, hired, and fired a lot of people since being elected.

Mostly because he does not know any of the major players and is just trying them on in jobs to see if they fit his agenda, much like The Apprentice. ;)
 
Captain Adverse said:
I find myself curious about role reversals, so I posit this "What If?" Poll.

Let's say that Hillary Clinton was successfully elected November 2016 instead of Mr. Trump.

Then the following information we now know (or in some cases strongly suspect) to be true came to light:

1. The DNC emails showing all those sordid campaign shenanigans,

2. The evidence that she was involved in "collusion" to defeat Trump via the Steele Dossier,

3. That the fix was in when it came to the Email Server investigation and her Election:
  • Clinton - Lynch "Airport meeting" confirmed it.
  • Comey Memo change from Grossly Negligent to Extremely Careless months before Clinton's FBI interview.
  • The Strzok - Page FBI email exchange history showing bias and support by those tasked with the investigation.
  • The same investigation team allowing Clinton unsupervised access to delete emails claimed personal, but discovered to be work related and classified.
  • The FBI surveillance of Carter Page based on the Dossier.

4. The evidence that some of the Russian Hacking during the campaign was actually supportive of Clinton.

5. Evidence that the Clinton Foundation was used for influence peddling.

6. Anything else I may have forgotten to add, criminal or politically problematic. (Feel free to do so in your reply)

So, the question:

Would you demand a Special Prosecutor be appointed to investigate this history, and given wide powers to investigate any past history of possible criminality which might lead to her impeachment...yes or no?

Other is always an option. :)

Explain.
Click to expand...

I picked "other". Clinton would have been investigated non-stop as long as the GOP held either the House or Senate.

I would have wanted Russian interference investigated, period. Anyone and everyone involved.

You do realize that Trump and his fellow travelers would still need to be investigated in that scenario...
 
Grand Mal said:
Far as I know you're talking about an FBI investigation. I'm talking about Mueller being hired by the A-G's office, the day after being interviewed by Trump about heading up the FBI.
Do you mean the FBI was conducting that investigation while Trump was interviewing Mueller?
Click to expand...

I mean the the ongoing FBI investigation was the investigation that Mueller was hired to continue.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI
Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
Click to expand...

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
 
Whatever Clinton was involved in (never charged with anything) it pales in comparison to Trumps inexplicable and treasonous failures to confront Putin and his continuing cyber attacks on the US.

Not a single disparaging word ever from Trump to Putin ... yet Trump publicly browbeats and insults our FBI and security services, much to the delight of V. V. Putin.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I find myself curious about role reversals, so I posit this "What If?" Poll.

Let's say that Hillary Clinton was successfully elected November 2016 instead of Mr. Trump.

Then the following information we now know (or in some cases strongly suspect) to be true came to light:

1. The DNC emails showing all those sordid campaign shenanigans,

2. The evidence that she was involved in "collusion" to defeat Trump via the Steele Dossier,

3. That the fix was in when it came to the Email Server investigation and her Election:
  • Clinton - Lynch "Airport meeting" confirmed it.
  • Comey Memo change from Grossly Negligent to Extremely Careless months before Clinton's FBI interview.
  • The Strzok - Page FBI email exchange history showing bias and support by those tasked with the investigation.
  • The same investigation team allowing Clinton unsupervised access to delete emails claimed personal, but discovered to be work related and classified.
  • The FBI surveillance of Carter Page based on the Dossier.

4. The evidence that some of the Russian Hacking during the campaign was actually supportive of Clinton.

5. Evidence that the Clinton Foundation was used for influence peddling.

6. Anything else I may have forgotten to add, criminal or politically problematic. (Feel free to do so in your reply)

So, the question:

Would you demand a Special Prosecutor be appointed to investigate this history, and given wide powers to investigate any past history of possible criminality which might lead to her impeachment...yes or no?

Other is always an option. :)

Explain.
Click to expand...

I think they should investigate it now.
 
Grand Mal said:
Other.
You seem to be implying that the investigation into Russian meddling was initiated by parties hostile to Trump, but it was Trump's administration that started the investigation and hired Mueller to be in charge of it. It may have been at Trump's request that Mueller was hired- the A-G's office hired him the day after Trump interviewed him about coming back to head the FBI.
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with the poll question?
 
calamity said:
If Hillary had won, and if she did half the insane **** Trump has done, we'd have had an impeachment hearing already. :roll:
Click to expand...

Trump has done some "insane" **** but not anything he could be impeached for. What has he done that is impeachable?
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I picked "other". Clinton would have been investigated non-stop as long as the GOP held either the House or Senate.

I would have wanted Russian interference investigated, period. Anyone and everyone involved.

You do realize that Trump and his fellow travelers would still need to be investigated in that scenario...
Click to expand...

Both Russia and the US have tried interfering in other country's elections for decades. It's not something new that just popped up in 2016.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Whatever Clinton was involved in (never charged with anything) it pales in comparison to Trumps inexplicable and treasonous failures to confront Putin and his continuing cyber attacks on the US.

Not a single disparaging word ever from Trump to Putin ... yet Trump publicly browbeats and insults our FBI and security services, much to the delight of V. V. Putin.
Click to expand...

Using that definition, Obama was treasonous many times over. Hell, as soon as he was elected in 2008 he wanted a Russian reset. Then he wanted to talk to our arch enemies, Iran, dropping billions of dollars in cash money at their doorstep for the release of our sailors held hostage and agreeing to a nuclear deal that let Iran develop ballistic missiles and export terrorism. He then drew a red line in the sand in Syria and then allowed them to use chemical weapons and then allowed Russia to annex Crimea. Then, when he knew that Russia was trying to influence our election, he gave the order to stand down. How much more treasonous can you get?
 
Captain Adverse said:
I find myself curious about role reversals, so I posit this "What If?" Poll.

Let's say that Hillary Clinton was successfully elected November 2016 instead of Mr. Trump.

Then the following information we now know (or in some cases strongly suspect) to be true came to light:

1. The DNC emails showing all those sordid campaign shenanigans,

2. The evidence that she was involved in "collusion" to defeat Trump via the Steele Dossier,

3. That the fix was in when it came to the Email Server investigation and her Election:
  • Clinton - Lynch "Airport meeting" confirmed it.
  • Comey Memo change from Grossly Negligent to Extremely Careless months before Clinton's FBI interview.
  • The Strzok - Page FBI email exchange history showing bias and support by those tasked with the investigation.
  • The same investigation team allowing Clinton unsupervised access to delete emails claimed personal, but discovered to be work related and classified.
  • The FBI surveillance of Carter Page based on the Dossier.

4. The evidence that some of the Russian Hacking during the campaign was actually supportive of Clinton.

5. Evidence that the Clinton Foundation was used for influence peddling.

6. Anything else I may have forgotten to add, criminal or politically problematic. (Feel free to do so in your reply)

So, the question:

Would you demand a Special Prosecutor be appointed to investigate this history, and given wide powers to investigate any past history of possible criminality which might lead to her impeachment...yes or no?

Other is always an option. :)

Explain.
Click to expand...

I would support (I cannot demand) a Prosecutor if it was requested by the justice department or congress. As most of what you suggest is either false or not grounds for such a thing, I doubt it would happen.
 
Yes of course, she is corrupt as Trump is.

Trump is just more open about his corruption & I'm not talking about the Russian collusion garbage.
 
Moderate Right said:
Both Russia and the US have tried interfering in other country's elections for decades. It's not something new that just popped up in 2016.
Click to expand...

No, but the tools and the way they were used are. We need to get on top of that game, don't you think?

I'm personally more concerned that the Russians may have something on Trump. He acts like he owes them. You can take the overt "collusion" out of it, and that would still matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom