Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[May90]

Someone posted this like a year ago and I still get a kick out if it:

https://youtu.be/y3z841UJiVk

I like this one better though:

[Cthulhu 2020]

No. The sequel to this election isn't the Clinton Impeachement. It's the Republican Civil War. And my side, armed with greater money and ideas, is going to eviscerate the other side.

The Legion of Losers don't get to walk away from this catastrophe of a year having a political future.

I think there's a very real danger that the Trump News Network will actually be a thing, and people will take it seriously after this.

While many on the left and center-right and just-right-of-center right are thinking the Legion of Losers may just up and roll over and accept defeat come nov 8th when Hillary utterly destroys Trump, I've come to realize just how stubbornly detached from reality they are.

Someone told me this long ago, but there's nothing more terrifying than fully deluded people with an agenda. One only needs to poke their head in on /r/the_Donald to see the depths of their depravity. Their theories about how polling has been being conducted these last several months, along with their certainty that Hillary his this election rigged, already has people JUSTIFYING voting for Trump multiple time "to balance things out for Trump".

Some even suggest open rebellion if the election doesn't go their way. And while it's unlikely, if it does happen, it wouldn't be a good thing. Sure, it sounds great to have all of the alt-right out in the open committing crimes so they can be neatly rounded up and thrown away for a long time, but that would just further fuel their denial of reality and provide them with martyrs.

[PizzaSHARK]

Meh, I think the number of people who would actually do anything besides bitch and spout hatred and nonsense is rather small. We'll just have a repeat of the doom and gloom people forecast after Obama won. Sore losers and spilled milk.

[Fasc]

No, I wanted your reasons for believing that it violated. Now that you clarified that it comes from the FBI statement, let's go to the next step. Why didn't Comey recommend persecution?

Because he's an idiot? Because he didn't read past 793(f)(1) to see (2)? Because he thought he was the big brass balls in charge and gets to do as he pleases? Because aliens?

I don't really care about his intentions as they're of no consequence, he screwed up by laying out a complete set of evidence by which to recommend an indictment and then simply said "naw bro" to the consternation of lawyers and judges across the nation on both sides of the political divide. If it was just so plainly obvious from a strict reading of the law, Gowdy's protestations (among many others) could have been met by Comey with direct answers and wouldn't have lasted even the day. We'd have seen calls by GOP to amend 793 to have a new section or an amended section to include the behavior Clinton exhibited... which they didn't do.

793(f)(2) is violated because:
1 - Hillary had lawful control of national security information because Secretary of State
2 - Hillary had knowledge of an unsecured email server that sent and received emails that were confidential, secret, or top secret in classification
3 - If Hillary claims she has absolutely no idea she was sending/receiving such information, she's grossly negligent
4 - Should previous step fail to satisfy a judge, that her aides were given access to this email server satisfies knowledge that people untrusted with the national security info could access it

3 & 4 aren't to be proven true or false by Comey or Lynch, that's for a finder of fact to determine.

Please learn the damned law.

[Endus]

Because he's an idiot? Because he didn't read past 793(f)(1) to see (2)? Because he thought he was the big brass balls in charge and gets to do as he pleases? Because aliens?

I don't really care about his intentions as they're of no consequence, he screwed up by laying out a complete set of evidence by which to recommend an indictment and then simply said "naw bro" to the consternation of lawyers and judges across the nation on both sides of the political divide. If it was just so plainly obvious from a strict reading of the law, Gowdy's protestations (among many others) could have been met by Comey with direct answers and wouldn't have lasted even the day. We'd have seen calls by GOP to amend 793 to have a new section or an amended section to include the behavior Clinton exhibited... which they didn't do.

793(f)(2) is violated because:
1 - Hillary had lawful control of national security information because Secretary of State
2 - Hillary had knowledge of an unsecured email server that sent and received emails that were confidential, secret, or top secret in classification
3 - If Hillary claims she has absolutely no idea she was sending/receiving such information, she's grossly negligent
4 - Should previous step fail to satisfy a judge, that her aides were given access to this email server satisfies knowledge that people untrusted with the national security info could access it

3 & 4 aren't to be proven true or false by Comey or Lynch, that's for a finder of fact to determine.

Please learn the damned law.

Take your own advice.
In your list;

#2 is not "true". You have not established that Clinton was aware her e-mail contained such material. Her testimony states otherwise, and there's no evidence otherwise.
#3 does not follow; you are literally making that up and do not have any grounds by which to make that assertion.
#4, again, fails to be proven for the same reasons as #2.

So again, you're trying to accuse Clinton of having broken the law, and your "evidence" to that effect is "literally just shit you imagined and want to pretend is true despite the evidence".

And while the DoJ could choose to ignore the recommendations of the FBI as to whether there's evidence sufficient to consider pressing charges, that's pretty unlikely. The FBI's recommendations may not be binding, but you don't get to claim that the evidence to convict exists when that investigation is clearly stating there is not, and nobody at the DOJ is rushing to press charges.

[PizzaSHARK]

#2 isn't proven, though. None of the emails sent were classified or anything like that. Clinton did a stupid, and said some stupid things to brush that stupidity off, but she committed no actual crimes.

[Milchshake]

No. The sequel to this election isn't the Clinton Impeachement. It's the Republican Civil War. And my side, armed with greater money and ideas, is going to eviscerate the other side.

The Legion of Losers don't get to walk away from this catastrophe of a year having a political future.

The Republican Civil War was over years ago. The Tea Party already won.

Goldwater won the debate, but it took decades for the relatively moderate Republican Party to go extinct—*literally, until its voters died and its operatives and advisers in Washington retired. As recently as the mid-1970s, conservatives debated whether to work within the GOP or form a new party. Some mainline Republicans continued to exert themselves through the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush presidencies, all of which had a mix of movement conservatives and traditional Republicans in positions of advisory power. There is no longer any such thing as a Republican who is not conservative.
During the Obama administration, a spate of right-wing primary challenges eradicated what was left of the party’s vestigial moderate wing and cowed its remaining mainstream members into submission.

Movement conservatives are just going to trench in when Clinton wins.Consider Paul Ryan, who is considered the telegenic future the of the GOP. “I’m a conservative from the conservative wing of the conservative movement.”

[Deleted]

So do you believe Trump is innocent too?

Innocent of what? Sexually assaulting women? Sure. But his words and actions speak for how he regards women and thinks about them as objects for his pleasure. That's enough for me to never ever consider voting for him.

[Forogil]

I think there's a very real danger that the Trump News Network will actually be a thing, and people will take it seriously after this.

While many on the left and center-right and just-right-of-center right are thinking the Legion of Losers may just up and roll over and accept defeat come nov 8th when Hillary utterly destroys Trump, I've come to realize just how stubbornly detached from reality they are.

Someone told me this long ago, but there's nothing more terrifying than fully deluded people with an agenda. One only needs to poke their head in on /r/the_Donald to see the depths of their depravity. Their theories about how polling has been being conducted these last several months, along with their certainty that Hillary his this election rigged, already has people JUSTIFYING voting for Trump multiple time "to balance things out for Trump".

Yes, and this answer one thing that previously bothered me: why was Russia so openly supporting Trump with the email-hacks.

Trump might be a "useful idiot" - but Putin is certainly no idiot, and knew that it was likely that Trump wouldn't win - and instead have to deal with a president that he conspired against.

But what if Putin's goal isn't to get Trump elected - but instead to create and inspire this detachment from reality; then it makes more sense.

[Deleted]

Yes, and this answer one thing that previously bothered me: why was Russia so openly supporting Trump with the email-hacks.

Trump might be a "useful idiot" - but Putin is certainly no idiot, and knew that it was likely that Trump wouldn't win - and instead have to deal with a president that he conspired against.

But what if Putin's goal isn't to get Trump elected - but instead to create and inspire this detachment from reality; then it makes more sense.

I bet Putin is orchestrating all of this directly from Area 51 in collusion with aliens from Saturn. Quick, distribute all the tin foil we can before it's too late!

[Gehron]

Yes, and this answer one thing that previously bothered me: why was Russia so openly supporting Trump with the email-hacks.

Trump might be a "useful idiot" - but Putin is certainly no idiot, and knew that it was likely that Trump wouldn't win - and instead have to deal with a president that he conspired against.

But what if Putin's goal isn't to get Trump elected - but instead to create and inspire this detachment from reality; then it makes more sense.

Putin didn't take too kindly to what he saw as the US trying to influence the last Russian presidential election. If Russia has anything to do with the hacks it's mostly pay back. Trump winning might just be seen as a bonus because the intended damage has already been done.

[Skroe]

Putin didn't take too kindly to what he saw as the US trying to influence the last Russian presidential election. If Russia has anything to do with the hacks it's mostly pay back. Trump winning might just be seen as a bonus because the intended damage has already been done.

It's a stupid bet. Putin better brace himself for the cruel revenge of President Hillary Clinton.

The Clinton's are not known for letting people who cross them walk away. And with the year of attacks on Clinton sourced from Russia, Putin has been picking a fight with a very powerful enemy he doesn't have the resources to counter.

[Deleted]

The money doesn't matter. Nobody falls for political ads.

The money that needs to get out of politics isn't handed out to the media, but to the politicians. But, if you talk about removing tax deductions, the currency of corruption, the real product Washington sells, people look at you like you are crazy.

Nobody falls for adds, says everyone ever. Meanwhile billions are spend on branding and marketing products, with great succes.. Plx dont be naive.. They do it because it works.its not that the media get the money, theyre just tools in this case.

Agree with the rest of what you said

[The Emperor]

Innocent of what? Sexually assaulting women? Sure. But his words and actions speak for how he regards women and thinks about them as objects for his pleasure. That's enough for me to never ever consider voting for him.

Oh yeah? So you d vote for a crook instead, fine logic, sir. I just don't get it how can you equate outright crookiness and malfeasement to being disrespectful to women. You must be a humngous-what type of feminist

[lockedout]

CNN drops Donna Brazile as pundit over WikiLeaks revelations.

CNN has cut ties with commentator and interim Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile after WikiLeaks revealed that Brazile provided more primary debate questions to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

The network confirmed Monday that it had accepted Brazile’s resignation as a contributor on Oct. 14 after the hacked emails showed that she had tipped off Clinton’s campaign to likely questions during the primaries.

In a statement Monday, CNN spokeswoman Lauren Pratapas said, “We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor.”

The network did not respond to questions from The Washington Post about why two weeks passed before the resignation was made public.
WikiLeaks had previously revealed that Brazile had emailed John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, in March about her access to questions that would be asked at CNN-sponsored primary debates. “From time to time I get the questions in advance,” she told Podesta on March 12. She added, “I’ll send a few more.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...f04_story.html

Now since Hillary knew what was going on was wrong shouldn't she have said something?

[Daerio]

#2 isn't proven, though. None of the emails sent were classified or anything like that. Clinton did a stupid, and said some stupid things to brush that stupidity off, but she committed no actual crimes.

Why do you guys insist on saying things that are proven false? Over and over?

This has been proven in front of Congress. There's no dispute that she sent classified emails over her private server, and then tried to delete them once the investigation was opened. Except on this forum, apparently.

[zenkai]

Why do you guys insist on saying things that are proven false? Over and over?

This has been proven in front of Congress. There's no dispute that she sent classified emails over her private server, and then tried to delete them once the investigation was opened. Except on this forum, apparently.

Well In their defense they didn't know because anytime anything negative about Clinton is said they hold their hands over their ears and shout la la la la la.

[Vorkreist]

Did anyone address the arms deals made over Clinton Foundation donations yet or you are still busy grabbing trump's pussy ?

[Deleted]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/31/po...iew/index.html

"If and when Hillary is president, what do you think will be the female equivalent of 'you weren't born in this country?'" Samantha Bee, host of "Full Frontal with Samantha Bee" on TBS (a subsidiary of Time Warner, which also owns CNN), asked Obama.

"That's an interesting question," Obama said, later adding, "I think the equivalent will be, 'She's tired, she's moody, she's being emotional.'"

"There's just something about her?" Bee asked.

"There's something about her. When men are ambitious, it's just taken for granted. Well of course they should be ambitious," he said. "When women are ambitious, why? That theme, I think, will continue throughout her presidency and it's contributed to this notion that somehow, she is hiding something."

"What a nasty woman," Bee responded, referencing what Republican nominee Donald Trump said during the final presidential debate while Clinton was speaking.

I think it's just a little disconcerting when the "Leader of the Free World" is setting the table for a "Universal Woman Card" that can be used any time anyone wants to criticize Hillary. Because that's basically the message behind what they're talking about. I know it's probably not what Obama is trying to say, but since he has chosen to support Hillary, that's what he has to say. In a sense, he has to maintain that there's nothing wrong about Hillary. But, using that kind of rhetoric is definitely sending the message that anyone criticizing her is just doing so because she's a woman. Aggravating, to say the least.

And yeah, I'm sure a lot of pro-Hillary people are going to come here to tell me that's not at all what it sounds like. But, that's what it sounds like to me, so pre-emptively agree to disagree.

[Fargus]

Did anyone address the arms deals made over Clinton Foundation donations yet or you are still busy grabbing trump's pussy ?

They're too busy calling people who point this out tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists.

Which is very ironic considering they're lapping this Russian stuff up like kool-aid.