With the accusations at hand should Hillary be disqualified from running for office until charges are filed/dismissed?

SPC Rory J. Mattheisen — Sat, 07 May 2016 15:50:09 -0400

With the ongoing investigation and the possibility of criminal charges being filed why do people think Clinton is a successful politician?

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made May 7 at 2016 3:53 PM

CSM Charles Hayden — Sat, 07 May 2016 15:53:31 -0400

1 reason, she has a 'D' preceding her name on a ballot!

Response by CPT John Sheridan made May 7 at 2016 3:54 PM

CPT John Sheridan — Sat, 07 May 2016 15:54:29 -0400

No. If candidates are precluded from running because of ongoing investigations, then the US Attorneys would decide who gets to run. Just grand jury the people you don't want to run.

Response by SPC Rory J. Mattheisen made May 7 at 2016 3:57 PM

SPC Rory J. Mattheisen — Sat, 07 May 2016 15:57:01 -0400

PO2 Ed C. - Fair enough?

Response by SFC Randy Purham made May 7 at 2016 3:57 PM

SFC Randy Purham — Sat, 07 May 2016 15:57:06 -0400

No, I think it will be interesting to see it all unfold and an arrest is made - if warranted - while in office, presumably if she wins. Now, that would be poetic justice.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2016 4:00 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 May 2016 16:00:36 -0400

Who on RP has never had a false accusation against them?

Response by CPT Jack Durish made May 7 at 2016 4:02 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sat, 07 May 2016 16:02:36 -0400

Innocent until proven guilty. Had the first seven or eight Congressional Committees been seeking the truth rather than providing cover for Hillary, this issue might have been disposed of long ago. Sadly, the one that has uncovered her perfidy is accused of purely political motivation (whereas the earlier ones weren't?).

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2016 4:02 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 May 2016 16:02:36 -0400

SPC Rory J. Mattheisen Satan is afraid of Hillbags...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2016 4:05 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 May 2016 16:05:42 -0400

Disqualified by whom? That's what voters are for. They will decide how much or how little importance the email thing has for them.

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made May 7 at 2016 4:07 PM

SPC Andrew Griffin — Sat, 07 May 2016 16:07:48 -0400

No Charges will be FILED! She will Prevail!

Response by SFC David Pratt made May 7 at 2016 4:14 PM

SFC David Pratt — Sat, 07 May 2016 16:14:39 -0400

Perception is reality. There is no way so many scandals surround one person without some merit. It's not a right wing conspiracy; she's just a lying piece of shit.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

http://www.indiewire.com/article/clinton-cash-trailer-hillary-breitbart-documentary-cannes-2 [login to see] 3

Here they are: Hillary’s 22 biggest scandals ever

During his 1992 campaign for the presidency, Bill Clinton was fond of promising America, “You get two for the price of one,” indicating Hillary Clinton would act as his co-president. But the nation got much more than it bargained for, as the top power couple brought a load of baggage with them into the White […]

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made May 7 at 2016 4:34 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sat, 07 May 2016 16:34:29 -0400

Yes. The evidence released so far presents a prima facie case of transferring classified documents onto an insecure server, and moreover giving copies to her lawyer (who has no security clearance at all) to sort through and delete or save as he saw fit.

Anyone else would be in the Graybar Hotel now for that alone.

Response by CSM William Payne made May 7 at 2016 4:34 PM

CSM William Payne — Sat, 07 May 2016 16:34:56 -0400

In the United States there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but even with that she hasn't even been charged with anything yet. Personal opinions aside that's not how our system of justice works, the system that most of us swore to defend, the system we would all hope would work the same for us. They have been trying to charge or implicate her of something ever since her husband was elected president in 1993 and nothing has ever stuck. So she is supposed to sit out an election waiting for adjudication that may take months or even years to come to conclusion? Really? Don't sit on your hands waiting for something to happen for her not to become president. That's how Trump became the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party. Everyone else was waiting for something to happen and he would be gone, didn't happen. If you don't want Clinton to be president, the path is easy, vote for Trump.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made May 7 at 2016 4:53 PM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Sat, 07 May 2016 16:53:40 -0400

I do not think that Madam would know the truth if it jumped up and bit her on her prominent ass.

Response by LTC Trent Klug made May 7 at 2016 4:54 PM

LTC Trent Klug — Sat, 07 May 2016 16:54:19 -0400

Two reasons-first, and foremost, the public has been, and continues to be, gas-lighted regarding this woman's 'accomplishments' and soft selling her 'issues'.

Second, she is just so well-liked by her chosen political party that they are willing, and able, to overlook all the lies she's put past her lips-from shots fired in Bosnia to the video causing an attack on an American consulate to vote for her. That lie, by the way right to Tyler Woods and other family members of those who died in Libya, got a man imprisoned for a year and violated his First Amendment rights and she never blinked an eye.

Response by Sgt Joe LaBranche made May 7 at 2016 5:26 PM

Sgt Joe LaBranche — Sat, 07 May 2016 17:26:51 -0400

As evil and vile as she is, she hasn't been charged with anything yet. This administration will not allow her to be charged. How anyone could vote for this lying, unethical, and despicable excuse for a human being is beyond comprehension. With that said, there are those out there that will vote for her just because she's a woman! I will go with the lesser of two evils, Trump! At least he has never turned his back on Americans and did nothing as they were being killed.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2016 5:30 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 May 2016 17:30:58 -0400

Let's not forget that Trump has a trial date set for Nov 28th in his civil fraud suit over the Trump University scam. Plus, he is facing state fraud charges in NY over the same thing. But no one seems to care that Trump is facing fraud charges because they already know most of what he says is BS. But as I said about Hillary, it's up to the voters to decide what these charges mean to them.

Response by SPC James Harsh made May 7 at 2016 5:32 PM

SPC James Harsh — Sat, 07 May 2016 17:32:41 -0400

Remember that Ignorance of the Law is not a valid defense

Response by SFC Charles Temm made May 7 at 2016 5:32 PM

SFC Charles Temm — Sat, 07 May 2016 17:32:58 -0400

Until charges are laid out or dismissed, there is no reason other than internal party politics for her not to run. Innocent until proven guilty hasn't been overturned by SCOTUS or this Administration (officially) yet.

That said, way too much evidence that has been publicly outed and far too many of her denials/statements proven false for her not to be indicted (if she was a non Dem that is)

Response by SPC Rory J. Mattheisen made May 7 at 2016 7:10 PM

SPC Rory J. Mattheisen — Sat, 07 May 2016 19:10:53 -0400

*Oops*http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/05/06/fbi-turns-up-no-evidence-says-hillary-clinton-committed-no-criminal-wrongdoing/

FBI Turns Up No Evidence, Says Hillary Clinton Committed No Criminal Wrongdoing

The investigation is wrapping up, and Clinton is completely innocent. Another 'scandal' goes down in flames.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2016 8:06 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 May 2016 20:06:07 -0400

As much as i dont like her, she hasnt been found guilty of anything (yet) until she is she shouldnt be punished

Response by Cpl John Mathews made May 7 at 2016 8:18 PM

Cpl John Mathews — Sat, 07 May 2016 20:18:36 -0400

This is a political point, not one of law or custom. We have had people in Congress (and probably the White House) who were charged with crimes. We have had people in Congress who were convicted of crimes, before and during their terms in office. Unless she is convicted of a felony, which is probably not going to happen, this us a moot point. The voters can decide whether the email issue is sufficient to keep her from getting enough votes to gain office.

Response by CW4 Angel C. made May 7 at 2016 8:19 PM

CW4 Angel C. — Sat, 07 May 2016 20:19:52 -0400

In my opinion her party (likely the current and former Democratic POTUS) have shielded her from being proven guilty of anything.

Response by SSG(P) Ell Pizarek made May 7 at 2016 8:33 PM

SSG(P) Ell Pizarek — Sat, 07 May 2016 20:33:55 -0400

She is the reason that Trump is doing so well. Everyone has already heard that within the email held on her private server, that several were so classified that they couldn't be released. If this is true, then she should have already been in front of a Grand Jury. Im sure that a trial would have crazy stuff like Bill pulled asking for a definition of "it". If the DOJ wasn't working in such a partisan manner, she would have had a court date by now. Guilty or innocent, the case should have been in front of a judge. She should be asking for this because at least Obama could let her out before he leaves the White House.

Response by CPO Amb. Terry Earthwind Nichols made May 7 at 2016 9:07 PM

CPO Amb. Terry Earthwind Nichols — Sat, 07 May 2016 21:07:12 -0400

Innocent until proven guilty is the law no matter what you think of the person and I for one WILL NOT ALLOW anything else...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2016 9:09 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 May 2016 21:09:14 -0400

Innocent until proven guilty, it's the law.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made May 7 at 2016 9:21 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Sat, 07 May 2016 21:21:23 -0400

No Obama will do a Lautenburg. Named for when the Democrat running for Senator in Pennsylvania was going to jail. A judge said there must be a democrat on the ballot. Even though there are five parties on the ballot. Lautenburg steeps in not having to do any off the requirements to be on the ballot.

Response by SFC Jimmy Hernandez-Benitez made May 7 at 2016 10:37 PM

SFC Jimmy Hernandez-Benitez — Sat, 07 May 2016 22:37:44 -0400

No because she has the perfect qualifications of a politician. A liar, mistrusted, and hate the military.

Response by SPC James Harsh made May 8 at 2016 4:17 AM

SPC James Harsh — Sun, 08 May 2016 04:17:02 -0400

In response to those that are tired of hearing about this and for good reason. It's not clear if it is required that a statement has to be made from to say it's over. Some clarity would definitely help. The reality that remains to be seen and is whether an indictment or information will be ordered. This is actually what is being reported as a real possibility in a short time (prior July). A Federal Indictment could be Grand Jury and that is pretty much having no representation and being arrested. The or Information would allow some presentation of evidence and representation. Either way, there's no likelihood of getting out of a trial at that point. Slim and none. What happens is public however the media will more than likely not be permitted. The news and the talking points are annoying however if any of this takes place it will be as bad as they say for the Hillary campaign.

Response by Keri S made May 8 at 2016 8:15 AM

Keri S — Sun, 08 May 2016 08:15:14 -0400

I think she should have been disqualified a long time ago due to conflict of interest.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 8 at 2016 2:05 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sun, 08 May 2016 14:05:57 -0400

Pure Unadulterated Reich Wing Propaganda. A Right Wing Wet Dream. Nothing More.

Response by Capt Michael Greene made May 8 at 2016 5:04 PM

Capt Michael Greene — Sun, 08 May 2016 17:04:31 -0400

The Founders wisely wrote very little about qualifications for the presidency. I think that's because they believed a democracy cannot stand long if the will of the people is subverted. So basically, the people can vote anybody into the Oval Office, whether they are convicted and serving time, or communists, or terminally ill and expected to depart shortly. In short: If the people want someone to be president, they get their choice--even if that choice is "wrong." That's democracy.

If the nation were to disqualify HRC because she is accused of nefarious deeds, then anyone could arrange for charges to be brought against anyone else, for the sole purpose of ensuring the people don't get their choice.

Remember when the campaign started (seems like years ago) Two things happened at once. First, everyone was certain that HRC was going to get the majority of the vote. Second, the GOP had no candidate who could touch her. That's when the Right Wing Propaganda Machine--including many powerful Republicans, Fox, lots of extremely partisan websites, and several billionaires, swung into high gear to discredit HRC. The email server problem was never a discussion item in prior administrations. Benghazi, although a terrible loss, was never compared to the many losses under other people's watches. In short, every one of the accusations against HRC have been blown way out of proportion, with many outright lies and innuendoes added to them, for the sole purpose of thwarting the people's will.

Response by CPL Ricky Vasquez made May 9 at 2016 12:34 AM

CPL Ricky Vasquez — Mon, 09 May 2016 00:34:01 -0400

No.

Response by SFC David Pratt made May 9 at 2016 3:08 AM

SFC David Pratt — Mon, 09 May 2016 03:08:31 -0400

Crush her nuts!

Response by SGT Kathi Prato made May 9 at 2016 10:26 AM

SGT Kathi Prato — Mon, 09 May 2016 10:26:04 -0400

Those of us who served in certain disciplines in the military were taught day in and day out the rules governing the handling of sensitive information. Even as the lowest ranking enlisted service members, we were taught the classification system and how to manage sensitive information in prescribed manners. As an everyday part of our jobs we were trained to understand the difference between having a clearance and having a need to know. And every time we were 'read on' to an assignment, we were informed in exacting, painful detail exactly what would happen to us if we were ever found to have broken those rules – and we had to sign the documents showing we understood those rules. EVERYONE who handles sensitive information, regardless of its classification level, receives the same training.
The American public has recently seen a long list of people prosecuted for mishandling sensitive information – up to and including General Petraeus. Yet it is more evident every day that passes without her being indicted that Mrs. Clinton is not subject to the same rules and certainly not subject to the same punitive measures everyone else receives for the same offenses she has committed. Not only is she not indicted, but she is the front runner for her party’s candidacy for the office of the President. She has broken the law, lied about it, and is getting away with it.
This is yet another blemish on her politically, professionally, and personally - and more sad commentary on the lack of integrity in a person whose ambition is to achieve the highest office in our country and by extension in the free world. This woman wants to become our President - the chief of the executive branch of our government and the Commander-in-Chief of our military. Is this really the person America wants to make the decisions from the White House?

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made May 9 at 2016 2:07 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Mon, 09 May 2016 14:07:47 -0400

In the United Sates a person is innocent until proven guilty and the fact that Hillary continuous to run for the position of POTUS only proves that she has tenacity and is like a pit bull that has bitten and will not let go. Being honest men fear Hillary and its a good sign, because fear is power.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made May 10 at 2016 8:30 AM

MSgt Michael Smith — Tue, 10 May 2016 08:30:39 -0400

Absolutely not! Last time I checked, Hillary Clinton was not under arrest, on trial, or even being questioned. There is not any case whatsoever against her, so what you are basing everything on is what the media is reporting, not what is legally binding. Should they deny you the right to test for promotion for something you are not even formally charged with? We live in a country of laws, not mob justice.

Response by SSG Wally Lawver made May 10 at 2016 9:49 AM

SSG Wally Lawver — Tue, 10 May 2016 09:49:11 -0400

She is a career politician, can you think of a sleezier job description. I would rather vote in a used car salesman or ambulance chasing lawyer before her (oh wait she was an ambulance chasing lawyer).......

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 10:04 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 May 2016 10:04:01 -0400

Disqualified

Response by CSM Thomas McGarry made Jun 10 at 2016 2:11 PM

CSM Thomas McGarry — Fri, 10 Jun 2016 14:11:04 -0400

If she's not at least indicted, what does that say about our Justice system where Gen. Petraeus was convicted of a much lesser abuse of security and a Marine Officer was forced out of the military for sending a message that was secret over an unsecure network to warn others about a Afghan leader???