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:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
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
view the rest of the comments
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?
Because the FBI is very clearly politically motivated.
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.
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.
Prove it or it didn't happen.
My partner in pasta, you are trying to dominate this forum with partisan talking points!
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.
Yes. Prove it or it didn't happen.
I'm aware. That is not proof.
Yes, because by “both Trump and Clinton” you actually mean “just Clinton” and it's not fooling anyone.
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.
You're the one making wild, unsubstantiated accusations, not me.
More accusations will not sway me. Only proof will.
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.
What level of investigation that doesn't end up charging Clinton with a crime would you accept?