Why isn't Hillary clinton in jail?

Key reason, self incriminating actions of* personal * known individual to sort through emails to determine what is Private and what is not. Then the destruction of evidence immediately after and not just any ordinary “destruction” this wasn’t physical paper it was emails that are stored on a computer, so she went out of her way to make sure these emails were completely destroyed and made no copys of them for a Gov appointed individual to oversee and confirm what she had her own PERSONAL lawyer decide was public/private.

I’m not exactly too sure how the justice system may work but I’m more than sure we can all agree someone you are paying shouldn’t be allowed to sort through all of the evidence and decide which is evidence then delete what is not evidence. The fact she had the audacity to run for president after running against President obama in 08 then being pointed Secretary of State is just fucking mind boggling. Is this just a display of our population’s ignorance of this issues or am I just incredibly stupid. What is going on here, are people’s ignorance being manipulated to elect corrupt officials into our government to further their poitical agendas which benefit their partners in capatalism. If she even gets a single vote I will have lost a great deal of faith in our society and may consider more radical actions towards this Government.

Because laws are for the little people.

Don’t expect a real answer; there will just be some accusations that you are a racist or work for Fox News if you pursue it. Democrats today have fully occupied the niche of epistemic closure carved out by Republicans circa 2005 If you disagree with the leaders they have chosen for you, you are evil, and that’s all the explanation they feel they owe you.

For one thing, you would have pardoned her.

She has not been changed with a crime, she has not been put on trial and she has not been convicted.
Or do you think she should just be thrown in jail because some people don’t like her?

The term “evidence” implies that there is a crime being investigated. What is the crime?

She lied to Congress about whether the emails existed and destroyed them after they were subpoenaed. The hullabaloo about whether the specific laws on retaining emails applied to her is irrelevant because those things have been illegal for a long time.

This is incredibly stupid. People are allowed to have opinions on the guilt or innocence of accused criminals and public figures. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a standard for courts – one that Hillary Clinton apparently didn’t care for much while serving as Secretary of State during a Presidential administration that targeted people for assassination without trial in its drone program – not for people having opinions on a message board.

If she broke the law, prosecute. I’m unaware of any particular law that she has broken.

She did? Cite?

They have? Cite? Wouldn’t whether or not any laws on the books applied to her and her actions be exactly relevant??

It’s all propaganda to further political agendas which are now becoming more and more for personal gain which is somehow being seen as a tool to use for that person to get their real goals across and acomplished for example, obama’s health care.

I don’t care that she lied, all I really care about is the blatant facts… She used personal email accounts to send government officials government business and recieve government information to these private email account as well.

This, is what lead to the investigation which couldn’t be done because she destroyed the evidence. By directly preventing an investigation by being done properly I believe she commited a “crime”, and the severity of said crime should be dependent upon the severity of the situation. She is secretary of state, she isn’t a senator anymore, this is a very serious situation and must be addressed.

As I said before, I do not know much about law so I do not know if preventing an investigation from being done is incriminating but I believe it is and in this case expecially considering she wants to run for president, it should be.

The notion that the Secretary of State never discussed classified information in her four years in the office is on its face absurd, which will not stop Democratic loyalists from asserting it with a smile for the remainder of this thread.

That’s rather a high bar, isn’t it? Nixon got votes.

Actually, these days, that’s how you get qualified to run, not disqualified. Would you be just as boggled if John Kerry announced he was running?

No, it doesn’t. Evidence is anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true.

“These figures are being given as evidence of economic growth”, does not mean the figures are provided as evidence of a crime, or a criminal investigation.

Then maybe she should be sent to “jail”? :rolleyes:

Dude, you still haven’t shown “she lied” to be a blatant fact.

She isn’t Secretary of State anymore either; hasn’t been for a couple of years now. Did you miss hearing that news?

According to your link: “The bottom line is this: No one will likely ever know what was deleted from Clinton’s server. Barring one of the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department being deemed “classified,” it’s also unlikely she will ever be found to have violated the letter of the law.”

I’ll conclude that she broke the law if evidence is produced that she broke the law. “She might have broken the law” isn’t enough to conclude that she did.

For one thing, she said the entire reason she bypassed classified information controls to run her email out of her basement was because she “didn’t want to carry two devices,” but there’s pictures of her carrying a Blackberry and and iPad in each hand. That Hillary Clinton lies, regularly, both for political gain and just because she enjoys it, is a fact that requires about as much citation as “the sky appears blue in the daytime.” The only issue is which of the lies translate into crimes.

I have little doubt that Hillary Clinton has lied at some point(s) in her public life. Considering that this is probably true for every politician, it doesn’t have much of an impact on whom I choose to vote for. And against the potential Republicans being discussed, Hillary’s bar to clear is incredibly low.

I guess we can all breathe a sigh of relief that you’ve never been in charge of the Inquisition.

I’d think SOP would be to keep a clean official account and then do your shady shit on your private account. Too lazy?