5 ms·

We are still waiting on Hillary’s emails to be prosecuted.

ericmay 4y ago
Sure prosecute her too. She can sit next to Trump in a jail cell. But the more likely answer is that after relentless grilling at the behest of Republican lawmakers under Trump and actual testimony there probably wasn’t anything there worth pursuing from a legal perspective so no charges were filed.
- myko 4y ago
  There's no reason to prosecute her, though. She complied with all relevant requests and was following the steps of Colin Powell, her predecessor, with respect to how she set her email server up. The main difference between her and Powell is she attempted to preserve relevant emails for the government, while Powell recommended deleting them all. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email-state-department https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/colin-powell...
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Oh I agree, I’m just setting aside the typical whataboutism that springs to life when we’re talking about other ongoing criminal investigations. “But Hunter Biden’s laptop!” “But Hillary’s emails!” Etc.
    - someguydave 4y ago
      one man's "whataboutism" is another man's "rule of law". If the issue is that these laws are expansive, vague, and difficult to enforce then they should be eliminated, not selectively enforced.
      - ModernMech 4y ago
        The element of intent makes many laws difficult to enforce, and I think that’s a good thing. Taking away the element of intent just to make laws easier to enforce would encourage prosecutions of people for accidents or honest mistakes, which I don’t see as an improvement.
      - ericmay 4y ago
        Sure. Lock them up along with everyone else. I don’t really care. Here’s the growing list: Hillary Clinton Hunter Biden Donald Trump Matt Gaetz Lindsey Graham Kevin McCarthy Lauren Boebart Rudy Giuliani Whatever number of Jan 6th co-conspirators (growing list) Let’s enforce the law right? Or are you going to play games and try to argue only Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden should have the law applied?
        someguydave 4y ago
        Sure, if you can articulate charges and bring evidence then prosecute away. Note Joe Biden should also be on your list for bribery, as the most concerning crimes Hunter was involved with appeared to be selling access to Joe. And especially don’t forget Obama for the “paperwork crime” possessing government records. Probably most current and former government employees should be charged on the same basis too.
        ericmay 4y ago
        > Sure, if you can articulate charges and bring evidence then prosecute away. Agreed. I'm hopeful we can get Trump here (Jan 6th + these documents seems like enough to reasonable assume guilt though that as always needs to be determined via due process), start with the worst offenders. Enough is enough. Then we can build from there.
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    Hillary's primary crime was destroying evidence weeks after it had been subpoenaed. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/oct/09/donald-tru... >Clinton’s staff received a subpoena for Benghazi-related emails March 4. An employee managing her server deleted 33,000 of Clinton’s emails three weeks later. The Politifact article then goes on to say the FBI didn't believe they were deleted for the purposes of avoiding the subpoena, which may be true, but that doesn't make it less of a crime. I'm going to give my personal opinion now. The crime Clinton committed is a paperwork technicality crime and I don't think it would have been a good idea for the country to charge her. With the information we know so far about Trump keeping some docs that might have been government property, that also seems to be a paperwork technicality crime and if we don't find out something really insidious about it, I don't think it would be a good idea for the country to charge him.
    - someguydave 4y ago
      I agree with this take. The more important issue is that there is no independent oversight on government secrecy, which is the underlying enabler of all of these "paperwork" claims.
      - ericmay 4y ago
        Can you describe what mechanism would exist for “independent” oversight of government secrecy? It’s hard to imagine, say, the US military being audited by an independent authority that is able to look at classified documents like battle plans, or new weapons technologies. > these "paperwork" claims. In other words “I won’t accept anything that contradicts my pre-established belief”. It’s very similar to discussions I have with fervent religious believers. Better to take an engineers approach and change your mind when the facts change.
        someguydave 4y ago
        > It’s hard to imagine, say, the US military being audited by an independent authority that is able to look at classified documents like battle plans, or new weapons technologies. It's easy to imagine if you restore the Constitutional authority of civilian management of the military (and all other aspects of government). A reasonably responsible US voter should have nothing hidden from them, even military secrets. >In other words “I won’t accept anything that contradicts my pre-established belief”. I'm sorry, how many secret military documents have you personally seen?

Sure prosecute her too. She can sit next to Trump in a jail cell. But the more likely answer is that after relentless grilling at the behest of Republican lawmakers under Trump and actual testimony there probably wasn’t anything there worth pursuing from a legal perspective so no charges were filed.

myko 4y ago
There's no reason to prosecute her, though. She complied with all relevant requests and was following the steps of Colin Powell, her predecessor, with respect to how she set her email server up. The main difference between her and Powell is she attempted to preserve relevant emails for the government, while Powell recommended deleting them all. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email-state-department https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/colin-powell...
- ericmay 4y ago
  Oh I agree, I’m just setting aside the typical whataboutism that springs to life when we’re talking about other ongoing criminal investigations. “But Hunter Biden’s laptop!” “But Hillary’s emails!” Etc.
  - someguydave 4y ago
    one man's "whataboutism" is another man's "rule of law". If the issue is that these laws are expansive, vague, and difficult to enforce then they should be eliminated, not selectively enforced.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      The element of intent makes many laws difficult to enforce, and I think that’s a good thing. Taking away the element of intent just to make laws easier to enforce would encourage prosecutions of people for accidents or honest mistakes, which I don’t see as an improvement.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      Sure. Lock them up along with everyone else. I don’t really care. Here’s the growing list: Hillary Clinton Hunter Biden Donald Trump Matt Gaetz Lindsey Graham Kevin McCarthy Lauren Boebart Rudy Giuliani Whatever number of Jan 6th co-conspirators (growing list) Let’s enforce the law right? Or are you going to play games and try to argue only Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden should have the law applied?
      - someguydave 4y ago
        Sure, if you can articulate charges and bring evidence then prosecute away. Note Joe Biden should also be on your list for bribery, as the most concerning crimes Hunter was involved with appeared to be selling access to Joe. And especially don’t forget Obama for the “paperwork crime” possessing government records. Probably most current and former government employees should be charged on the same basis too.
        ericmay 4y ago
        > Sure, if you can articulate charges and bring evidence then prosecute away. Agreed. I'm hopeful we can get Trump here (Jan 6th + these documents seems like enough to reasonable assume guilt though that as always needs to be determined via due process), start with the worst offenders. Enough is enough. Then we can build from there.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  Hillary's primary crime was destroying evidence weeks after it had been subpoenaed. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/oct/09/donald-tru... >Clinton’s staff received a subpoena for Benghazi-related emails March 4. An employee managing her server deleted 33,000 of Clinton’s emails three weeks later. The Politifact article then goes on to say the FBI didn't believe they were deleted for the purposes of avoiding the subpoena, which may be true, but that doesn't make it less of a crime. I'm going to give my personal opinion now. The crime Clinton committed is a paperwork technicality crime and I don't think it would have been a good idea for the country to charge her. With the information we know so far about Trump keeping some docs that might have been government property, that also seems to be a paperwork technicality crime and if we don't find out something really insidious about it, I don't think it would be a good idea for the country to charge him.
  - someguydave 4y ago
    I agree with this take. The more important issue is that there is no independent oversight on government secrecy, which is the underlying enabler of all of these "paperwork" claims.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      Can you describe what mechanism would exist for “independent” oversight of government secrecy? It’s hard to imagine, say, the US military being audited by an independent authority that is able to look at classified documents like battle plans, or new weapons technologies. > these "paperwork" claims. In other words “I won’t accept anything that contradicts my pre-established belief”. It’s very similar to discussions I have with fervent religious believers. Better to take an engineers approach and change your mind when the facts change.
      - someguydave 4y ago
        > It’s hard to imagine, say, the US military being audited by an independent authority that is able to look at classified documents like battle plans, or new weapons technologies. It's easy to imagine if you restore the Constitutional authority of civilian management of the military (and all other aspects of government). A reasonably responsible US voter should have nothing hidden from them, even military secrets. >In other words “I won’t accept anything that contradicts my pre-established belief”. I'm sorry, how many secret military documents have you personally seen?