Trump says he will imprisons Hillary Clinton if elected

Scroll to see replies

how can you compare the two cases when we're talking about hillary clinton? why would an AG quit over a criminal like her?

The FBI has already investigated her and found her actions not to be criminal, so that seems like a false premise.

Reply 41

sleepysnooze

Original post by TurboCretin

The FBI has already investigated her and found her actions not to be criminal, so that seems like a false premise.

just because the fbi suggested no charges it doesn't mean she wasn't guilty. somebody else who'd done what she'd done would have expected at least 5 years jail time.

Reply 42

TurboCretin

Original post by sleepysnooze

just because the fbi suggested no charges it doesn't mean she wasn't guilty. somebody else who'd done what she'd done would have expected at least 5 years jail time.

I agree that someone other than the Secretary of State would probably have gone to jail for storing classified US Government emails, yes. Or are you saying that Hillary's sleeping with someone?

Reply 43

sleepysnooze

Original post by TurboCretin

I agree that someone other than the Secretary of State would probably have gone to jail for storing classified US Government emails, yes.

I meant somebody like a state bureaucrat or civil servant, not literally anybody else

Or are you saying that Hillary's sleeping with someone?

err?

Reply 44

TurboCretin

Original post by sleepysnooze

I meant somebody like a state bureaucrat or civil servant, not literally anybody else

Could you set out what makes you say that the rules have applied differently to her?*

Reply 45

sleepysnooze

Original post by TurboCretin

Could you set out what makes you say that the rules have applied differently to her?*

you want evidence that other people in the same cases have been jailed?
Stephen Kim was given 13 months for declassifying "classified" state information, and a former CIA director, David Petraeus, whom was also a high profile figure, was at least put on probation.

Reply 46

TurboCretin

Original post by sleepysnooze

Both of those people wilfully disclosed classified information to people outside the US Government.

Reply 47

SaucissonSecCy

'Authoritarian' conspiracy theories. Tee hee.

Reply 48

sleepysnooze

Original post by TurboCretin

Both of those people wilfully disclosed classified information to people outside the US Government.

are you really trying to say that you think hillary *didn't*? wow

Reply 49

TurboCretin

Original post by sleepysnooze

are you really trying to say that you think hillary *didn't*? wow

Can you explain how she did?

To clear something up here, there is a difference between distributing classified information to unauthorised personnel and storing it somewhere insecure. One's stupid, the other's illegal.*

Reply 50

sleepysnooze

Original post by TurboCretin

she was storing information on a private email server...which could have been hacked...in fact, I suspect that it is very possible that she *intended* a particular group to hack it in order for her to give out the information without appearing to be intending this consequence. that's why I hope this case will be reinvestigated.

Reply 51

Moura

Original post by sleepysnooze

...if he were the president, he would trigger a further legal investigation of her, hence causing her likelihood of ending up in jail to significantly increase...

there has been millions of dollars spent on investigating her, she has been under so much scrutiny that most people accused of worse crimes don't get and nothing damning has been found. how would he change that?

Reply 52

TurboCretin

Original post by sleepysnooze

That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.*

Do you have any reason to believe that the FBI investigation (which cost millions of dollars and involved thousands of hours of work including congressional hearings and interviews of top Government officials) is unreliable?

Reply 53

sleepysnooze

Original post by Moura

because obviously she's guilty of more than they've investigated her for

Reply 54

Moura

Original post by sleepysnooze

because obviously she's guilty of more than they've investigated her for

i believe the justice system works on the basis "innocent until proven guilty"... does trump not agree with that? thats sad for america.

Reply 55

sleepysnooze

Original post by Moura

i believe the justice system works on the basis "innocent until proven guilty"... does trump not agree with that? thats sad for america.

I said more than they've investigated her for" - as in they've closed one matter but left open others. so "different crimes" are what I'm referring to.

Reply 56

username2228735

Original post by AlexanderHam

Actually, quite a few others did the same including officials in the Bush administration like Colin Powell. She made a mistake in terms of protocol for her communications, but James Comey clearly indicated it does not rise to the level of criminal liability and by itself it's pretty insubstantial as a reason to say she can't be president (especially when she's running against a lunatic like Trump).

Obsessing over the emails is demonstrative of a complete lack of any sense of proportion and a lack of political judgment. If this and Benghazi are the worst you have on Clinton, no wonder she is winning.

Just because others did it does not mean it should not raise questions. Moreover, last time I checked, Colin Powell wasn't this close to becoming the President of the United States.

Secondly, "obsessing over the e-mails" and "Benghazi" are significant when you consider that as President she will have far more responsibility than just confidential information and ensuring the security of the foreign service.

Original post by AlexanderHam

"May not be possible to prove". In other words, you got nothing. But it doesn't stop you from continuing to insinuate it. Right-wingers and co don't seem to realise that their obsession with Benghazi (arising from their obsession with Hillary Clinton) is not shared by the majority of the American people; they recognise that sometimes these things happen. It's not a coincidence that Stevens family have attacked Trump and the Republican's disgusting attempt to ride his corpse all the way into the White House.

Straw man.

Original post by AlexanderHam

It's so laughable when right-wing Brits, and conspiracist fellow-travellers, talk about these issues and are even more ignorant about the facts that right-wing Americans who have actually been paying attention and can at least argue based on some substantive basis. Clinton repeatedly requested that the Republican congress provide more money for security for embassies; instead they cut it.

This is not a partisan issue, AlexanderHam and has nothing to do with being right or left-wing. Instead, it's about making sure an individual who will hold a great deal of power is not held above criticism. She has her faults and has made significant mistakes; yet, the focus has been on primarily on Trump.

Regarding the funding issue:

United States Senate

Congress has generally been responsive in providing supplemental and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds to the Department of State – more than $1.7 billion since 2007 – in response to emergent, security-driven funding requests, although primarily for facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, there was no supplemental or OCO request made by the President for additional diplomatic security enhancements in FY2010 or FY2011. Neither the Department of State nor Congress made a point of providing additional funds in a supplemental request for Libya, or more specifically, Benghazi.

(source)

United States Senate

The requests for upgraded security went to the Diplomatic Security Service not Secretary Clinton. And the State Department also made a justifiable policy decision that they wanted to keep a low-profile in Benghazi. Sometimes these things happen when you operate in dangerous parts of the world. It's tragic for the family, but you can never be 100% safe 100% of the time.

Indeed. However, when it does go wrong the person in charge should be held responsible. We do so in many other situations so why is this any different?

United States Senate

There have been nine Republican congressional inquiries into Benghazi, none of them have managed to find anything that supports their hysterical attacks on Clinton. No wonder they're going to lose another presidential election; they seem totally incapable of focusing on the issues and utterly determined to demonstrate at every turn their irrational obsession with, and hatred of, the Clintons.

In order to make such a conclusion, all the data and information needs to be declassified. Until that is the case, such a statement is pure speculation.