Hillary 2020?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Help me out here. Of what crimes has Hillary Clinton been convicted? What has she done that might be called "criminal"? The closest I can think of is her misuse of her personal server and there is absolutely no proven criminal intent on her part.

Then presidential hopeful Donald Trump PROMISED during the campaign to bring her to justice. "Lock her up" became the mantra of the Trump deplorables. Trump has it within his power to get a special prosecutor appointed to look into criminal charges against Clinton and I personally would like to see it done. Why hasn't Trump done it? Probably because there is little upside for him to do so. His supporters believe him. If a special investigator is appointed and finds Clinton not guilty of anything but misuse of her computer, it would not be good for Trump.

Trump promised many things that he never intended to do, or realized he couldn't. Just like every candidate.

And no, Clinton was not convicted
Because a trial would do even more damage to national security than her selfish, lazy actions already did.

She put more classified info at risk--and more highly sensitive info--than Aldrich Ames. She is also a despicable human being who repeatedly threw blameless people under the bus, ruining their careers, to divert her grevious mistakes and lies. But most those are not the kind of things any Senator or Sec State would be prosecuted for, sadly. Just marks of a psycopath who really only cares about herself.

And I am very, very, very far from a Trump supporter. I just saw too much of Clinton close up that turned my stomach.

[Yssup Rider]

So, how’s Twitler working out for you, Old-T? Are you proud of your President?

[Old-T]

Quite being a jerk. You know full well I consider these two to be the two worst presidential candidates in my lifetime. No, I did not vote for either.

Trump is a clueless buffoon, but still less evil than Clinton. Do you really support a woman who believes it is just fine to send some of the country's most protected technology on an unencrypted commercial line to a foreign national, claim her admin was at fault, and then desperately do her best Nixon imitation to try and spread the evidence?

Being anti-psycopath is not being pro-egomaniac.

[Old-T]

Quite being a jerk. You know full well I consider these two to be the two worst presidential candidates in my lifetime. No, I did not vote for either.

Trump is a clueless buffoon, but still less evil than Clinton. Do you really support a woman who believes it is just fine to send some of the country's most protected technology on an unencrypted commercial line to a foreign national, claim her admin was at fault, and then desperately do her best Nixon imitation to try and spread the evidence?

Being anti-psycopath is not being pro-egomaniac.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Quit being a jerk.

That's like telling a pig to quit oinking.

Originally Posted by Old-T

Do you really support a woman who believes it is just fine to send some of the country's most protected technology on an unencrypted commercial line to a foreign national, claim her admin was at fault, and then desperately do her best Nixon imitation to try and spread the evidence?

Yes, he does. And he would support her again!

OINK, OINK!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Help me out here. Of what crimes has Hillary Clinton been convicted? What has she done that might be called "criminal"?

Did you try googling the question "what crimes did hillary clinton commit?" It took me only a few seconds. Over the past 3 years, I have read dozens of legal analyses citing specific federal statutes and explaining how they were violated.

Here is just one of the items that popped up in a simple search. It's from "Quora" - a non-partisan Q & A website:


Catherine Beale, I'm with her.

Answered Oct 7 2016 · Author has 1.4k answers and 4m answer views

Originally Answered: What possible crime (s) can Hillary Clinton be accused of?

First: I will vote for Hillary Clinton. I am a liberal Democrat. A pink Planned Parenthood sign hangs off my front porch.

Nevertheless, it is clear to me that Hillary Clinton has committed a crime.

First, let’s look at 18 U.S. Code §§ 791–799 aka the Espionage Act.

18 U.S. Code § 793(f)(1) makes it is illegal for someone

“entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, … or information, relating to the national defense”

which

through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust,

instructing that the person who commits this illegal act

“Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

This is a felony.

18 U.S. Code § 798(a)(3) makes it illegal for someone who

“knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States”

certain kinds of “classified information”. The “knowingly and willfully” language of this law is a necessary element in a violation. I don’t believe Hillary Clinton “knowingly and willfully” committed these acts it describes. David Petraeus, on the other hand, did.

Look at this law. The words “knowingly and willfully” apply to violation of 18 U.S.C. § 798. The words “knowingly and willfully” are NOT required for charges under 18 U.S.C. § 793.

When the media says Hillary Clinton did not break the law because what she did was not done knowingly and willfully, they’re not reading the law.

Last February, the Washington Post compared the David Petraeus scandal and the Hillary Clinton emails scandal.

Petraeus also committed a felony. But he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of “mishandling classified information that was contained in personal notebooks.” Petraeus didn’t break 18 U.S.C. 793. He broke a different law.

Let’s look at that law.

Under paragraph (a) of §1924 ‘Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material’:

“Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.”

In case you’ve forgotten, Petraeus kept 8 binders of highly classified documents in an unlocked desk drawer. The binders held identities of secret agents, details of U.S. diplomacy, war strategy and other national secrets.

But all anyone cared about back then was that a famous, happily married, 5 star general and former CIA director had illicit trysts with his biographer, who was writing his biography, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus. He provided classified top-secret materials to her.

Petraeus “knowingly” gave classified national secrets to someone with no legal right to see them. He lied to the FBI, which is also a crime. He got two years’ probation and a $100,000 fine, and his girlfriend/biographer was not charged. He could have gone to prison for 10 years.

According to the Washington Post,

“There is dispute over whether some of the information sent through Clinton’s private email server was classified when it was designed to handle unclassified communications.”

A “dispute”? No! There is NO dispute that Hillary Clinton and this private unsecured email server mis-handled classified national secrets.

The Washington Post covered Clinton’s claims about receiving or sending ‘classified material’ on her private e-mail system in August 201, reporting that Reuters went through some emails released by Clinton’s staff and found more than thirty (30) threads stamped foreign government information:

“ ‘Clinton herself sent at least 17 emails that contained this sort of information,’ the report said. ‘In at least one case it was to a friend, Sidney Blumenthal, not in government.’ ”

One email from a British diplomat to Huma Abedin for Secretary of State Clinton marked “Re: Personal: Afghanistan” was “a five-page analysis that he wanted Clinton to read”. But this particular email

“cannot be viewed today by the general public—and will remain secret until 2029. Every page is redacted, labeled ‘CONFIDENTIAL–Reason: 1.4(B), 1.4(D).’ ”

Because it is classified.

Frankly, anyone over the age of 30 could make these mistakes with an email server.

I did not grow up with i-Phones and e-mails. I have accidentally hit a global “reply to all” button and sent compromising material to the wrong people. I can see myself mis-handling Top Secret Documents on an unsecured server.

But if I did I’D STILL BE GUILTY.

David Petraeus, they say, was indicted for “less”.

This is MORE. And it is far from over.


https://www.quora.com/What-alleged-c...ton-accused-of

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Trump promised many things that he never intended to do, or realized he couldn't. Just like every candidate.

And no, Clinton was not convicted
Because a trial would do even more damage to national security than her selfish, lazy actions already did.

She put more classified info at risk--and more highly sensitive info--than Aldrich Ames. She is also a despicable human being who repeatedly threw blameless people under the bus, ruining their careers, to divert her grevious mistakes and lies. But most those are not the kind of things any Senator or Sec State would be prosecuted for, sadly. Just marks of a psycopath who really only cares about herself.

And I am very, very, very far from a Trump supporter. I just saw too much of Clinton close up that turned my stomach.

I have never been a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Like many other voters, I looked at Clinton and Trump and saw less downside with Clinton. Others did the same thing and went with Trump.

I still believe in the old axiom "Innocent until proven guilty". That includes Trump too. If Clinton indeed did break the law then she deserves to be brought to justice.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Did you try googling the question "what crimes did hillary clinton commit?" It took me only a few seconds. Over the past 3 years, I have read dozens of legal analyses citing specific federal statutes and explaining how they were violated.

Here is just one of the items that popped up in a simple search. It's from "Quora" - a non-partisan Q & A website:


Catherine Beale, I'm with her.

Answered Oct 7 2016 · Author has 1.4k answers and 4m answer views

Originally Answered: What possible crime (s) can Hillary Clinton be accused of?

First: I will vote for Hillary Clinton. I am a liberal Democrat. A pink Planned Parenthood sign hangs off my front porch.

Nevertheless, it is clear to me that Hillary Clinton has committed a crime.

First, let’s look at 18 U.S. Code §§ 791–799 aka the Espionage Act.

18 U.S. Code § 793(f)(1) makes it is illegal for someone

“entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, … or information, relating to the national defense”

which

through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust,

instructing that the person who commits this illegal act

“Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

This is a felony.

18 U.S. Code § 798(a)(3) makes it illegal for someone who

“knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States”

certain kinds of “classified information”. The “knowingly and willfully” language of this law is a necessary element in a violation. I don’t believe Hillary Clinton “knowingly and willfully” committed these acts it describes. David Petraeus, on the other hand, did.

Look at this law. The words “knowingly and willfully” apply to violation of 18 U.S.C. § 798. The words “knowingly and willfully” are NOT required for charges under 18 U.S.C. § 793.

When the media says Hillary Clinton did not break the law because what she did was not done knowingly and willfully, they’re not reading the law.

Last February, the Washington Post compared the David Petraeus scandal and the Hillary Clinton emails scandal.

Petraeus also committed a felony. But he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of “mishandling classified information that was contained in personal notebooks.” Petraeus didn’t break 18 U.S.C. 793. He broke a different law.

Let’s look at that law.

Under paragraph (a) of §1924 ‘Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material’:

“Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.”

In case you’ve forgotten, Petraeus kept 8 binders of highly classified documents in an unlocked desk drawer. The binders held identities of secret agents, details of U.S. diplomacy, war strategy and other national secrets.

But all anyone cared about back then was that a famous, happily married, 5 star general and former CIA director had illicit trysts with his biographer, who was writing his biography, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus. He provided classified top-secret materials to her.

Petraeus “knowingly” gave classified national secrets to someone with no legal right to see them. He lied to the FBI, which is also a crime. He got two years’ probation and a $100,000 fine, and his girlfriend/biographer was not charged. He could have gone to prison for 10 years.

According to the Washington Post,

“There is dispute over whether some of the information sent through Clinton’s private email server was classified when it was designed to handle unclassified communications.”

A “dispute”? No! There is NO dispute that Hillary Clinton and this private unsecured email server mis-handled classified national secrets.

The Washington Post covered Clinton’s claims about receiving or sending ‘classified material’ on her private e-mail system in August 201, reporting that Reuters went through some emails released by Clinton’s staff and found more than thirty (30) threads stamped foreign government information:

“ ‘Clinton herself sent at least 17 emails that contained this sort of information,’ the report said. ‘In at least one case it was to a friend, Sidney Blumenthal, not in government.’ ”

One email from a British diplomat to Huma Abedin for Secretary of State Clinton marked “Re: Personal: Afghanistan” was “a five-page analysis that he wanted Clinton to read”. But this particular email

“cannot be viewed today by the general public—and will remain secret until 2029. Every page is redacted, labeled ‘CONFIDENTIAL–Reason: 1.4(B), 1.4(D).’ ”

Because it is classified.

Frankly, anyone over the age of 30 could make these mistakes with an email server.

I did not grow up with i-Phones and e-mails. I have accidentally hit a global “reply to all” button and sent compromising material to the wrong people. I can see myself mis-handling Top Secret Documents on an unsecured server.

But if I did I’D STILL BE GUILTY.

David Petraeus, they say, was indicted for “less”.

This is MORE. And it is far from over.


https://www.quora.com/What-alleged-c...ton-accused-of

Again, I fully support Hillary Clinton being brought to justice. Donald Trump became POTUS in part by him constantly calling Clinton a crook and demanding that she be investigated and locked up if found guilty. Fine. Do it. If a special prosecutor is appointed and finds reasonable reason for Clinton to be tried on whatever charges, we let a jury sort it out.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

The thing that stands out as odd is that noone is talking about the obvious case here: If the Ruskies did hack into the DNC server (likely not and more likely an inside job), Clinton email and Podesta email - it would have been to acquire blackmail material for after Clinton won - which was the supposed sure bet at the time.

[Yssup Rider]

It is also a sure bet THiS time.

If you think the Russians were poised to manipulate Clinton but are not controlling the low-hanging fruit in Office now, you’re sadly mistaken.

[Wiesbadenwillie]

Fuck that cantankerous cunt!!!

[SecretE]

If all the DNC has is HRC (again), they are in BIG trouble...but I don't think they are going to throw away the 2020 election, just so HRC can avoid prosecution as a POTUS candidate.

[Little Monster]

The Democrats are long over Hillary, the moderate Republicans are over Hillary, even Hillary is over Hillary. The only ones who seem to cannot get over Hillary are the Asshole supporters, but I hope they do continue to put the focus on her that way when someone like Booker or Cortez comes along and whips the living shit out of them it will be that much more hilarious.

[Austin Ellen]

Oh please let it be Cortez. I keep telling Speedracer- she's the new face of the democratic party but I don't think he believes me.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Oh please let it be Cortez. I keep telling Speedracer- she's the new face of the democratic party but I don't think he believes me.

You are right. I don't believe you.

Are you backing off your opinion that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate in 2020?

BTW, Cortez CAN'T run for POTUS in 2020. She will only be 31 and a person has to be 35 to run for that office. She couldn't even run for the Senate this year.