Hillary Clinton's Private E-Mail Draws Scrutiny

[AWP]

I'm cynical enough to think that even if they had her on corruption she won't take a charge. They hang an office staffer who handled the money or whatever OR (if charges are even made) they hang someone over the email debacle, but she walks. She's a Clinton and this is America during an election year where she's the favorite for the Dem. nomination and eventual White House residency. There is almost no way in hell the AG allows the FBI to charge her with jaywalking, much less something substantial.

We all know she did it, can anyone on this board legitimately (not devil's advocate, but a legit belief and case) argue she's innocent based upon what we know?

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Not to change the current discussion, but ran into this gem of an interview of the Clinton's trying to explain his whoring around during the 92 election year.

What happened to that southern draw Hillary? I guess some shit never changes, lies, cover up, never actually taking responsibility and putting on a show to impress the masses.

 

[Red Flag 1]

They are two piles of crap that draw flies non stop. It has been going on for decades, and nothing seems to change with the Clintons. They will forever get away with drawing flies.

 

[Gunz]

Any accusations, any charges will be disregarded as partisan politics. Her husband was impeached but not convicted...even though he clearly committed perjury under oath. He was just an "innocent" victim of GOP persecution. He had the media on his side, as she does now. The facts will be rationalized in her favor.

 

[Grunt]

The "Clinton Machine" is so entrenched in the various levels of government that I imagine there are hundreds who are willing to "draw fire" on their behalf just to be able to be associated with them. I have been to several of their functions and to watch people fawn over them is truly a work of art.

 

[nobodythank you]

Any accusations, any charges will be disregarded as partisan politics. Her husband was impeached but not convicted...even though he clearly committed perjury under oath. He was just an "innocent" victim of GOP persecution. He had the media on his side, as she does now. The facts will be rationalized in her favor.

Here is the problem with slick willie's perjury charge... it means nothing in the legal system. It can be argued successfully that the fall of the Republican party began with the Republican hunt to prosecute 42 for getting what amounted to a blowjob and not wanting his wife to find out. Whoop-die-do. He cheated on his wife, so what? Did the Republican establishment really think they would shame him into resigning? He displayed "immoral" behavior? To whose standard of morals are we talking about? Maybe they had an agreement for side options? Who cares? The only thing this prosecution did was to begin the groundings of a divide between the parties and the larger country.

Oh! But perjury is illegal! Yeah, and? So is having sex in any position other than missionary in some states, or engaging in sodomy, or many of the other bullshit religiously based laws out there. The simple fact is (not that I agree, but it is true nonetheless) perjury is relegated to chickenshit status as far as the criminal justice system is concerned. I cannot count the number of times a witness, complainant, or victim has recanted an official testimony or sworn statement when they were caught in a lie. One particular case that comes to mind is a domestic violence case where the wife was high on cocaine and began beating the husband and child. Arrested woman, husband and son provided sworn affidavits as to what occurred, and the case went to trial. When I get to court, the husband and the child recant on their statements, on the stand, and the woman is found not guilty. When I asked the prosecutor why were we not following up on charges for perjury (which a statement of such is written on the sworn statement and the statement is signed), the prosecutor stated that it would not "look good" for the state to do that. My point in all of this is that perjury is rarely ever prosecuted unless it is used as leverage by the state, it is a chicken shit charge similar to getting pulled over for having your tag light out.

While I am all for going after the corrupt clinton dynasty, we need to more carefully choose what arguments we make, if we don't then we potentially lose the force of our arguments, and we get the media bias that you mentioned.

 

[Grunt]

Well said, @ke4gde!

 

[Brill]

I cannot believe the double-standard.

Senior Clinton aide maintained top secret clearance amid email probe, letters show | Fox News

 

[DA SWO]

Stepping beyond Hillary, there's a history of famous (note I didn't use "great") people using a fall guy when needed. Ray Lewis, Steve Jobs, Cris Carter (telling NFL rookies to use them), rappers I can't think of (nor care about), drug cartels and other criminal organizations, and who knows how many people have "resigned" to take the heat off of a politician or business. My memory's a bit thin, but I can Google if you want to find more names.

The reality though is the same regardless of the persons involved. You sacrifice one or more people to protect the big dog. "I didn't know" "I wasn't fully briefed" "He may have said that" and a sacrificial underling later...and the "leader" walks away.

I HATE Hillary Clinton. I am serious when I use that word because she's everything wrong on almost every level with our political process today, but if she weasels out of any prosecution by "killing" a minion, she won't be the first or last. She'll join a long distinguished list of guilty who escaped because of a ritual sacrifice.

It sucks, but that's the world in which we live.

NCAA Football (and other) Head Coaches.

Most of the people who take the hit think they will get a light sentence or just community service; every now and then they get a crappy surprise.

 

[Brill]

One thing to keep in mind is that Mills sent classified material to Hillary AS WELL AS to the Clinton Foundation.

Private entities are NEVER authorized to receive or retain classified material because it is ALWAYS government information.

 

[Brill]

Here is the problem with slick willie's perjury charge... it means nothing in the legal system. It can be argued successfully that the fall of the Republican party began with the Republican hunt to prosecute 42 for getting what amounted to a blowjob and not wanting his wife to find out. Whoop-die-do. He cheated on his wife, so what? Did the Republican establishment really think they would shame him into resigning? He displayed "immoral" behavior? To whose standard of morals are we talking about? Maybe they had an agreement for side options? Who cares? The only thing this prosecution did was to begin the groundings of a divide between the parties and the larger country.

Oh! But perjury is illegal! Yeah, and? So is having sex in any position other than missionary in some states, or engaging in sodomy, or many of the other bullshit religiously based laws out there. The simple fact is (not that I agree, but it is true nonetheless) perjury is relegated to chickenshit status as far as the criminal justice system is concerned. I cannot count the number of times a witness, complainant, or victim has recanted an official testimony or sworn statement when they were caught in a lie. One particular case that comes to mind is a domestic violence case where the wife was high on cocaine and began beating the husband and child. Arrested woman, husband and son provided sworn affidavits as to what occurred, and the case went to trial. When I get to court, the husband and the child recant on their statements, on the stand, and the woman is found not guilty. When I asked the prosecutor why were we not following up on charges for perjury (which a statement of such is written on the sworn statement and the statement is signed), the prosecutor stated that it would not "look good" for the state to do that. My point in all of this is that perjury is rarely ever prosecuted unless it is used as leverage by the state, it is a chicken shit charge similar to getting pulled over for having your tag light out.

While I am all for going after the corrupt clinton dynasty, we need to more carefully choose what arguments we make, if we don't then we potentially lose the force of our arguments, and we get the media bias that you mentioned.

When the head of the Executive branch is impeached for obstructing justice, it's a pretty fucking big deal because he swore an oath to preserve the Contitution and therefore his CORE job is ensure that laws of these United States are obeyed.

Also cited by a Federal judge for contempt...a sitting President ignoring a judges orders.

Going full circle, Mills defended Bill during his impeachment trial. Shit is too crazy even for cable tv!

 

[nobodythank you]

When the head of the Executive branch is impeached for obstructing justice, it's a pretty fucking big deal because he swore an oath to preserve the Contitution and therefore his CORE job is ensure that laws of these United States are obeyed.

Also cited by a Federal judge for contempt...a sitting President ignoring a judges orders.

Going full circle, Mills defended Bill during his impeachment trial. Shit is too crazy even for cable tv!

Yes and no. A sitting President ignoring a judge's order is no different than a sitting Attorney General that ignores a Congressional subpoena to appear before congress and present evidence. The battle between branches rages on for less.

What was the core reason for the investigation? He got a blowjob. If you were a court official that asked a person if the sky is blue, or some other nonsense, and the person said no (when it was clearly blue) then you could, through subterfuge, technically charge the person with perjury or obstruction. Is that acting within the spirit of the law? No. Is it the letter of the law? Yes.

We can rationalize the process for going after 42 all we want with patriotic and legal platitudes, but in the end it was a waste of time and political ammo that garnered us nothing. Instead, people now actually believe that what is going on with hillary is an extension of what happened to bill. Instead of the fact that hillary willfully and wantonly broke federal law and attempted to bypass federal oversight. Those in political power need to rethink what constitutes a breach of office/illegal act ect... versus what is just a boneheaded move of the individual's part. People eat, shit, fuck, and sleep. Even those in power. In the grand scheme of things, getting your knobber slobbered pales in comparison with what hillary did to those 4 Americans and the rest of the country in passing classified materials.

 

[Frank S.]

drawing flies.

Which a man of wealth and taste might refer to as sky raisins...

 

[Red Flag 1]

Which a man of wealth and taste might refer to as sky raisins...

Indeed.

 

[Brill]

Yes and no. A sitting President ignoring a judge's order is no different than a sitting Attorney General that ignores a Congressional subpoena to appear before congress and present evidence. The battle between branches rages on for less.

What was the core reason for the investigation? He got a blowjob. If you were a court official that asked a person if the sky is blue, or some other nonsense, and the person said no (when it was clearly blue) then you could, through subterfuge, technically charge the person with perjury or obstruction. Is that acting within the spirit of the law? No. Is it the letter of the law? Yes.

We can rationalize the process for going after 42 all we want with patriotic and legal platitudes, but in the end it was a waste of time and political ammo that garnered us nothing. Instead, people now actually believe that what is going on with hillary is an extension of what happened to bill. Instead of the fact that hillary willfully and wantonly broke federal law and attempted to bypass federal oversight. Those in political power need to rethink what constitutes a breach of office/illegal act ect... versus what is just a boneheaded move of the individual's part. People eat, shit, fuck, and sleep. Even those in power. In the grand scheme of things, getting your knobber slobbered pales in comparison with what hillary did to those 4 Americans and the rest of the country in passing classified materials.

The reason for the investigation was the sexual harassment suit from Paula Jones and Clinton's stalling tactics went all the wat to SCOTUS (he claimed immunity from civil lawsuits by being President). The OIC investigated Lewinsky when trying to determine if there was a pattern of harassment.

I disagree it was a waste for it shone a light into the darkness of American politics.

From Rep Hyde's closing arguments:

"A failure to convict will make the statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious...We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the President...And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, let right be done."

 

[nobodythank you]

The reason for the investigation was the sexual harassment suit from Paula Jones and Clinton's stalling tactics went all the wat to SCOTUS (he claimed immunity from civil lawsuits by being President). The OIC investigated Lewinsky when trying to determine if there was a pattern of harassment.

I disagree it was a waste for it shone a light into the darkness of American politics.

From Rep Hyde's closing arguments:

"A failure to convict will make the statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious...We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the President...And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, let right be done."

Sexual harassment, in and of itself is not criminal, civil yes, but not criminal. Additionally, IIRC a judge at the time dismissed the case on the grounds that she failed to prove any damages. This case was in no way a legal requirement for going after 42. If by darkness you mean the depths at which waste and fraud are prevalent in politics to meet political agendas then sure. However, in the long run it was a waste of time and a bad move for the Republicans. How many party members, and the overall party, have been hurt by their illicit affairs with women, men, hell even some men who just liked to get freaky with their wives, all in the name of pious Republicans? This double standard hunt helped to further divide us into two more distinct camps, as people began to see Republicans as sore losers that will take any opportunity to go after someone that beat them. Outside of staunch Republicans, no one cared that he got a blowjob and tried to hide it from his wife. Nor should they care as it is between him and his wife.

Rep Hyde? You mean the same staunch, pious Republican that wanted to go after clinton for extramarital affairs when he himself was found having done the same thing in a Salon.com article that revealed his affair? Where was the honor in that indiscretion? As I mentioned before, lying under oath carries little if any weight because it is not applied equally to everyone. It is only used by the state as leverage, otherwise it is a waste of time for the state to bother with it. Look, don't get me wrong, at the time I was wanting to see clinton get in trouble and impeached, but in truth even if he was found guilty during the impeachment it would not necessarily have meant his removal from office. Worse yet, we would have had gore as a CnC.

 

[Red Flag 1]

Many, many of our Presidents had a bit of a "wandering eye"; some more than others. Considering that, Bill Clinton was not plowing any new:-"..........ground. What his wife has been accused of is in a different world all together. Nixon got nailed for lying to the American people, and his cover up what was a single event; Watergate. That Mrs Clinton mishandled classified information for most her time as SOS, and throwing a blanket over the whole thing, is proving to have no effect at all on her electability. Things have changed, and I doubt they will ever change back. It's OK now to lie about a lot, cover it up, get caught red handed, and get away with it. Perhaps action will be taken. Maybe the FBI will come through in the end; but I really doubt it. If Mrs. Clinton is found accountable, charged and brought to court, maybe, just maybe the pendulum is slowing it's swing away from personal accountability. There are only a few months left to work this. If she does become POTUS, the swing away from who we have been will just keep going. The question then is, just how far will this go? How do we redefine personal accountability? Where will the line between right and wrong be?

 

[DocIllinois]

Many, many of our Presidents had a bit of a "wandering eye"; some more than others. Considering that, Bill Clinton was not plowing any new:-"..........ground. What his wife has been accused of is in a different world all together. Nixon got nailed for lying to the American people, and his cover up what was a single event; Watergate. That Mrs Clinton mishandled classified information for most her time as SOS, and throwing a blanket over the whole thing, is proving to have no effect at all on her electability. Things have changed, and I doubt they will ever change back. It's OK now to lie about a lot, cover it up, get caught red handed, and get away with it. Perhaps action will be taken. Maybe the FBI will come through in the end; but I really doubt it. If Mrs. Clinton is found accountable, charged and brought to court, maybe, just maybe the pendulum is slowing it's swing away from personal accountability. There are only a few months left to work this. If she does become POTUS, the swing away from who we have been will just keep going. The question then is, just how far will this go? How do we redefine personal accountability? Where will the line between right and wrong be?

For corrupt political "leadership" unfamiliar with these moral basics, I would start with consulting with top Doctors of Philosophy who concentrate on Moral Philosophy, specifically normative and applied ethics.

(But, you know, actual qualification and expertise in a specific field seem to account for less and less these days. Just look at the leading Republican POTUS candidate. )


The following would also be a fine starting point, IMO:

Marine Corps Leadership Traits

Video Form

 

[Brill]

Sexual harassment, in and of itself is not criminal, civil yes, but not criminal. Additionally, IIRC a judge at the time dismissed the case on the grounds that she failed to prove any damages. This case was in no way a legal requirement for going after 42. If by darkness you mean the depths at which waste and fraud are prevalent in politics to meet political agendas then sure. However, in the long run it was a waste of time and a bad move for the Republicans. How many party members, and the overall party, have been hurt by their illicit affairs with women, men, hell even some men who just liked to get freaky with their wives, all in the name of pious Republicans? This double standard hunt helped to further divide us into two more distinct camps, as people began to see Republicans as sore losers that will take any opportunity to go after someone that beat them. Outside of staunch Republicans, no one cared that he got a blowjob and tried to hide it from his wife. Nor should they care as it is between him and his wife.

Rep Hyde? You mean the same staunch, pious Republican that wanted to go after clinton for extramarital affairs when he himself was found having done the same thing in a Salon.com article that revealed his affair? Where was the honor in that indiscretion? As I mentioned before, lying under oath carries little if any weight because it is not applied equally to everyone. It is only used by the state as leverage, otherwise it is a waste of time for the state to bother with it. Look, don't get me wrong, at the time I was wanting to see clinton get in trouble and impeached, but in truth even if he was found guilty during the impeachment it would not necessarily have meant his removal from office. Worse yet, we would have had gore as a CnC.

I seriously do not know how to respond to this.

You wrote a bunch of words and opinions that are not supported by the facts of the investigation and impeachment proceedings.

Didn't Hillary come out and say that previous SECSTATEs had used personal emails to conduct official business? Is that where you're going with the idea that everybody in DC is whoring around?

Hyde prosecuted Clinton's impeachment because he was the Chairman of the Judiciary committee. If he had moral indiscretions, he did not make false statements, did not conspire to have others do the same, he did not pay just under $1 mil to any victim, and he did not lose his license to practice law.

Justify his actions all you want. I personally don't care what he did with whom. The bottom line is he broke the law, the House, as a body, agreed the he broke two laws however, the Senate did not think his lying and obstruction presented a clear and present danger to the peoples' liberties so they acquitted.

He, like Hillary, had the chance to "call their shots" and own it yet in typical Clinton fashion, they lie, accuse, and bomb Serbia.

 

[Gunz]

Here is the problem with slick willie's perjury charge... it means nothing in the legal system. It can be argued successfully that the fall of the Republican party began with the Republican hunt to prosecute 42 for getting what amounted to a blowjob and not wanting his wife to find out. Whoop-die-do. He cheated on his wife, so what? Did the Republican establishment really think they would shame him into resigning? He displayed "immoral" behavior? To whose standard of morals are we talking about? Maybe they had an agreement for side options? Who cares? The only thing this prosecution did was to begin the groundings of a divide between the parties and the larger country.

Oh! But perjury is illegal! Yeah, and? So is having sex in any position other than missionary in some states, or engaging in sodomy, or many of the other bullshit religiously based laws out there. The simple fact is (not that I agree, but it is true nonetheless) perjury is relegated to chickenshit status as far as the criminal justice system is concerned. I cannot count the number of times a witness, complainant, or victim has recanted an official testimony or sworn statement when they were caught in a lie. One particular case that comes to mind is a domestic violence case where the wife was high on cocaine and began beating the husband and child. Arrested woman, husband and son provided sworn affidavits as to what occurred, and the case went to trial. When I get to court, the husband and the child recant on their statements, on the stand, and the woman is found not guilty. When I asked the prosecutor why were we not following up on charges for perjury (which a statement of such is written on the sworn statement and the statement is signed), the prosecutor stated that it would not "look good" for the state to do that. My point in all of this is that perjury is rarely ever prosecuted unless it is used as leverage by the state, it is a chicken shit charge similar to getting pulled over for having your tag light out.

While I am all for going after the corrupt clinton dynasty, we need to more carefully choose what arguments we make, if we don't then we potentially lose the force of our arguments, and we get the media bias that you mentioned.

I see what you're saying. I have less tolerance for Presidential indiscretions, especially when the Oval Office--which belongs to the people--is used as a fuck chamber by the First Executive. Other Presidents may have had their concubines, but that doesn't make it right. My opinion is that if a man will lie to and betray his own family, he's not going to think twice about lying to and betraying strangers...in this case the American people. Okay, so it's not Murder One...but my point is still that any flak aimed at the Clintons, whether chicken shit or something of substance, will be denigrated to nothing more than partisan politics and because of their cushy relationship with the liberal media most of the lemmings will believe what they are told.