She should ask her husband.
The Republican Anti-Clinton strategy. Relentlessly ask questions, lots and lots of questions, ad infinitum, eventually they’ll fuck one of them up.
(It would actually work with any politician, but the strategy is only ever applied to those named Clinton.)
Oh, he’s running again?
And, in the process, fool a number of people into thinking “They *must *be corrupt and contemptible; just look at all the investigations!”
Unfortunately, the Clintons give them the hooks to grab on to. Corrupt I expect to some degree, though no more than with any others of the general run of politicians.
Contemptible is far more applicable to their detractors, though.
Depends on where your goalposts are. If the Republicans were arguing “Hillary Clinton make bad decisions” it would have some traction (or would in an election year that didn’t feature Donald Trump) but they’re clinging desperately to “Hillary Clinton is a criminal who should be in jail” which, in the face of Comey’s “Nope!”, is a fucking stupid line to continue to take.
Story in the Washington Post about public reaction to the whole event.
56% feel that Clinton should have faced charges. However, 60% of overall respondents said this doesn’t impact their vote and, naturally, most of the “This is terrible and impacts my decision” responses come from Republicans who were inclined to vote for Trump anyway. The total impact would appear to be a wash:
So, 8% say “I LIKE that she’s evasive and unprofessional!”…
Well, 8% of the 56% who said she should have faced charges. But, yeah, still weird.
Unfortunately, the poll linked in the article lacks any crosstabs for public consumption.
I think it means that there are an actual 8% of people out there who look at evidence, and when it contradicts their beliefs, they actually change their mind.
Freaks. Who the hell bothers with performing a rational review of evidence in an effort to come to a conclusion nowadays? :rolleyes:
It’s 8% of the 56% who were opposed to the decision not to bring an indictment. So about 4.5% of the respondents said “Comey should have charged Clinton, but he didn’t and I think that’s wrong – which makes me more likely to vote Clinton”.
If the evidence of the case had changed their mind, they shouldn’t be responding that they’re opposed to Comey not recommending indictment.
Does anyone believe BillC’s tarmac Lynch meeting was not the culmination of calling in every political favor he was owed in this life and the next?
On what planet does the email server fiasco NOT result in criminal charges? For at least SOMEBODY?
Only a fool could not have their most fundamental beliefs in this nation’s justice system shaken pondering these questions. I hope most people realize this, but some members of the elite really ARE above the law.
There’s been numerous words already written about how this style of case is rarely prosecuted and other comparison cases have exceptional circumstances such as lying during FBI interviews, destruction of evidence following the interview or clear intent to disseminate the classified information.
So, no, it does not strike me as unusual that Clinton was not indicted. It would be more unusual if she was. You can argue that this case deserved an unusual outcome but not that anyone else would have faced charges based on past history.
Obviously, not this planet.
Did you even hear or read Comey’s statement?
He made it very clear why charges weren’t recommended.
why don’t you explain why charges should be brought? Hopefully, you can cite previous cases.
Any chance of getting the FBI to investigate Congressional Republicans?
After all the insinuations of bribery, it would take a man of integrity to not crawl up a few Congressional asses.
I think the disconnect we are having is that, regardless of the poll questions, this is not happening in a vacuum, with nothing else impacting the people’s decision to vote for Hillary.
There are a certain contingent of people who will vote against Trump no matter what, and if that means that they have to vote for Hillary, well, they’ll vote for Hillary. All this did was fix it in their minds that “well, that’s that. The Dems will nominate her and I have to vote for her even though I might think that she’s guilty and should be indicted. At least I can use Comey’s statement to rationalize my position.”
So, yeah, I can see people coming to the “I think she’s guilty but I’m still voting for her because, GOD, the other guy” conclusion pretty rationally.
Also, a certain percentage of the population are just plain nuts. 4.5% seems low, frankly.
So according to you, Ms. Lynch owed Mr. Clinton a political favor of some sort. When and how was this debt incurred?
Also, what magic words do you believe Mr. Clinton said to Ms. Lynch to get her to say “I’ll go with whatever the FBI Director recommends”, and what magic words did Ms. Lynch say to the FBI Director to ensure that he would not recommend indictment?
I presume you will provide some sort of evidence to back up whatever you happen to assert regarding the above.
Sorry, but I’ll just leave you and your ilk to wallow in the bright light of justice and political correctness Ms. Lynch and Mr. Comey have bestowed upon you and yours. 