Hillary FINALLY responds to a hard question.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Cheesus Christ.

I could barely see Anderson behind the kid gloves he was wearing for this interview. The molly-coddling is real.

Compare this interview with Don Lemon's grilling of anybody that supports the Donald. Maybe if Anderson had taken off his glasses to show how serious he was about his questioning, some impact would have been gleaned.

My takeaway from this is the line of questioning, and the pursuit of real answers is as soft as Cooper's and Lemon's manhood.

CNN is a freaking joke.

Especially felt safe with Anderson Cooper. The live fake news casts in Libya, everyones forgotten about that.

Better'n that even. Go back and listen to the squelch around the 6:40 mark in the video. They had to patch her answer after the fact is my guess. After hearing that, I can understand why there was no video of Clinton in the interview.

Obviously edited, her voice cuts off right where you said.

a reply to: 191stMIDET

She didn't commit any crimes. That's the point.
She did not commit any crimes.

Get over it .

All of you. It's over she's not going to jail.

a reply to: introvert

What happened to "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? If I do something illegal, whether or not I knew it was, would make no difference. Even if I had no intent to break the law, I still did and would be held accountable. That i didn't mean to may get me some slack, but I'm still going to be charged.
Common sense alone should have told her not to do many of the things she did, but, like always, she gets a pass because......?

"Well it's ok, she didn't mean to put our country and soldiers at risk". BIG eye roll.

a reply to: Puppylove

You're making sense, so you might as well quit while you're ahead.

When the Hillary supporters start calling anyone who disagrees a Nazi (alt-right crowd) then you've already won the argument.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Bobaganoosh

When 80% don't get prosecuted? I don't think so. Fired - maybe. Prosecuted - no.

That's the same BS excuse they used for Benghazi.

"Oh, nobody could do anything" coz (not enough time) (not enough get prosecuted)

Nothing will happen if ya just don't try!

So, it's an agenda.

a reply to: intrptr

We all wanted that Ass dead. 🍸 We're still celebrating

a reply to: MountainLaurel

We have no evidence that the leaked "classified" documents from Manning have done anything but enlighten people.

Who cares? The law doesn't say anything about "enlightenment". He still leaked classified military documents.

We do have evidence that Hillary's mishandling of "classified" information on many levels, not just e-mails, led to the Death of Americans and God knows how many Libyan's.

No you don't. That rumor was put to rest in the Benghazi investigations.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: introvert

What happened to "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? If I do something illegal, whether or not I knew it was, would make no difference. Even if I had no intent to break the law, I still did and would be held accountable. That i didn't mean to may get me some slack, but I'm still going to be charged.
Common sense alone should have told her not to do many of the things she did, but, like always, she gets a pass because......?

"Well it's ok, she didn't mean to put our country and soldiers at risk". BIG eye roll.

Listen to Comey's comments. Like I said, I'm tired of having to continually explain this to you guys over and over again.

Hear his words. Look at the laws while he speaks.

Understand it.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Not according to the FOIA and the 2009 Federal Records act.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yeah I know.

a reply to: Bobaganoosh

Look Boba, I'm not a big Hillary fan myself. I think she started her life being an idealist, but over the years she has become the typical corrupt politician - taking money for favors, etc. However, I believe in following law, not vigilante justice or "we just know she's guilty of lots of stuff so lets burn her alive" kind of justice. We have to follow the word of the law, precedent, etc.

I know for a fact that Comey isn't a Hillary fan either, but he knows he has to follow law and precedent. He knows that in her case, they can't prosecute based on the evidence they have, no matter how much he might dislike her personally. You can't make up laws of your own to get the justice you want - you have to follow what exists as law.

a reply to: LifeMode

In thirty years if someone didn't change their viewpoint I'd worry a whole lot more. Stagnation is not a sign of growth.

Please don't bring up changing views as a flaw when Drumpt changes his if he hiccups mid sentence.
Please don't even try to compare her with contrary Mary Drumpt. Who changes policy depending on who his audience is.
Please don't try to criticize her on this when Drumpt flip flopped like a landed flounder this whole week.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: intrptr

We all wanted that Ass dead. 🍸 We're still celebrating

I hear Nero fiddling her instrument in the background.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Stagnation is not a sign of growth.

So, more bombing and heaps of corpses then.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Very good response.

Thanks for bringing my blood pressure back down.

The thing is, that Comey himself said that if anybody else did what she did, there would be consequences. Paraphrasing of course.

I just don't see how she has gotten a pass, when lesser mortals are rotting away in prison, or paying heavily for doing less.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Bobaganoosh

Look Boba, I'm not a big Hillary fan myself. I think she started her life being an idealist, but over the years she has become the typical corrupt politician - taking money for favors, etc. However, I believe in following law, not vigilante justice or "we just know she's guilty of lots of stuff so lets burn her alive" kind of justice. We have to follow the word of the law, precedent, etc.

I know for a fact that Comey isn't a Hillary fan either, but he knows he has to follow law and precedent. He knows that in her case, they can't prosecute based on the evidence they have, no matter how much he might dislike her personally. You can't make up laws of your own to get the justice you want - you have to follow what exists as law.

I agree with you that it was obvious Comey's hands were tied. There was just not enough evidence for prosecution. It was obvious that was the reason he came forward and provided America so much details on her negligence and extreme carelessness. As the law of the land stands, there was nothing they could do to ensure Clinton would have restricted access to classified information.

Clinton was no longer in a government position with access to classified information. They cannot restrict access to an elected POTUS. His hands were tied. He has to stay neutral, but obviously had serious concerns.

The next best thing would be to hope that giving Americans details of their findings, they would have enough sense to realize that she is a risk and not vote her in as POTUS!

a reply to: imsoconfused

During the investigation I went over the law and I consulted legal analysts thesis to interpret those laws and I said it way before Comey did that they couldn't charge her without showing intent. That law would apply to you or me because it is in fact the law. They are very big on what was intended in a particular action when it comes to classified information. Maybe because they know humans make mistakes. Every one does. So they had to make sure that a mistake didn't land someone in jail. It takes deliberation to get charged with mishandling classified info. Very deliberate actions like putting classified information right into an unauthorized person's hands.

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh

The thing is, that Comey himself said that if anybody else did what she did, there would be consequences. Paraphrasing of course.

Yes, consequences for a current employee, like administrative sanctions - NOT prosecution. He never said that anyone else would have been prosecuted for what she did.

I just don't see how she has gotten a pass, when lesser mortals are rotting away in prison, or paying heavily for doing less.

Again, we don't have a case where someone did the same thing she did (set up a personal email account with the intention of only sending non-classified email through that account) who went to prison for it.

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh

I just don't see how she has gotten a pass, when lesser mortals are rotting away in prison, or paying heavily for doing less.

To comprehend how this woman has skirted the law, just imagine how many more roaches would be thrown under the bus should they ever bring her up on charges...

The carnage would be far and wide and cross both aisles of Congress, and pretty much every single branch of government to include it's agencies...

I dream of the day that actually happens, it may disastrous for awhile, but it would be a step in the right direction to regaining a govt of by & for the people...

It also may be too late, who knows, the voters are equally responsible for allowing this takeover...

It's a shame to see how far down the drain our country has gone since that fateful day in Sept 2001...