FBI recommends no charges against Hillary Clinton over emails

Reddie

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
220
What was the point of the investigation if after it all, Clinton is let off the hook?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36711711
The FBI has announced it will not recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton over her use of private email while she was secretary of state.

Trump: FBI decision on Clinton proves 'our system is totally rigged'
Trump seized on the FBI's decision as he addressed the crowd of fervent supporters . . . calling it the "best evidence ever that we've seen that our system is totally rigged." He accused Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, of bribing the U.S. attorney general — offering little to back up the dramatic accusation. And he called the FBI's decision, announced earlier Tuesday by the agency's director James Comey, a "tragedy."
It's over now but old scandals can still be raked up . . .
 
Werbung:
What was the point of the investigation if after it all, Clinton is let off the hook?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36711711

Look - I am by no means a Clinton supporter, but this clearly needs to be said. You are not guilty in this country until you are tried and convicted. Being investigated doesn't mean a damn thing. Being indicted doesn't mean a damn thing. Until you are tried and convicted, you are presumed innocent.

The question of "what was the point of the investigation if it just let Clinton off the hook" is completely absurd. It essentially demands that the FBI conduct their investigation in a bias manner and come to a predetermined conclusion. That sentiment is outrageous.

Trump: FBI decision on Clinton proves 'our system is totally rigged'

It's over now but old scandals can still be raked up . . .

Now, we can debate the merits of the conclusions. The comments from the FBI director seemed to indicate that anyone else that did this exact same thing would be tried - so why the apparent double standard? That is a legitimate question.

It also calls into questions the judgement of Hillary Clinton. Clearly her judgement in handling classified material is in serious question. Additionally, the investigation proves definitely that she lied about just about every aspect of what was going in this process....it is a legitimate question to ask why...and to attack her character and credibility for it.
 
I think FBI's Comey did an amazing thing for both parties. As a favor (?) for Clinton he somewhat stepped out of bounds and made a not-criminal pronouncement very quickly after the investigation. That relieved pressure from Lynch who would otherwise be the one who would be denigrated for dropping charges – especially considering her untimely visit with Bill.

As a favor (?) for Republicans he got some new details of Clinton's indiscretion out in the open, and came down hard on Clinton's false tales on many things that she claimed. That could also be an aid to Clinton to get it out early rather than letting it drag out more slowly during the election.
 
Mr Comey does not get to rewrite the law. There is no mention of intent, that is just him.
The last person who removed secured information from approved systems whether intent came up. Should be easy to find as he is behind bars.
 
Mr Comey does not get to rewrite the law. There is no mention of intent, that is just him.
The last person who removed secured information from approved systems whether intent came up. Should be easy to find as he is behind bars.
Ex-general Petraeus committed a more serious offence in willfully giving out information. Clinton was just dumb in not keeping it secure. Petraeus is not behind bars. Just probation.
 
Look - I am by no means a Clinton supporter, but this clearly needs to be said. You are not guilty in this country until you are tried and convicted. Being investigated doesn't mean a damn thing. Being indicted doesn't mean a damn thing. Until you are tried and convicted, you are presumed innocent.
Tell that to Alton Sterling, Tamir Rice, Akai Gurley, Kajieme Powell, Ezell Ford, Dante Parker, Michael Brown, John Crawford III, Tyree Woodson, Eric Garner, Victor White III, Yvette Smith, McKenzie Cochran, Jordan Baker, Andy Lopez, Miriam Carey, Jonathan Ferrell, Carlos Alcis, Larry Eugene Jackson, Deion Fludd, Kimani Gray, Johnnie Kamahi Warren, Malissa Williams, Reynaldo Cuevas, Chavis Carter, and Chantel Davis. And that just goes back to 2012.
 
Tell that to Alton Sterling, Tamir Rice, Akai Gurley, Kajieme Powell, Ezell Ford, Dante Parker, Michael Brown, John Crawford III, Tyree Woodson, Eric Garner, Victor White III, Yvette Smith, McKenzie Cochran, Jordan Baker, Andy Lopez, Miriam Carey, Jonathan Ferrell, Carlos Alcis, Larry Eugene Jackson, Deion Fludd, Kimani Gray, Johnnie Kamahi Warren, Malissa Williams, Reynaldo Cuevas, Chavis Carter, and Chantel Davis. And that just goes back to 2012.

.....so I guess I am supposed to no longer believe in the concept that people are innocent until proven guilty because....#blacklivesmatter?

Makes a lot of sense. :confused:
 
.....so I guess I am supposed to no longer believe in the concept that people are innocent until proven guilty because....#blacklivesmatter?

Makes a lot of sense. :confused:
You are quite good at drawing the wrong lessons and conclusions. Heck, ANYTHING to avoid saying the system needs to be changed, eh? You're blind to class discrimination even as you participate in it.
 
You are quite good at drawing the wrong lessons and conclusions. Heck, ANYTHING to avoid saying the system needs to be changed, eh? You're blind to class discrimination even as you participate in it.

I have no interest in moving away from a system that says you are innocent until proven guilty... Frankly I am not sure why anyone would want to move away from that system.

Does the system break down at times? Sure. Does that mean the system is wrong? No.
 
I have no interest in moving away from a system that says you are innocent until proven guilty... Frankly I am not sure why anyone would want to move away from that system.

Does the system break down at times? Sure. Does that mean the system is wrong? No.
Are you now trying to spin out a lie that I favor abandoning the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Anyone who goes back and actually reads the relevant posts between us will see what you're doing.
 
Werbung:
Are you now trying to spin out a lie that I favor abandoning the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Anyone who goes back and actually reads the relevant posts between us will see what you're doing.

I'll recap it for them:

Me: (Keep in mind I'm defending Hillary Clinton here even as an ardent Republican)... She is innocent until proven guilty. Not innocent until investigated, not innocent until indicted, innocent until tried and convicted.

You: Tell that to these people (you then list a bunch of #blacklivesmatter causes)

Me: Not sure what I am supposed to take away here....what does this have to do with the underlying premise of innocent until proven guilty.

You: You are quite good at drawing the wrong lessons and conclusions. Heck, ANYTHING to avoid saying the system needs to be changed, eh? (emphasis mine) You're blind to class discrimination even as you participate in it.

Me: Again, I will continue to advocate for and defend a system that demands someone is innocent until proven guilty. Does the system break down - of course. Does that mean the system is wrong? No.

You: You are spinning a lie to pretend I don't support the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Frankly - I have no idea what you are talking about. I have been consistent - and it has nothing to do with you. Our system is, should remain, and I will always advocate for it to be, you are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty.
 
Back
Top