5 ms·

I agree that Hillary needs to be held accountable for her actions and should not be president. However, this sort of thing leaves me worried. If this leak were

by castis 10y ago

I agree that Hillary needs to be held accountable for her actions and should not be president. However, this sort of thing leaves me worried. If this leak were to put an end to her eligibility (in his words "@HillaryClinton is done.") would another democrat step into her place and/or would that make it easier for Trump to win?

saalweachter 10y ago
Just out of curiosity, which of Clinton's actions would you most like to see her held accountable for?
- r_smart 10y ago
  Not OP, and not sure I'd say 'held accountable', but I'll take a shot. I think there needs to be an honest investigation into the Clinton Foundation and whether or not there is a pay for play situation going on there. It could be nothing, but it also could be one of the deepest corruption scandals in the history of the country. The fact that most news organizations have shit the bed in their effort to stop Trump means that it's been almost completely ignored. That's my top pick. *edit: removed redundant redundancy, also corrected word typo.
  - rconti 10y ago
    Of all of the Clinton "scandals", that seems like an odd one to pick. I can't think of one LESS compelling, frankly. People making charitable donations before and after she has any actual political influence, with a tiny fraction of them having any contact with her whatsoever? All so that the Clintons can.. help poor people? All I needed to know to tune out was that the anti- crowd fanned the flames by saying that 95% (IIRC) of the funds were not spent on charities. Because... they are a charity themselves, and spend the money directly on causes?
    - r_smart 10y ago
      Then I suppose we disagree about what qualifies as compelling. If you're one of the people concerned about how cozy politicians are with moneyed interests, than I have a hard time seeing how the Clinton's relationship with such people isn't troubling. [0] [1] [2] [3] I don't think your characterization of their expenditures is necessarily accurate (or wrong!). It's hard to tell, because the whole thing is so opaque[4]. This is a common criticism of the Clintons, even from supporters. They are so opaque about everything that things that would be innocuous end up seeming far worse because of their inclination to hide things. [0]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-... [1]: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state http://bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f... [2]: http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-complex-corporate-ties-1424403002 http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-complex-corpora... [3]: http://nypost.com/2016/08/11/hillary-played-favorites-with-huge-number-of-clinton-foundation-donors/ http://nypost.com/2016/08/11/hillary-played-favorites-with-h... [4]: https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Clinton-Foundation-money-goes-to-real-and-actual-charities-that-are-not-controlled-by-the-Clintons https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Clinton-Foundation-...
  - allemagne 10y ago
    >It could be nothing, but it also could be one of the deepest corruption scandals in the history of the country. That seems to be the theme of Hillary scandals. It's always some superlative outcome. Either she is going to be exposed as a mastermind or "oh nevermind I guess that's not a big deal after all." It's absurd. An opponent of Clinton making a more modest critique than "she is the antichrist" would be very refreshing. Conservatives and Bernie supporters spent months fuming over how email servers showed exactly how evil Clinton was and the most that came out of it was apparently "extreme carelessness." Years of Benghazi and nothing to show for it but words to be poorly scrawled on protest signs for at least another year or so. I am definitely not informed enough to determine whether or not there is or isn't merit to any given controversy or scandal. There are probably a handful of people who could possibly know for sure. She is definitely one of the most powerful people in the world. She is certainly capable of conspiracy. But I know there are also powerful people who are would benefit a lot from harming her career and her image. Honestly, it's at least worth considering that innuendo, accusations, and connecting dots that aren't there, or are there in a much less dramatic form, are all much cheaper than actually pulling off conspiracies.
    - r_smart 10y ago
      Agreed. I did my best to come across as measured and non-accusatory in my post. I'm very specifically not saying there's anything wrong, but there's evidence that there's some pretty deep corruption here. The trouble is, she seems to be untouchable. People don't seem interested in seriously pursuing investigations into her and her husband, and so you're stuck with apocalypse scenarios and people hand-waving it all away as fine. I don't think either are true. I remember when I got my first degree, in journalism (kinda), it was generally considered that the Watergate scandal would never get published in the modern age. I think the Clintons are pretty much the proof of that.
  - gotofritz 10y ago
    > there needs to be an honest investigation into the Clinton Foundation In other words - you have no evidence of actual crimes. You just want an investigation.
    - r_smart 10y ago
      Why would you possibly expect me to have evidence of actual crimes? Even were a crime committed? As I understand it, prosecutors typically look for patterns of behavior in cases like this since there's rarely a nice hand-written letter explaining how they are going to exchange favors. I'm not a prosecutor or a whistleblower. So yes, I think there's enough there to warrant someone with the proper expertise looking into it. Why would we not want to make sure our politicians are upholding ethical standards? I'm sure there are a lot of other people in D.C., some of whom are innocent, that would at least warrant an ethics investigation. I was asked about Clinton, so I focused on her.
- douche 10y ago
  Criminal mishandling of classified material seems like it ought to be a big deal. Considering that you or I would be facing a lengthy term in Leavenworth if we did what Clinton or her staffers that haven't taken immunity bids have done. Bribery seems very likely. There are a number of suspicious bodies that have piled up over the years related to the Clintons. Her husband was probably involved in more sketchy sexual situations than any other president since JFK. At the least, that should cast a Cosby-esque pall over the whole situation.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > Criminal mishandling of classified material seems like it ought to be a big deal. Was it criminal mishandling? The information I've seen on it is that there were very few (as in less than 5) items that were classified that made it to that address, and they were incorrectly flagged when they were sent to her[1]. > Bribery seems very likely. ... There are a number of suspicious bodies that have piled up over the years related to the Clintons. Those aren't actions, those are, until shown otherwise, coincidences. To my knowledge, almost every Clinton scandal has been investigated thoroughly, so what, specifically, would you see her held accountable for? > Her husband was probably involved in more sketchy sexual situations than any other president since JFK. At the least, that should cast a Cosby-esque pall over the whole situation. Possibly, if you believe she's responsible for her husband's sexual proclivities. That's not a stance I support. 1: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/how-many-classified-emails-did-hillary-clinton-send-and-receive http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/how-many-class...
    - douche 10y ago
      Ok, spin it your way. Admittedly, I've already made up my mind as to which is the less disastrous option
      - Frondo 10y ago
        It sounds like you've done the oh-so-human thing of deciding with your gut, and shoring it up with things that support that decision. That's too bad.
nickff 10y ago
How bad would Clinton's actions have to be before you would prefer Trump? If you are willing to forgive any action by Clinton, you are condoning her behaviour.
- guelo 10y ago
  If we're judging only on criminal behavior then I would have to stack up Trump's crimes against Clinton's. But since both of them seem to be criminals, both their characters are questionable, it makes more sense to go by which actual policies I prefer.
actsasbuffoon 10y ago
First: Hillary would have to step down. To the best of my knowledge, once nominated, a candidate cannot be "fired." For instance, Bob Dole had a rough start to his 1996 presidential campaign, and the republican party decided to cut their losses and pull support. They couldn't remove Dole, and he wouldn't step down. That meant that they just refused to fund him or promote his candidacy, and focused their efforts on congressional races. The strategy worked well for the republican party, but Dole seems (understandably) bitter about being left high and dry by his own party. Note that no living US president has endorsed Trump, and George H.W. Bush has said that he plans to vote for Hillary. Bob Dole is the closest thing Trump has to a presidential endorsement. Remember when there was talk of the republican party cutting support for Trump and focusing on congressional races? I won't pretend to know what Bob Dole thinks, but I suspect that his own history factors into why he supports Trump. Second: Yes, it would make it easier for Trump to win. The ballots have already been printed in most states, and early voting has begun in some areas. Some number of people have already voted for Hillary. If Hillary is removed from the ticket and another Democrat is selected, Hillary's votes probably wouldn't be transferred. I can't imagine it's legal to switch someone's vote after-the-fact. Needless to say, you don't get to vote a second time just because your candidate stepped down. Meanwhile, in some areas they wouldn't be able to (for either time or budgetary constraints) print new ballots. That means Hillary would still be on the ballot in some areas, and it would be up to voters to write in the name of the new democratic nominee.

by castis 10y ago

saalweachter 10y ago

Just out of curiosity, which of Clinton's actions would you most like to see her held accountable for?

r_smart 10y ago
Not OP, and not sure I'd say 'held accountable', but I'll take a shot. I think there needs to be an honest investigation into the Clinton Foundation and whether or not there is a pay for play situation going on there. It could be nothing, but it also could be one of the deepest corruption scandals in the history of the country. The fact that most news organizations have shit the bed in their effort to stop Trump means that it's been almost completely ignored. That's my top pick. *edit: removed redundant redundancy, also corrected word typo.
- rconti 10y ago
  Of all of the Clinton "scandals", that seems like an odd one to pick. I can't think of one LESS compelling, frankly. People making charitable donations before and after she has any actual political influence, with a tiny fraction of them having any contact with her whatsoever? All so that the Clintons can.. help poor people? All I needed to know to tune out was that the anti- crowd fanned the flames by saying that 95% (IIRC) of the funds were not spent on charities. Because... they are a charity themselves, and spend the money directly on causes?
  - r_smart 10y ago
    Then I suppose we disagree about what qualifies as compelling. If you're one of the people concerned about how cozy politicians are with moneyed interests, than I have a hard time seeing how the Clinton's relationship with such people isn't troubling. [0] [1] [2] [3] I don't think your characterization of their expenditures is necessarily accurate (or wrong!). It's hard to tell, because the whole thing is so opaque[4]. This is a common criticism of the Clintons, even from supporters. They are so opaque about everything that things that would be innocuous end up seeming far worse because of their inclination to hide things. [0]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-... [1]: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state http://bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f... [2]: http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-complex-corporate-ties-1424403002 http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-complex-corpora... [3]: http://nypost.com/2016/08/11/hillary-played-favorites-with-huge-number-of-clinton-foundation-donors/ http://nypost.com/2016/08/11/hillary-played-favorites-with-h... [4]: https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Clinton-Foundation-money-goes-to-real-and-actual-charities-that-are-not-controlled-by-the-Clintons https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Clinton-Foundation-...
- allemagne 10y ago
  >It could be nothing, but it also could be one of the deepest corruption scandals in the history of the country. That seems to be the theme of Hillary scandals. It's always some superlative outcome. Either she is going to be exposed as a mastermind or "oh nevermind I guess that's not a big deal after all." It's absurd. An opponent of Clinton making a more modest critique than "she is the antichrist" would be very refreshing. Conservatives and Bernie supporters spent months fuming over how email servers showed exactly how evil Clinton was and the most that came out of it was apparently "extreme carelessness." Years of Benghazi and nothing to show for it but words to be poorly scrawled on protest signs for at least another year or so. I am definitely not informed enough to determine whether or not there is or isn't merit to any given controversy or scandal. There are probably a handful of people who could possibly know for sure. She is definitely one of the most powerful people in the world. She is certainly capable of conspiracy. But I know there are also powerful people who are would benefit a lot from harming her career and her image. Honestly, it's at least worth considering that innuendo, accusations, and connecting dots that aren't there, or are there in a much less dramatic form, are all much cheaper than actually pulling off conspiracies.
  - r_smart 10y ago
    Agreed. I did my best to come across as measured and non-accusatory in my post. I'm very specifically not saying there's anything wrong, but there's evidence that there's some pretty deep corruption here. The trouble is, she seems to be untouchable. People don't seem interested in seriously pursuing investigations into her and her husband, and so you're stuck with apocalypse scenarios and people hand-waving it all away as fine. I don't think either are true. I remember when I got my first degree, in journalism (kinda), it was generally considered that the Watergate scandal would never get published in the modern age. I think the Clintons are pretty much the proof of that.
- gotofritz 10y ago
  > there needs to be an honest investigation into the Clinton Foundation In other words - you have no evidence of actual crimes. You just want an investigation.
  - r_smart 10y ago
    Why would you possibly expect me to have evidence of actual crimes? Even were a crime committed? As I understand it, prosecutors typically look for patterns of behavior in cases like this since there's rarely a nice hand-written letter explaining how they are going to exchange favors. I'm not a prosecutor or a whistleblower. So yes, I think there's enough there to warrant someone with the proper expertise looking into it. Why would we not want to make sure our politicians are upholding ethical standards? I'm sure there are a lot of other people in D.C., some of whom are innocent, that would at least warrant an ethics investigation. I was asked about Clinton, so I focused on her.
douche 10y ago
Criminal mishandling of classified material seems like it ought to be a big deal. Considering that you or I would be facing a lengthy term in Leavenworth if we did what Clinton or her staffers that haven't taken immunity bids have done. Bribery seems very likely. There are a number of suspicious bodies that have piled up over the years related to the Clintons. Her husband was probably involved in more sketchy sexual situations than any other president since JFK. At the least, that should cast a Cosby-esque pall over the whole situation.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > Criminal mishandling of classified material seems like it ought to be a big deal. Was it criminal mishandling? The information I've seen on it is that there were very few (as in less than 5) items that were classified that made it to that address, and they were incorrectly flagged when they were sent to her[1]. > Bribery seems very likely. ... There are a number of suspicious bodies that have piled up over the years related to the Clintons. Those aren't actions, those are, until shown otherwise, coincidences. To my knowledge, almost every Clinton scandal has been investigated thoroughly, so what, specifically, would you see her held accountable for? > Her husband was probably involved in more sketchy sexual situations than any other president since JFK. At the least, that should cast a Cosby-esque pall over the whole situation. Possibly, if you believe she's responsible for her husband's sexual proclivities. That's not a stance I support. 1: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/how-many-classified-emails-did-hillary-clinton-send-and-receive http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/how-many-class...
  - douche 10y ago
    Ok, spin it your way. Admittedly, I've already made up my mind as to which is the less disastrous option
    - Frondo 10y ago
      It sounds like you've done the oh-so-human thing of deciding with your gut, and shoring it up with things that support that decision. That's too bad.

nickff 10y ago

How bad would Clinton's actions have to be before you would prefer Trump? If you are willing to forgive any action by Clinton, you are condoning her behaviour.

guelo 10y ago
If we're judging only on criminal behavior then I would have to stack up Trump's crimes against Clinton's. But since both of them seem to be criminals, both their characters are questionable, it makes more sense to go by which actual policies I prefer.

actsasbuffoon 10y ago

First: Hillary would have to step down. To the best of my knowledge, once nominated, a candidate cannot be "fired." For instance, Bob Dole had a rough start to his 1996 presidential campaign, and the republican party decided to cut their losses and pull support. They couldn't remove Dole, and he wouldn't step down. That meant that they just refused to fund him or promote his candidacy, and focused their efforts on congressional races. The strategy worked well for the republican party, but Dole seems (understandably) bitter about being left high and dry by his own party. Note that no living US president has endorsed Trump, and George H.W. Bush has said that he plans to vote for Hillary. Bob Dole is the closest thing Trump has to a presidential endorsement. Remember when there was talk of the republican party cutting support for Trump and focusing on congressional races? I won't pretend to know what Bob Dole thinks, but I suspect that his own history factors into why he supports Trump. Second: Yes, it would make it easier for Trump to win. The ballots have already been printed in most states, and early voting has begun in some areas. Some number of people have already voted for Hillary. If Hillary is removed from the ticket and another Democrat is selected, Hillary's votes probably wouldn't be transferred. I can't imagine it's legal to switch someone's vote after-the-fact. Needless to say, you don't get to vote a second time just because your candidate stepped down. Meanwhile, in some areas they wouldn't be able to (for either time or budgetary constraints) print new ballots. That means Hillary would still be on the ballot in some areas, and it would be up to voters to write in the name of the new democratic nominee.