General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 161

Yeah my general take is: poor judgment and example of Clinton being careless, but not of her being a criminal. There are more informative places to stake your ground on why you dislike her as a candidate than this imo.

 

I don't think anyone is staking their ground in the email scandal as the reason to dislike Clinton. Rather, they are using it as one of many examples of corruption and elitism among our political establishment.

 

Intent is often an element in determining whether something is criminal

 

But the point is it's not really a good example. It's legally ambiguous at best and not even remotely informative in the context of a Trump vs. Clinton primary.

 

Correct. We have to put this in the scope of the election. I'll take a person who made a huge mistake while in a position of political power while the other guy was the host of the apprentice.

 

Plus Trump has certainly taken advantage of loopholes

 

no charges were ever going to be filed. i can't imagine the government / FBI / whoever would have the guts to file charges against a presidential nominee this close to the election.




(watch Trump get arrested for DUI or something next week)

 

I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't drink or use narcotics.

 

The thing that bothers me is that for 98% of the american world, "extremely careless" is a reason to bring about charges.

 

Correct his brother died from alcoholism so he's sober , imagine how inflammatory he'd be drunk

 

I didn't know that about his brother. But if Trump is addicted to anything, it's probably his own ego and quest for attention.

 

What if you aren't looking at it in the context of Trump vs Clinton but merely on it's own. Are we giving Clinton a pass because we would prefer her in the WH to Trump?

 

Negligent homicide is totally a thing.

Obviously, the laws here are different, and it does appear that being careless is not enough to bring charges against Clinton in this case.

But there are certainly scenarios where "extremely careless" is reason to bring charges against someone.

 

At a time of such crisis, a coup against Corbyn is the last thing we need | Rachel Shabi

 

I don't think one can help but view it in the context of the election. Either way, it may confirm one's beliefs regarding how elites flout the rules for their own purposes, but she still looks more palatable than a buffoon who retweets neo-Nazi imagery. One could make that argument that that, too, shows poor judgement, insofar as he does not care where the sources of agreement come from just so long as they agree.

 

Trump still seems to possess significantly poorer judgment. This is the man that tweets Neo Nazi propaganda and proclaims minorities love him.

Besides, it has been exceedingly clear since day one that the RNC has been desperate to shape this as political fodder against Clinton rather than any suggestion that they give the slightest shit about the actual merits of the case. They have wasted time, money, resources, and substantial media coverage for a pathetic party squabble when they could have been doing something remotely important.

 

So essentially there was not enough evidence to criminally charge her, but if she were still technically employed by the government there would be consequences to her actions? How severe of consequences?

 

I think they typically lose their privileges to handle certain information and are prevented from getting certain clearences.

 

Saudi Arabia: Bombings target Medina and Qatif mosques

 

Well I want to be clear that in the scope of the presidential election, I do believe that when faced with the choice between Trump and Clinton, Clinton is the clear choice. However, outside of that I do think that decision not to seek an indictment demonstrates everything wrong with the political elitism that Clinton embodies, and that we shouldn't ignore that due to fear of a Trump presidency.

 

Could also result in demotions along with restrictions mentioned.

 

I think that's a pretty weak answer to justify what she did.

I'd definitely get in more trouble at my entry level job for being careless with my emails than Clinton did for emails containing classified information. Just more proof how corrupt the system is.

I don't care who you support, this is a slap in the face to every law abiding citizen. Saw this comment on CNN and it's great -

"The FBI found her incompetent, not criminal...Either way she is not fit to be elected to Dog Catcher, much less President of the United States.

18 U.S.C. Section 793(f)

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document. . .relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer, Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

 

Bush was, by definition, a war criminal, along with many others in his administration. They weren't prosecuted either. The extent to which people are held accountable directly corresponds to whether or not it will vitiate the effectiveness of government functioning as it has in the past and present. It isn't right, I agree, but if we are using that argument, no one is fit to be president - something which I agree with, but which is beside the point at the moment. Her actions in Haiti and Honduras are far more reprehensible and deserving of a trial at The Hague, in my opinion.

 

American politics are just so deflating.

 

The idea that internet commenters with no law degree think they understand the law and what phrases like "gross negligence" mean better than the director of the FBI is rather adorable.