Posted on Aug 6, 2015
3
3
0
*Update: Things aren't looking too good for the home team.* Hillary Clinton. The name itself evokes both dislike and adoration in millions of people. Like her or not, it is undeniable that both she, and many of her actions, are controversial. From Whitewater and Vince Foster to "dodging sniper fire" to negotiating with the Russians for American urianium and Benghazi to her current woe: Emailgate. Can someone who is currently the subject of a criminal investigation effetively campaign? That is, she's bound to be asked questions about her numerous scandals that she'll undoubtedly decline to answer. Won't that create or perpetuate the image of an untrustworthy candidate?
The question is: Should Hillary end or suspend her campaign while she is under criminal investigation?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/second-review-says-classified-information-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html?_r=0
The question is: Should Hillary end or suspend her campaign while she is under criminal investigation?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/second-review-says-classified-information-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html?_r=0
Posted in these groups: 
Election 2016
Politics
Election 2016 Politics
Edited 9 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 19
4
4
0
An interesting question.
Is the next one going to be "Should we toss out the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and replace it with the presumption that anyone we don't like is guilty of something (even if we don't know what it is) and should be punished severely (even if we don't know what we are punishing them for) BUT anyone we do like is innocent (regardless of how well documented the facts showing that they did what they were accused of doing are) and should never be punished at all (regardless of what the law says)?
Possibly the country would be better served by actually finding someone who is actually qualified for the job rather than simply looking for the person with the largest financial backing and who is "saleable".
Is the next one going to be "Should we toss out the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and replace it with the presumption that anyone we don't like is guilty of something (even if we don't know what it is) and should be punished severely (even if we don't know what we are punishing them for) BUT anyone we do like is innocent (regardless of how well documented the facts showing that they did what they were accused of doing are) and should never be punished at all (regardless of what the law says)?
Possibly the country would be better served by actually finding someone who is actually qualified for the job rather than simply looking for the person with the largest financial backing and who is "saleable".
(4)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
COL Ted Mc
We already know that she's broken the law as she has admitted to it. She used her personal Blackberry and a private email server for official State Department email.
We already know that she's broken the law as she has admitted to it. She used her personal Blackberry and a private email server for official State Department email.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO1 John Miller - PO: It's late and I'm tired.
It's not that I doubt you, but could you please point out the specific LAW that she has broken?
[NOTE - Being arrogantly stupid is NOT a criminal offence.]
It's not that I doubt you, but could you please point out the specific LAW that she has broken?
[NOTE - Being arrogantly stupid is NOT a criminal offence.]
(0)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
COL Ted Mc
While she may not have BROKEN any laws she certainly skirted the rules concerning federal records management.
While she may not have BROKEN any laws she certainly skirted the rules concerning federal records management.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO1 John Miller - PO; and that's why "tax avoidance" is legal while "tax evasion" isn't.
[ASIDE - "Tax avoidance" generally means that there is a whole lot more money involved than is involved in "tax evasion".]
[ASIDE - "Tax avoidance" generally means that there is a whole lot more money involved than is involved in "tax evasion".]
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Are you kidding? We've elected and reelected people who are already in prison. We're not going to let a little thing like a scandal or an investigation stop us, are we? The simple truth is that those who adore Hillary adore her all the more as they believe she is being persecuted unjustly for political reasons. Those who hate her hate her all the more inasmuch as they believe where there's smoke there's fire. So it's "Run Hillary, run". Either you're running for office or running from the law, just keep on running...
(4)
(0)
SFC Jeff L.
CPT Jack Durish Yeah, Marion Berry comes immediately to mind. Notwithstanding the ability of the voting pubic to overlook those kind of things, I think it's worth wondering out loud if party affiliation makes the difference.
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
No. The FBI is looking into her server, those who set it up, and those who maintained it. Not into her directly in a criminal sense. Should that change where charges are filed, then she should step away and face the music.
(4)
(0)
SFC Jeff L.
SSG Warren Swan The fact that she doesn't have the technical know-how to set up the server doesn't exclude her from prosecution since it's "her" email account and server. She owns the content of the emails sent, received, and stored on her personal server. The intent of the investigation is into whether or not she discussed classified government material on a private, personal account.
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SFC Jeff L. - "Clinton has not been formally accused of any wrongdoing. Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the intelligence community inspector general's office, told Fox News last month that the office had requested a "counterintelligence referral" from the Justice Department, not a criminal referral"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/05/fbi-investigating-security-hillary-clinton-private-email-server/
Until she's formally charged, she's good to go. Not saying that's right or wrong, but it is what it is.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/05/fbi-investigating-security-hillary-clinton-private-email-server/
Until she's formally charged, she's good to go. Not saying that's right or wrong, but it is what it is.
FBI investigating security of Hillary Clinton's private email server
The FBI has begun investigating the security of Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server, an attorney for the Democratic presidential front-runner confirmed to Fox News late Tuesday.
(0)
(0)
SSG Ray Strenkowski
May not change since she decided to delete most of the relevant information. Although, they have received emails that she deleted from others who were subpoenaed and had kept her emails.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
In her own words, "what difference does it make?" She's a Clinton, and therefore will NEVER see the inside of a jail cell. Another benefit to being a part of the political ruling class....
(4)
(0)
SFC Jeff L.
SFC (Join to see) I agree that it is unlikely she'll be indicted with a highly sympathetic AG. But what do you think? Should she suspend or end her run?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Hillary, is not personally being investigated (yet). Currently they are probing to see if there was anything classified that was sent through her server. The problem (more accurately one of the problems with this) is that they don't know what they are looking for. When the whole server thing was going to be made public there were items that were not immediately labeled classified that were deemed to be classified. At the time she was secretary of state, there was no rule in place mandating that she use a government E-Mail account. I find that ridiculous because working in the financial industry we are required to archive all E-Mails for a seven year period. It pisses me off that the government would say you must do this, without putting that same level of oversight on their own people. If the FBI probe finds that there was classified information sent to that server, then it is going to be a matter of how far up does the breach of security go. I will vote for Hillary if they find that evidence, and actually file an indictment against her. Why? Simple, Unless they find classified information preceded by Hillary herself saying word to the effect of "I know you should not send classified information here, but I don't care. Send it anyway." there is no way that they are going to indict a former Secretary of State, Under a Sitting U.S. President, who also happens to be a party front runner for the next election cycle. It is just not going to happen.
As to her worthiness of a candidate, I REAAALLLY do not want to see her on the ballot. Regardless of FBI probes, winks and nudges as to what was done and not done, I do not find her believable. I do not think that she is going to improve the global image of the United States. I do not think she gives two rats fucking in a wool sock about the American people. I do not think that she has any beliefs conservative or liberal. I think she is a shifty, sneaky, underhanded, slimy, bureaucrat that is better suited to selling guaranteed finance used cars to kids straight out of boot camp than she is to being the leader of the free world. My opinion of Hillary has not changed based on the FBI probe, but then again, when my opinion of her is as low as it is, there is not much that could make me think worse of her.
As to her worthiness of a candidate, I REAAALLLY do not want to see her on the ballot. Regardless of FBI probes, winks and nudges as to what was done and not done, I do not find her believable. I do not think that she is going to improve the global image of the United States. I do not think she gives two rats fucking in a wool sock about the American people. I do not think that she has any beliefs conservative or liberal. I think she is a shifty, sneaky, underhanded, slimy, bureaucrat that is better suited to selling guaranteed finance used cars to kids straight out of boot camp than she is to being the leader of the free world. My opinion of Hillary has not changed based on the FBI probe, but then again, when my opinion of her is as low as it is, there is not much that could make me think worse of her.
(2)
(0)
SFC Jeff L.
PO3 Steven Sherrill I think it might be splitting hairs to differentiate between whether she is/is not being investigated. Yeah, they're trying to find out if the email contain any classified information, but since the sender, recipient, and account holder are all the same person I think you could say she is under investigation. I personally think that if you're talking about as many thousands of emails sent/received it's probably unavoidable that some classified topics were discussed. Besides - why did she set up a personal server to begin with if not to keep things off of her official account? Nevertheless I know it's about what can be proven.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
SFC Jeff L. I agree fully that what she did was just one of a laundry list of shady things.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Pending an investigation such as this, yes. It seriously calls doubt into her abilities to perform such an important government position. This whole thing should be handled as if she were any other government employee that had done the same thing regarding classified information handling. Put her last name and political title aside and treat this in a fair and just manner.
(1)
(0)
SFC Jeff L.
SrA Matthew Knight Thanks for the response. Unfortunately it is impossible to separate her from her name and title.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/250400-judge-asked-to-seize-clinton-email-thumb-drive
Mrs. Clinton has stated that the information, may have BEEN classified, but was not, at the time she had control of it, MARKED as classified.
This sounds like the biggest BS cop out that I have ever heard. After all, at any level of security it is one of the jobs of the clearance holder to insure that potentially classified information is not disseminated to those who are not cleared to know it.
However, Mrs. Clinton's defense may hit a snag when it comes to the thumb drive, WITH classified information, that she gave her lawyer (for "safe keeping") last week. I'm fairly sure that her lawyer doesn't have the appropriate clearance, and may indeed possess no clearance whatsoever.
If GEN Petraeus was convicted, and it cost him HIS career. It seems only fair that Mrs. Clinton's career should circle and exit the same proverbial, toilet, before fading to a distant memory. If she is indicted she may never be punished to level that others might be, but she has no business running for President of the United States.
Mrs. Clinton has stated that the information, may have BEEN classified, but was not, at the time she had control of it, MARKED as classified.
This sounds like the biggest BS cop out that I have ever heard. After all, at any level of security it is one of the jobs of the clearance holder to insure that potentially classified information is not disseminated to those who are not cleared to know it.
However, Mrs. Clinton's defense may hit a snag when it comes to the thumb drive, WITH classified information, that she gave her lawyer (for "safe keeping") last week. I'm fairly sure that her lawyer doesn't have the appropriate clearance, and may indeed possess no clearance whatsoever.
If GEN Petraeus was convicted, and it cost him HIS career. It seems only fair that Mrs. Clinton's career should circle and exit the same proverbial, toilet, before fading to a distant memory. If she is indicted she may never be punished to level that others might be, but she has no business running for President of the United States.
Judge asked to seize USB flash drive containing Hillary Clinton's email
The motion comes as part of an ongoing racketeering lawsuit.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
If Perry can run while being actively indicted, I think Clinton can run while under investigation.
(1)
(0)
SFC Jeff L.
SGT Jeremiah B. Sorry I misspoke. Simple mistake made for convenience's sake. It's a dang shame that you think only conservatives would have an unfavorable opinion of what's going on. Seems like truth shouldn't have a party affiliation.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
SFC Jeff L. - I think a lot of people have an unfavorable view but are withholding judgement. The no-holds-barred power struggle of the last several years has left a lot of people understandably skeptical when someone declares we should be very outraged about something and never you mind about it being proven.
Hell, we don't even know "what's going on" any more because half of it's made up and the other half only exists if you conveniently exclude evidence.
Hell, we don't even know "what's going on" any more because half of it's made up and the other half only exists if you conveniently exclude evidence.
(0)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
SFC Jeff L. SGT Jeremiah B. Come on, Perry's indictment is all Austin politics. Clinton is not charged because there is a Dem in charge of the DOJ!
(0)
(0)
SFC Jeff L.
LTC John Shaw That is apparent, I just didn't want to stir it up any further by saying so. SGT Jeremiah B. I agree that there is far too much of the "convict first, prove later" mentality in our media, social sites, etc. That's not the case here because, really, only people who care enough to inform themselves are even talking about it.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google