No, but neither would one expect a politician to get so much mud slung on them with no finding of guilt whatsoever.
Really? Please cite relevant court documents.
Pure myth. It says she broke internal State Dept. rules. Emphatically NOT the law.
So, when *your *guys, including you, try to sell transparent, pathetic bullshit, it’s “legitimate”. Got it.
Does that also mean that spreading character insinuation, which cannot be proved or disproved, is *not *legitimate?
Yanno, sometimes it’s better *not *to post. Give it some thought.
She broke the federal records act. Technically, she didn’t, whoever deleted her work emails did. But that’s a distinction that only matters in a courtroom. We all know why her work emails would be deleted: at her direction.
How are you coming along at finding other examples of what you allege to be her contempt for rules and laws? Got anything to show us yet?
How many examples do I need? You’d think one would be disqualifying enough. How about her unwillingness to ever turn over any relevant information? She looks like she’s hiding things and the public has the right to judge her on that basis. Which they do.
In another thread you stated that only Democrats get to define what a Democrat is. Well, only the public gets to define what is disqualifying for candidates running for office. Fortunately, voters do not require guilt in a court of law to reject candidates with stank surrounding them.
(A) You just admitted you don’t have any, and (B) You still haven’t faced the fact that this isn’t one, either.
But are you going to cut the slander shit now? I know which way to bet on that one, sadly.
Hoo boy. Now the email thing is her being a victim of slander? That’s really out there.
No, your constant sermonizing about her character, in the face of all the facts that show you to be factually and categorically wrong, is what is “out there” - “pathetic and laughable” would be better terms, though.
To repeat a question you’re avoiding: What does it say about the character of a person who persists in doing that anyway?
If you’re going to have a standard, apply it equally. Since slander is a civil offense, then if she’s being slandered it would have been proven in a court of law. It hasn’t, so by your logic no one has slandered her.
Evasion. Try again.
[QUOTE=adaher]
The IG report flatly says she broke the law.
[/QUOTE]
And that’s what the IG report explicitly states, right? As you yourself say.
Or was there a different violation of the law which the IG report stated, that I missed?
Voters don’t let candidates off on technicalities. And I know you wouldnt apply this standard to Republicans.
Your own argument implies that the Trump University scandal is a big nothingburger since there will probably be no indictments.
Hillary was being Secretary of State. Trump was working to slime away a few bucks from the gullible and desperate. Get real.
I agree with you. But apply the same standards to all. Whenever we talk about Clinton, we get into technicalities and legal standards of proof and such. If she was squeaky clean you would have to do that. She’s made a career of basically pleading the 5th and people running for office get penalized for that. As they should.
If Clinton is clean, Trump is clean. Bush is clean(well, except for those DUIs). Reagan is clean, after all he wasn’t charged for Iran-Contra. Do you see how this enables Clinton’s behavior, thinking that there is indeed a different standard for her? That as long as it doesn’t cross the line into provable criminality, it’s okay?
Umm sorry, but we have actual evidence from the Trump U case. (Which, btw, is a civil case, not a criminal one.) There is no Hillary case whatsoever.
But I want to get back to the IG report. Please cite a specific quote(s) from it that explicitly states that Hillary broke the law, as you claim.
“At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department issues before leaving government service,” says an audit by the State Department Inspector General, obtained by NBC News.
“Because she did not do so, she did not comply with the [State] Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”
Plus they found a few emails that were work related which she deleted which just happened to not look good. Funny how that works. The most famous one is the one where she said she didn’t want a STate address because she was worried about “personal” email being public. She deleted that one. That’s a violation of the Federal Records Act and can get her put in jail for three years.
Now compare that to the Trump U case, where nothing has actually been proven yet. Therefore, there is no scandal. Judge people by the same standards.
Sigh. No, it actually wasn’t a legitimate question. Obama had already posted a copy of his birth certificate on the Fight the Smears website, with the intention of disproving a rumor that his middle name was Mohammed. The BC posted was a computer-generated short-form BC obtained from the proper authorities in Hawaii.
It was then claimed (by crazy people, mostly) that the computer generated “short form” BC wasn’t real, wasn’t good enough, wasn’t this, wasn’t that, blah blah blah time without end. The fact that Hawaii was only issuing computer-generated short form BC’s to anyone and everyone at that time was ignored, or called part of the conspiracy by said crazy people.
Donald Trump jumped on the crazy-people bandwagon, giving the pretend issue more press than the original crazy-people, and Obama wangled special dispensation from the Hawaii officials to get a certified copy of the “original” BC. Which was then decried as forged, fake, blah blah blah, world without end.
The point that none of you seem to get is that the people aren’t stupid. THe birth certificate kerfuffle never stuck to Obama. He defused the issue well enough that it became something only those who would never vote for him anyway cared about. Many of the Clinton controversies on the other hand cause problems with independents and even some Democrats. THe number of Democrats who don’t consider Clinton honest or trustworthy is pretty high. With good reason.
Let’s break that last sentence down. She “did not comply with the [State] Department’s policies…” Those policies “…were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.” A different matter than “she violated the Federal Records Act.” You can claim I’m parsing if you want, but you’re the one misreading it, not me.
And yet she still isn’t under indictment. Nor will she be. I know, you’re waiting for the day the FBI issues its report like a dog waiting for a T-bone steak. Good luck with that.
Really? How about judging Trump by the standards you apply to Hillary? He does have a case against him. And we have the actual materials from his so-called ‘school.’
That’s technical stuff though. Voters don’t care about that. Secondly, a regulation enacted as part of a law has force of law. State Department rules on record retention are just like rules for pollution or rules covering occupational safety. Destroying State Department correspondence is a direct violation of the Federal Records Act.
Not anymore, because I can’t imagine it covering any new ground. The IG report pretty much ended her candidacy. Would have definitely ended if it she wasn’t facing Trump. Since shes currently facing Sanders still, she’s in danger of losing California thanks to that report.
We have the proof of her private server and the fact that it was not allowed, and that she told a heckuva lot of lies to protect herself. Of course I judge Trump by the same standards! Why do you think I’m not voting for him?