4 ms·

> Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. Sanders was basically an independent running as a Dem. Even th

> Hillary intentionally subverted the democratic process by having the DNC work against Sanders. Sanders was basically an independent running as a Dem. Even though I would have preferred him, it's ridiculous to expect the party not to be preferential towards the inside candidate who has decades of connections. Also primaries are not subject to the same level of protections or expectations of institutional impartiality as general elections, which sucks, but is simply the political reality. Also this is all moot because Hillary won by a significant margin. > We have concrete evidence of her working with one of her PACs, which again is highly illegal and subverting our democratic process. Citation? > She has Obama, using tax payer money, campaigning for her - while not illegal, is pretty morally bankrupt in my opinion. It's completely normal for the outgoing president to campaign for his party. Only reason Bush didn't do it for McCain was because he was so unpopular at the time. > She has shady and inappropriate meetings with people responsible for running the voting process. She's sponsored by people who own the voting machines. Citations?? I haven't heard of any of this. Also - so what? Sounds like a Breitbart or Drudge invention. > And not to mention that she has inarguably done highly illegal things with her private email server and got off without charges, showing the injustice of our two-tier criminal justice system. "Inarguably"? If it was truly "inarguable" Comey would have recommended prosecution in the first place. Trump, otoh, has expressed his desire to suppress the free press, to normalize relations with dictators, to jail his political opponents (not something the president has the authority to do, not that he understands that). He's encouraged violence at rallies and on election day. He's encouraged minority voter suppression and intimidation (which has been part of the republican platform for the past decade, so he's not exceptional in that regard, just in how nakedly he does it). The things HRC has done or been accused of are normal, if disappointing, qualities of a mainstream American politician. The things Trump has done and said he'll do are very clearly in the tradition of fascism.

swissoak 10y ago
>"Inarguably"? If it was truly "inarguable" Comey would have recommended prosecution in the first place. Go look at the reason he gives for not recommending prosecution. It has nothing to do with whether what she did was illegal. Go Google the rest yourself, it's not hard to find and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who can't be convinced. My comments are targeted at people reading this who might not be aware of the bullshit going on.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  > Go look at the reason. Okay. "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."[1] Potential violations of statues, without criminal intent ≠ "inarguably highly illegal things". > Go Google the rest yourself, it's not hard to find and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who can't be convinced. Okay! Lets see, sources in the first two pages of google results for "clinton voting machines": zerohedge, usapoliticstoday, thepoliticalinsider, conservativedailypost, breitbart, inforwars, wnd, libertywritersnews, quora (lol), snopes (for obvious reasons), proudcons, theconomiccollapseblog, counterpunch, thecommonsenseshow, thegatewaypundit, ajc. Not that the "MSM" is completely unbiased, but openly partisan publications don't really constitute news sources to my mind. If there were really such blatant attempts at election rigging going on, I have faith that an impartial journalist with integrity would be looking into it and/or an adjacent party would have sufficient incentive to blow the whistle. It would be huge news. > My comments are targeted at people reading this who might not be aware of the bullshit going on. Don't think you'll find too many of those on HN, but good luck fighting the good fight. [1]https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-b...
  - swissoak 10y ago
    >Potential violations of statues, without criminal intent ≠ "inarguably highly illegal things". One does not need to intend to do something for it to be highly illegal. There is an absolute boat load of cases where people did 1/10th of what Hillary did, without any proven intent, and went to prison for it. Thousands of people are prosecuted every day by our criminal justice system without any intent. And in the same quote: "potential violations". He completely dodged having to explicitly say that it was illegal, which anyone with a security clearance can plainly tell you. The only reason he didn't explicitly say she didn't break the law was because it would be a lie that he even couldn't pull off. It is so blindingly obvious that this is a load of horse shit. He is being vague, misleading, and deliberately obtuse.
luxuryballs 10y ago
To jail his political opponents? That sounds like a convenient way of spinning the fact that he wants Hillary Clinton to be properly investigated, the fact that she is a political opponent has nothing to do with her crimes. Dang... a President who wants to follow the laws and not give special passes to those in power? We can't have that! The fact that Hillary is able to get away with criminal behavior WHILE IN OFFICE is one thing, but why anyone would want her in office again is beyond me. Why would the democrats even want to risk that?
- heurist 10y ago
  A year of impartial FBI investigation isn't enough?

swissoak 10y ago

>"Inarguably"? If it was truly "inarguable" Comey would have recommended prosecution in the first place. Go look at the reason he gives for not recommending prosecution. It has nothing to do with whether what she did was illegal. Go Google the rest yourself, it's not hard to find and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who can't be convinced. My comments are targeted at people reading this who might not be aware of the bullshit going on.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
> Go look at the reason. Okay. "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."[1] Potential violations of statues, without criminal intent ≠ "inarguably highly illegal things". > Go Google the rest yourself, it's not hard to find and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who can't be convinced. Okay! Lets see, sources in the first two pages of google results for "clinton voting machines": zerohedge, usapoliticstoday, thepoliticalinsider, conservativedailypost, breitbart, inforwars, wnd, libertywritersnews, quora (lol), snopes (for obvious reasons), proudcons, theconomiccollapseblog, counterpunch, thecommonsenseshow, thegatewaypundit, ajc. Not that the "MSM" is completely unbiased, but openly partisan publications don't really constitute news sources to my mind. If there were really such blatant attempts at election rigging going on, I have faith that an impartial journalist with integrity would be looking into it and/or an adjacent party would have sufficient incentive to blow the whistle. It would be huge news. > My comments are targeted at people reading this who might not be aware of the bullshit going on. Don't think you'll find too many of those on HN, but good luck fighting the good fight. [1]https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-b...
- swissoak 10y ago
  >Potential violations of statues, without criminal intent ≠ "inarguably highly illegal things". One does not need to intend to do something for it to be highly illegal. There is an absolute boat load of cases where people did 1/10th of what Hillary did, without any proven intent, and went to prison for it. Thousands of people are prosecuted every day by our criminal justice system without any intent. And in the same quote: "potential violations". He completely dodged having to explicitly say that it was illegal, which anyone with a security clearance can plainly tell you. The only reason he didn't explicitly say she didn't break the law was because it would be a lie that he even couldn't pull off. It is so blindingly obvious that this is a load of horse shit. He is being vague, misleading, and deliberately obtuse.

luxuryballs 10y ago

To jail his political opponents? That sounds like a convenient way of spinning the fact that he wants Hillary Clinton to be properly investigated, the fact that she is a political opponent has nothing to do with her crimes. Dang... a President who wants to follow the laws and not give special passes to those in power? We can't have that! The fact that Hillary is able to get away with criminal behavior WHILE IN OFFICE is one thing, but why anyone would want her in office again is beyond me. Why would the democrats even want to risk that?

heurist 10y ago
A year of impartial FBI investigation isn't enough?