How Can ANYONE Vote for a Liar like Hillary

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

She has not "sold out the country". That's just right-wing hyperbole.

I'm not so sure. Do you not believe that the Clinton Foundation and its offshoots are simply charities? I don't. I believe they're a mechanism to monetize the Clinton family's "public service" through quid-pro-quo arrangements with US and foreign business and government entities.

a reply to: DAVID64
I'll just let your BS comment marinate in it's lying juices...

a reply to: sirlancelot

I didn't get to your reply until I had posted mine. Thanks for posting some of the dirty details.

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: mobiusmale

It was so opposite of minor, that it took the corrupt collusion between the President of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of the FBI to avoid her being prosecuted. That is all very clear to anyone who watched how this all played out.

Nonsense. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Anyone that can read the laws and has reviewed past cases similar to this can easily see that it is exceedingly rare for charges to be brought.

Well, that's that then...you prefer to hold your hands over your eyes, and say "nothing to see here"...so it's all nonsense.

Anyone who has read the law, knows that "gross negligence" in the handling of Classified Information is cause enough for prosecution. A lack of "intent" (though most reasonable people would argue there is a lot of evidence that would support an assertion of intent) does not negate the cause of action for negligence. It is only being spun that way...



And...there are no "cases similar to this". Never in history has a senior member of the U.S. Government set up their own unauthorized, unsecure, private communication system, so as to circumvent (or having the effect of circumventing, if you prefer) the systems designed to protect Classified, Top Secret and SAP Information.


This was precedent setting - and unfortunately, the DOJ's decision to block prosecution of Hillary Clinton has now set a very dangerous precedent when it comes to future criminal indiscretions related to the handling of Classified Information.

Protecting Hillary Clinton from having to suffer the legal consequences...whether it is because she is a Clinton, or because she is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, or because the investigations might have also implicated the POTUS...has made the United States a whole lot less safe.

The bolded quote IS intent!

Intent for anything they need intent for, to prosecute.

It can be nothing else.

I could see less intent if all the crap she did was on a govt server but setting up her own right out of the gate?

Gimme a break!

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
At this point, anything different is better than more of the same.

I disagree. Ted Cruz, Michlle Bachmann, Sarah Palin would be "different", but I'd never vote for any of them, either.

I understand your choice, and support you voting for who YOU find appropriate, but being "different" isn't enough for me. There are a lot of possibilities that could draw me away from voting for Hillary - it would be pretty easy, really. But Trump could NEVER be an option.

I respect that. There are a lot of choices that could draw me away too. But since they aren't running, I am left with the two options shown. I honestly don't know what Trump will do. But I know that hillary will never change and that is definitely not good.

a reply to: mobiusmale

Anyone who has read the law, knows that "gross negligence" in the handling of Classified Information is cause enough for prosecution. A lack of "intent" (though most reasonable people would argue there is a lot of evidence that would support an assertion of intent) does not negate the cause of action for negligence. It is only being spun that way...

Bull#. 80% of cases like this are never prosecuted because intent is required to prosecute gross negligence. THat's fact. You can look it up.

Can you provide evidence in which gross negligence was prosecuted without intent. Hint: It's only happened once and it caused a controversy about constitutionality.

And...there are no "cases similar to this". Never in history has a senior member of the U.S. Government set up their own unauthorized, unsecure, private communication system, so as to circumvent (or having the effect of circumventing, if you prefer) the systems designed to protect Classified, Top Secret and SAP Information.

Incorrect. Bush and the GOP had their own private system during his presidency in which 22 million emails were deleted.

en.wikipedia.org...

This was precedent setting - and unfortunately, the DOJ's decision to block prosecution of Hillary Clinton has now set a very dangerous precedent when it comes to future criminal indiscretions related to the handling of Classified Information.

You really didn't do your homework on this issue, did you?

has made the United States a whole lot less safe.

Don't be a drama queen.

a reply to: bbarkow

Every issue has at least two sides and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. I don't claim Hillary is innocent, and I don't defend the stupid (dishonest, sleazy) things she's done.

I am voting against Trump. I'd vote for a chia pet (Democrat, Republican or otherwise), if I thought it had the chance to prevent Donald Trump from entering the White House. At least they have good hair. (cheap shot) The only reason I'm not voting for Jill Stein, Gary Johnson or writing in Bernie Sanders, is that they won't keep Trump out.

originally posted by: sirlancelot
Seriously Hillary Clinton is scary. This woman is a pathological liar. I know Trump isn't peaches and cream either but when it comes down to it do you want a woman that would sell America out and already has as our next POTUS?

If you plan to vote for this woman does it not concern you that she will lie or spin non stop to get her way? Haven't we had enough of the lies of the left?

This video scares the hell out of me why doesn't it scare you Hillary supporters?

Clinton Lies

This is just lazy are you star hunting or what? You could have taken the time to point out the lies you know like her testimony to Congress vs FBI report etc. But instead you just say how can you vote for a liar really?? Well let me tell you I'm not convinced Trump isn't a liar either. I was leaning towards him to be honest however after reading the new on Newt Gingrich I'm having severe second thoughts.

When a Democrat comes out saying all Muslim Amaricans should be investigated thus is enough to give any sane person pause. I personally could never condone treating amaricans this way it foes against everything a believe not to mention the constitution.

If Rupblicans want peoples votes they have to stop saying crazy crap like this. It's OK to investigate someone if you have some evidence they may be supporting groups like Isis but to do a blanket statement like this makes me think Hillary may be a better choice at least she won't harass fellow amaricans.

So in the future don't be lazy in creating a thread and actually make an argument.

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: [post=20998680]Benevolent Heretic]

I don't really like Trump. But anyone who has both sides of the aisle riled up this badly must at least have some potential to effect the change we so desperately need. We can't continue with business as usual. We were promised hope and change and got nothing but business as usual. With Trump I can honestly say things will be different. At this point, anything different is better than more of the same.

Different does not equal better.
Communism was "different" than the Czar, for example. WWIII with multiple nukes would be "different." Starvation of the masses would be "different".

I'm not applying those examples to Trump, mind you, but I do think he is showing prominent signs of wanting to tighten us into a full blown police state. We have enough of that already.

But it would be different!

I would agree that different does not 'always' equal better. But in this case, I believe it does. We simply can not stand another 4, or God forbid 8, years of democrats in the White House. We need a fiscal policy that works. Hell, for that matter, we need a fiscal policy period. We haven't had one in 7 years - and it shows.

More than anything else, we need a President who will respond to the will of the majority, not pander to special snowflake groups. We need a President who will uphold and defend the Constitution and the flag. I can't say with absolute certainty that Trump will be that President. But I can say that hillary will not be. That leaves me with one realistic option in order to have any hope at all. I don't like it. But between the two, Trump is potentially better than hillary. Certainly no worse.

Trump is too arrogant, crazy and reckless to vote for and he's a criminal to boot.
He admitted to bribing people on live TV in one of the debates.

That means he's either stupid or so corrupt and arrogant he doesn't care if people know he's a criminal.

a reply to: sirlancelot

We are told that police should be held to a higher standard because of their job.

But when we try to hold politicians to a higher standard, e are told that they are just like you and me.

It's because people are so blinded by political ideology and care nothing for standards in the first place.

I think it is more indicative of the individual that is willing to lower their personal standards or disregard them completely.

a reply to: introvert

Your wrong intent is not required to prosecute gross negligence. Harm does have to be proved in legal standards. However I'm the area of national security thus doesn't apply all that's requite is gross negligence can be as simple as leabing a file out of a safe when you go home. This is part of having a security clearance and you are made aware of this in your briefing I have had several.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: mobiusmale

Anyone who has read the law, knows that "gross negligence" in the handling of Classified Information is cause enough for prosecution. A lack of "intent" (though most reasonable people would argue there is a lot of evidence that would support an assertion of intent) does not negate the cause of action for negligence. It is only being spun that way...

Bull#. 80% of cases like this are never prosecuted because intent is required to prosecute gross negligence. THat's fact. You can look it up.

Can you provide evidence in which gross negligence was prosecuted without intent. Hint: It's only happened once and it caused a controversy about constitutionality.

And...there are no "cases similar to this". Never in history has a senior member of the U.S. Government set up their own unauthorized, unsecure, private communication system, so as to circumvent (or having the effect of circumventing, if you prefer) the systems designed to protect Classified, Top Secret and SAP Information.

Incorrect. Bush and the GOP had their own private system during his presidency in which 22 million emails were deleted.

en.wikipedia.org...

This was precedent setting - and unfortunately, the DOJ's decision to block prosecution of Hillary Clinton has now set a very dangerous precedent when it comes to future criminal indiscretions related to the handling of Classified Information.

You really didn't do your homework on this issue, did you?

has made the United States a whole lot less safe.

Don't be a drama queen.

First, what the hell do you think gross negligence means?!

You don't need "intent" for that.

It means you're a bonehead and too bad you left the oven on so now you have to pay for damages.

Bush? Seriously, they were yoga emails, all 22 million of them. lol!

The rest of your post is irrelevant.

a reply to: greydaze

Strong language from someone who has never met me and doesn't even know me.

a reply to: sirlancelot

Easy...because they all lie. Just, how much. 'Cept George Washington.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Hillary is in a class all by herself.

Trump is a breath of fresh air to the political stage, warts and all.

I haven't been a big fan of Trump, and I'm still on the fence. That said, I happened to have the television on while I was doing something else and heard him make a campaign speech. It went a long way toward changing my mind about him. I think he's dumb like a fox.

The Pence VP pick also impressed me even though Pence is in heap big electoral trouble in his home state. I'm glad to see that an actual conservative (ACU score 100%) would have a President Trump's ear.

There are actually few things that I really like about Trump. He seems to actually listen to advisors, and would sweep the Closet Communists, BLM and the Muslim Brotherhood out of the White House. And, although he wouldn't be able to sweep them out, he and his team would rein in the Reds who have been infiltrating the leviathan bureaucracy for the last century or so.

So back to Hillary... I actually do fear what she would do. From Watergate all the way through the present, her record shows her to be seemingly devoid of any motivation other than to consolidate power and money for Hillary Clinton.

The lying is the least of it.

a reply to: dragonridr

It is required in regards to criminal charges under the espionage act. Just as Comey said, she is not innocent in any of this, but her violations are such that it would of been handled internally within the Department.

That is right in line with previous cases of misconduct. Only cases in which intent could be proven or certain acts took place, like dating a foreign intelligence agent, ever went to court and they all plead guilty.

originally posted by: CB328
Trump is too arrogant, crazy and reckless to vote for and he's a criminal to boot.
He admitted to bribing people on live TV in one of the debates.

That means he's either stupid or so corrupt and arrogant he doesn't care if people know he's a criminal.

Yeah, he should have named names, you are right, pulled out the cashed checks made out to hillary and the others.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

First, what the hell do you think gross negligence means?!

You don't need "intent" for that.

To prosecute under the espionage act, yes you do. Did you not listen to Comey during the hearing or his speech? They could not find any intent to commit a crime.

Gary Johnson doesn't lie
No reason to be afraid of him
Why should we choose from Liar A or Liar B?