this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2023
300 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

561 readers
1 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Looking at this as non-partisan as I can... if Hillary wasn't convicted for essentially doing the exact same thing (and deleting the evidence...) then I really don't see any way for Trump to be convicted either.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What she did is not at all "essentially doing the exact same thing". At all. I'm not saying she's not probably guilty of some crime at some point because most of our politicians are corrupt, but you are absolutely misinformed if you think she kept hundreds of classified documents, showed them off to people, and lied to federal investigators about it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You're right... it's worse. She covered her tracks by deleting all the data then lying about it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I assume you have evidence of this?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago

you'd think if she actually did commit a crime the FBI would have actually charged and prosecuted her, considering they found the accusations so serious they essentially--unintentionally or intentionally, depending on how cynical you want to view this--interfered with a democratic election in publicly announcing they were investigating just days before the 2016 presidential election. and yet!

In May, the State Department's Office of the Inspector General released a report about the State Department's email practices, including Clinton's. In July, FBI director James Comey announced that the FBI investigation had concluded that Clinton had been "extremely careless" but recommended that no charges be filed because Clinton did not act with criminal intent, the historical standard for pursuing prosecution.[7]

A three-year State Department investigation concluded in September 2019 that 38 individuals were "culpable" in 91 instances of sending classified information that reached Clinton's email account, though it found "no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information".[15] Yet a September 2022 "Fact Checker" analysis by The Washington Post, which followed a tweet by Clinton claiming, "I had zero emails that were classified", also quotes the same 2019 State Department report as having noted, "None of the emails at issue in this review were marked as classified."[1]

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No evidence of Clinton's alleged misconduct was found. Plenty of evidence of Trump's was found. That's the difference.

Maybe it's because Clinton is innocent. Maybe it's because she did a better job covering her tracks. Who knows? Regardless, you need evidence to convict someone, and I hope I speak for us all when I say the alternative is much, much worse.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

She willingly hid classified documents on a private server and wiped it with BeachBit so investigators couldn’t recover the evidence. Arguably that’s worse since she could also be charged with destruction of evidence. Come on now… either BOTH Hillary and Trump should be in prison or neither of them should be in prison. Any other interpretation is being willfully partisan.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Arguably that’s worse since she could also be charged with destruction of evidence.

but like. she wasn't. she was investigated extensively--and that investigation probably cost her the presidency insofar as any singular thing can be blamed for her loss--and she wasn't. do you have a reasonable explanation for why she'd not be charged with these things if she was actually as damned as you're suggesting?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because the FBI is very clearly politically motivated.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i'm... sure you recognize that this is quite literally a case where the facts disagree with your personal feelings. i also i don't really know where we can go from here if your earnest belief is the FBI was "politically motivated" into clearing Hillary Clinton when it literally said her actions did not rise to the standard of criminality and again, their investigation may be the single biggest reasons she lost the presidency.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Please explain to me how hiding classified documents on a private server with the intent of shielding yourself from oversight and then deleting the evidence when investigators close in NOT enough to rise to the standard of criminality? Seriously, I’m so sick of every online forum being dominated by partisan-talking points. It’s abundantly clear that BOTH OF THEM BROKE THE LAW AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED. However the justice system is 100% broken when rules are applied unevenly. And our entire system is broken when partisan political figures actually cheer the rules being applied unevenly.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

hiding classified documents on a private server with the intent of shielding yourself from oversight and then deleting the evidence when investigators close in

Prove it or it didn't happen.

Seriously, I’m so sick of every online forum being dominated by partisan-talking points.

My partner in pasta, you are trying to dominate this forum with partisan talking points!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Are you disputing that Hillary put classified documents on a private server? A statement that Comey literally said happened during his speech a few days before the election? And saying that both Trump and Clinton should be in prison is a partisan talking point in your world? Partisan to which party, may I ask? Jesus Christ.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you disputing that Hillary put classified documents on a private server?

Yes. Prove it or it didn't happen.

A statement that Comey literally said happened during his speech a few days before the election?

I'm aware. That is not proof.

And saying that both Trump and Clinton should be in prison is a partisan talking point in your world?

Yes, because by “both Trump and Clinton” you actually mean “just Clinton” and it's not fooling anyone.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah so you’re just a left-wing partisan conspiracy theorist. Considering neither Comey and Clinton dispute the fact that she had classified information on her server.

Or you’re a troll. Which is probably the case.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ah so you’re just a left-wing partisan conspiracy theorist.

You're the one making wild, unsubstantiated accusations, not me.

Considering neither Comey and Clinton (or literally anyone except for you) dispute the fact that she had classified information on her server.

More accusations will not sway me. Only proof will.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Seriously, I’m so sick of every online forum being dominated by partisan-talking points. It’s abundantly clear that BOTH OF THEM BROKE THE LAW AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED.

this is a good sign this won't go anywhere productive, because your conclusion here can really only follow from the premise that the FBI got it wrong and there is simply no evidence that they did. it is not a partisan talking point to say this--and ironically, what you're saying is. do you earnestly believe that you are in a better position to assess criminality here than the literal, actual Federal Bureau of Investigation, who spent a full year investigating whether a crime was committed? or better than the Trump-era Inspector General of the Department of Justice, who was critical of Comey's public handling of the investigation but found no bias in the investigation's course in either direction? if so then i can't stop you from believing that, but nobody should take your position seriously and there's no sense in debating it. you'd be arguing from a position grounded by nothing at that point.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

What level of investigation that doesn't end up charging Clinton with a crime would you accept?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Why are even we talking about someone that was never President, is not running for President, and is not currently serving in public office?

Investigate and prosecute all criminals. That includes Trump, regardless of who else it also includes.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

You're making some very serious accusations there. Before we proceed, I'm going to need to see some equally serious proof.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

She did not do "essentially the same thing" for multiple reasons.

  • The emails you're referring to were not classified and went through proper process to get permission to be removed.
  • Hillary has already been investigated and cleared, including investigations conducted by the Trump administration.
  • Trump was given multiple opportunities to return documents. He kept lying and keeping things even after saying they'd returned everything. There are still classified docs that haven't been found!
  • The nature of the material is orders of magnitude different. Nothing that Hillary has been accused of destroying or storing improperly, even if those accusations were all true, even begins to compare to the sensitivity and importance of the kind of information Trump was hoarding.
  • In addition to simply possessing the material he shouldn't and refusing to give it back, he also breached security by showing sensitive information to people that weren't allowed and, just at a practical level, has no reasonable need to see it in the first place.