Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Daerio]

No you don't.

Two people have been granted immunity in the case. Pagliano and Combetta. Pagliano was the person who set up the server, he was granted immunity for his testimony with regard to how he set up and maintained the sever. He confessed to no crime and implicated Clinton in no crime. Combetta acted unilaterally outside of his own company's legal scope and that of Clinton and her legal team. His immunity given in exchange for testimony on his actions in the congressional hearings.

See the problem with this story is that it's bullshit. If he broke the law under no direction from Clinton then he belongs in jail. Either he was responsible for his actions, or she was.

Yet we see here clearly, he has confessed to breaking the law, (and this isn't a parking ticket or some obscure old law, this is a serious one to attempt to conceal evidence from the FBI and congress of even more illegal doings) and no one is held accountable. Amazing. Clinton isn't held publicly responsible, and nobody goes to jail.

The corruption is incredibly obvious if not overwhelming.

Oh, and 5 people were granted immunity, not 2. No one was charged. Another crazy outlier in this case.

And honestly, to argue that some random IT guy decided to destroy evidence he confessed he knew was under subpoena without direction from anyone else? What kind of fucking idiot would believe that's the truth? And right when Clinton was under investigation?

[I Push Buttons]

See the problem with this story is that it's bullshit. If he broke the law under no direction from Clinton then he belongs in jail. Either he was responsible for his actions, or she was.

Yet we see here clearly, he has confessed to breaking the law, and no one is held accountable. Amazing. Clinton isn't held publicly responsible, and nobody goes to jail.

The corruption is incredibly obvious if not overwhelming.

Oh, and 5 people were granted immunity, not 2. No one was charged. Another crazy outlier in this case.

And honestly, to argue that some random IT guy decided to destroy evidence he confessed he knew was under subpoena without direction from anyone else? What kind of fucking idiot would believe that's the truth? And right when Clinton was under investigation?

I enjoy how you keep going on and on about justice while Republicans grant immunity to all of these people you seem to be 100% certain are guilty of crimes.

Obviously "justice" is of little concern in this witch hunt, friend. The goal is to destroy Clinton. Not to hold anyone accountable or enforce the law. Your own statements show this to be true.

[Healing Rain]

America should have listened to George Washington's warning about political parties. Political parties are the only reason Crooked Hillary, the most evil, corrupt politician in America has any chance of being president. If Crooked Hillary didn't have a "D" next to her name no one with even an ounce of dignity would be supporting her.

[Endus]

See the problem with this story is that it's bullshit. If he broke the law under no direction from Clinton then he belongs in jail. Either he was responsible for his actions, or she was.

You have the chain of events backwards.

They didn't know if he knew anything. He wouldn't tell them unless he was granted immunity. They granted him immunity, he confessed what he'd done. Because he's been granted immunity, that's as far as it goes.

Unless you can find evidence that he was under orders from Clinton or her team (and all the evidence points to the opposite), then that's where it ends. You can't punish him for breaking the law because they granted him immunity to them doing so.

Yet we see here clearly, he has confessed to breaking the law, (and this isn't a parking ticket or some obscure old law, this is a serious one to attempt to conceal evidence from the FBI and congress of even more illegal doings) and no one is held accountable. Amazing. Clinton isn't held publicly responsible, and nobody goes to jail.

The corruption is incredibly obvious if not overwhelming.

You guys really like that "corruption" word, don't you?

Again, you can't charge someone with a crime when you've granted them immunity to charging them for that crime to get the confession that they may have committed that crime. That's how the system works. Want to take issue with someone? Take issue with the prosecutors who were pursuing Clinton on this, and granted him that immunity.

Oh, and 5 people were granted immunity, not 2. No one was charged. Another crazy outlier in this case.

Funny how that works. You get granted immunity from being charged, and then you don't get charged. How is this not obvious to you?

And honestly, to argue that some random IT guy decided to destroy evidence he confessed he knew was under subpoena without direction from anyone else? What kind of fucking idiot would believe that's the truth? And right when Clinton was under investigation?

See, here you start making stuff up, and pretending that your wild speculation is evidence. It isn't. It's completely unfounded and baseless speculation. You may as well be asking "Well, what if he's actually a werewolf?" No evidence of that, either, so go nuts. It's just as reasonable.

[I Push Buttons]

America should have listened to George Washington's warning about political parties. Political parties are the only reason Crooked Hillary, the most evil, corrupt politician in America has any chance of being president. If Crooked Hillary didn't have a "D" next to her name no one with even an ounce of dignity would be supporting her.

Perhaps Washington should have done something to change the constitution then, as the way our government is designed literally guarantees two dominant coalitions opposed to each other. Obviously it was as apparent back then as it is now, yet they did nothing to prevent it.

[Breccia]

It seems Clinton is no stranger to trolling.

The group Judicial Watch, a conservative group known for filing FOIA lawsuits, demanded that Clinton answer some questions about her emails under oath.

Clinton, a Yale-trained lawyer, answered pretty much every single one of them under oath with "I don't remember" knowing that her statements could not be disproven, and could not be twisted when there were no words to twist.

She then very likely dropped the mic, put on sunglasses, and hammerdanced offstage.

[Daerio]

It seems Clinton is no stranger to trolling.

The group Judicial Watch, a conservative group known for filing FOIA lawsuits, demanded that Clinton answer some questions about her emails under oath.

Clinton, a Yale-trained lawyer, answered pretty much every single one of them under oath with "I don't remember" knowing that her statements could not be disproven, and could not be twisted when there were no words to twist.

She then very likely dropped the mic, put on sunglasses, and hammerdanced offstage.

And your opinion is this is somehow clever, and not flagrantly corrupt behavior?

I guess it's perspective.

[Elegiac]

And your opinion is this is somehow clever, and not flagrantly corrupt behavior?

If not paying a cent in income tax in a system designed so the wealthy can easily do as such makes you smart, clearly avoiding federal prosecution despite the entire Republican party and Russia being after you must make you a genius.

[Breccia]

And your opinion is this is somehow clever, and not flagrantly corrupt behavior?

Disarming an opponent's line of attack is incredibly clever. And I don't see how her choice to willingly answer questions under oath -- even if the answers she gave were blatant trolling -- qualifies as corrupt.

Unless you're playing the Pronoun Game and "this" means the whole email thing she wasn't charged for, admitted she was wrong, and apologized in front of 100 million people. Yeah, still sticking with my original answer.

[callipygoustp]

I'm going to be really bummed when the election is over. Reading about the latest greatest slant on the email scandal has been a fantastic cure for insomnia.

[jakeic]

I'm going to be really bummed when the election is over. Reading about the latest greatest slant on the email scandal has been a fantastic cure for insomnia.

This time, though, they're really going to nail her with emails. I'm curious as to what the people who drag this shit out over and over again think will be discovered in these emails, emails that she knew would be handed over to the state department at some point?

[I Push Buttons]

This time, though, they're really going to nail her with emails. I'm curious as to what the people who drag this shit out over and over again think will be discovered in these emails, emails that she knew would be handed over to the state department at some point?

Its just for the bad press and swaying the public. So Joe Undecided Voter goes on his preferred media site and sees a story about how Hillary is trying to destroy America every single day until the election.

[LilSaihah]

This time, though, they're really going to nail her with emails. I'm curious as to what the people who drag this shit out over and over again think will be discovered in these emails, emails that she knew would be handed over to the state department at some point?

It doesn't really matter what's in the emails. It's almost entirely just creating bad media for her. If they catch her in a contradiction they'd be quite lucky.

[jakeic]

Its just for the bad press and swaying the public. So Joe Undecided Voter goes on his preferred media site and sees a story about how Hillary is trying to destroy America every single day until the election.

i meant the true believers, i wonder what they think are in the emails.

[TZucchini]

So does the Clinton Campaign have a response to the whole Donna Brazile accusation? That she emailed the campaign a question, word for word, prior to the debate? Asking because I'm legitimately unsure.

[Orlong]

This. Entirely. Precisely.

Bringing up Bill to defend Trump's behavior is ridiculous. Hillary is his opponent.

Its because Hillary condoned his behavior, and defended him as well while she trashed Lewinski, Jones, Flowers etc.. In addition any woman not only who puts up with her husband repeatedly cheating on her (hes been having affairs since the 80s when he was governor of Arkansas), but then slut shames and blames his mistresses, is someone who to me shows no courage to do the right thing. Had Hillary put her foot down and told Bill that his behavior was unacceptable, disrespectful to her, embarrassing to the USA, and a violation of their wedding vows, and then walked out on his ass, she would have actually shown strength and courage, and to this day would be a role model for little girls and teens to look up to, but instead she stayed with him and let him walk all over her.

- - - Updated - - -

He also wasn't guilty of either.

You folks always like to remember he was impeached, but "impeachment" is like taking a case to court. Congress reviewed the accusations, and found them to be without basis. Bill Clinton was not guilty of perjury or obstruction of justice.

He most certainly was guilty, anyone can determine that. We know what he did and we know what he told congress and they are 2 different things. The only reason he wasnt found guilty during the trial was political. The Senate votes to determine guilt and the Senate had a Democrat majority. They arent going to convict a president from their own party unless he murders someone

- - - Updated - - -

This isn't relevant. You claimed Bill Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice. Congress considered both, and determined that he was not guilty of either. That's the facts. You don't LIKE that conclusion, but that's your partisan bias, and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

When all the democrats voted not guilty and all the republicans voted guilty, are you really going to tell me that each Senator put partisan politics aside and voted what they honestly believed based on testimony and evidence?

[Deleted]

Anyone that thinks if Hillary wins she will actually complete two terms?

I think the coming 4 years will be a bridge to (hopefully) better candidates.

[Orlong]

And, yet again, why are we even talking about Bill Clinton? He's not running for President. None of this stuff has any relevance to the election. We may as well be talking about Richard Nixon or Woodrow Wilson.

Not true at all. As First Man or whatever they would call him, he will be living in the white house and will have the traditional role of first lady. He will be able start initiatives (hopefully the give the kids food they like and enough to make them feel full at school every day initiative), and he will be traveling to all kinds of state events in an ambassador-like role (we dont want someone like him embarrassing us), and you cant tell me he wouldnt be giving his input into the way Hillary should be doing her job. Its not like he will just be sleeping in till noon every day, and then spend the rest of the day sitting in a rocking chair sipping lemonade

[zenkai]

Anyone that thinks if Hillary wins she will actually complete two terms?

I think the coming 4 years will be a bridge to (hopefully) better candidates.

I think she could because a lot of people fear change.

[Deleted]

I think she could because a lot of people fear change

Isnt that what Obama promised though?

Or is that also the reason?