Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony Stark said:
He said it wasn't a close call, that no reasonable prosecutor would charge her, that charging her would be an example of celebrity hunting, and that the investigation team was in unanimous agreement.
Click to expand...

Yes, he did say all that.

Only an exoneration if you feel like "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." is exonerating. I think whether one does or does not depends largely on one's political bent.

My hunch is that somewhere in the 30,000 deleted emails was evidence of felonious conduct by Hillary. For now, its just a hunch. If all 30,000 are ever unearthed, we'll get to see whether my hunch was correct.
 
Tony Stark said:
For all we know the emails do not contain anything incriminating. If so, are you saying that Huma not knowing that the FBI would sieze it because of an unrelated investigation, and that the FBI Director would take it upon himself to make the unprecedented decision to blab to Congress makes her stupid?
Click to expand...
Yes, if I understand the question correctly. Any Clinton ally would be stupid not to fry a non-government computer containing messages from Clinton's server. Especially if her wiener-waving jailbait-loving hubby had so much as touched it.

Now let me repeat what I said upthread:

My logic is based on the belief that this information was going to get out before the election, one way or another.
Click to expand...

I am 100 percent sure of that. Someone was going to leak the discovery of potentially relevant material on Huma's computer before the election. For money, fame, self-importance, revenge, whatever. On balance I think it's better for Clinton that it came out the way it did, when it did, and I think she may have been given a heads up on this.

I have no inside info but I was in the media for 30 years. There's a rhythm to these things and an internal logic that might not make sense to a lot of people, but I don't think Comey was trying to torpedo Clinton.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
Well, I think it's been well established that House Republicans are stupid enough to do almost anything. And I'm also not sure it's a given that he would never get convicted in the Senate.
Click to expand...
They are stupid I grant you, but they aren't that stupid. Comey not telling them does NOT constitute a crime or any dereliction of duty. Impeachment is reserved for an actual crime. They would look like idiots trying to prosecute the FBI director over that. About half of them are smart enough to know that.

Minoosh said:
I don't think what I'm saying is too far out there given the current climate. It would be a disaster if the general non-core-Trump public got the impression that the FBI was covering up for Clinton. It wouldn't do either Comey or Clinton any favors.
Click to expand...
Not saying anything when you're clueless is not doing them a favor, it is the proper thing to do.

Minoosh said:
Don't know why that computer didn't end up at the bottom of the Potamac, or the Hudson, or thrown in a volcano. The stupidity of it all blows my mind. That includes HRC's initial idiocy. She should have known better. She's owned that, but the rest is out of her hands. Let voters decide.
Click to expand...
Why? You act as if anyone felt the need to hide something. BTW, what you're suggesting is Felony Obstruction of Justice.
 
acbytesla said:
Why? You act as if anyone felt the need to hide something. BTW, what you're suggesting is Felony Obstruction of Justice.
Click to expand...
Why? People have a right to destroy their own computers. Who's going to say anything? Weiner?

Now that it has been seized, not so much.

ETA: With her hubby, there's reasonable grounds to believe the computer would be seized. Therefore, destroying the computer would be prudent.

Virtually everyone feels the need to hide something, IMO. People close to presidents have to keep all kinds of secrets. That's not damning to me. Having nothing to hide is not something I demand of politicians and their operatives.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
Why? People have a right to destroy their own computers. Who's going to say anything? Weiner?

Now that it has been seized, not so much.

ETA: With her hubby, there's reasonable grounds to believe the computer would be seized. Therefore, destroying the computer would be prudent.

Virtually everyone feels the need to hide something, IMO. People close to presidents have to keep all kinds of secrets. That's not damning to me. Having nothing to hide is not something I demand of politicians and their operatives.
Click to expand...

Destroying evidence to prevent the feds from getting it is a crime.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Would that include deleting 30,000 emails?
Click to expand...
If the emails were relevant to the investigation and intentionally deleted to prevent the feds from getting them. But there is no evidence of that. According to the FBI, Hillary was asked if she wanted the personal emails. She said no and so they just deleted them.
 
Tony Stark said:
And they already think the FBI was covering for her by not recommending an indictment.
Click to expand...
Exactly. What better way to counter that perception than saying, oh we did find something that might be relevant. And I'm talking about public perception, not Congress's. Congress was just a vehicle to get the information out there ahead of some leak.

Tony Stark said:
For all we know the emails do not contain anything incriminating. If so, are you saying that Huma not knowing that the FBI would sieze it because of an unrelated investigation, and that the FBI Director would take it upon himself to make the unprecedented decision to blab to Congress makes her stupid?
Click to expand...
This whole election is unprecedented. So yes, Comey's action is unprecedented.

Huma's computer had a much higher probability of being seized because her wiener-waving husband may have used it to try to molest children.

Tony Stark said:
Destroying evidence to prevent the feds from getting it is a crime.
Click to expand...
Ah, but is it evidence before anyone comes looking for it? IMO, no. If you flush drugs down the toilet because cops are knocking on your door, they got nothing. Your stash was not evidence in a criminal trial at the time it was flushed; and flushing a toilet is not evidence.
 
Oh for pity's sake, CNN is claiming game changer, and polls tightening.

No Ms Harlow, this is not a game changer. Just because CNN prefers to report on a "tight race", there is no evidence of any such thing.

RCP still predicts Clinton with 333 electoral votes, 252 without tossups meaning she only needs a couple states while Trump needs ever one of the swing states. It hasn't changed.

538 went from giving Clinton an 84% chance of winning all the way down to a 79% chance of winning.
 
Tony Stark said:
If the emails were relevant to the investigation and intentionally deleted to prevent the feds from getting them. But there is no evidence of that. According to the FBI, Hillary was asked if she wanted the personal emails. She said no and so they just deleted them.
Click to expand...

of course there is, she deleted all the emails and turned over paper copies of the ones she alone decided were not personal.
 
Oh for pity's sake, CNN is claiming game changer, and polls tightening.

No Ms Harlow, this is not a game changer. Just because CNN prefers to report on a "tight race", there is no evidence of any such thing.

RCP still predicts Clinton with 333 electoral votes, 252 without tossups meaning she only needs a couple states while Trump needs ever one of the swing states. It hasn't changed.

538 went from giving Clinton an 84% chance of winning all the way down to a 79% chance of winning.
 
Minoosh said:
Exactly. What better way to counter that perception than saying, oh we did find something that might be relevant. And I'm talking about public perception, not Congress's. Congress was just a vehicle to get the information out there ahead of some leak.
Click to expand...

The people that are mad that she didn't get indicted aren't going to be satisfied because of this unless she loses the election as a result.

This whole election is unprecedented. So yes, Comey's action is unprecedented.

Huma's computer had a much higher probability of being seized because her wiener-waving husband may have used it to try to molest children.
Click to expand...

Was she even aware of that?

Ah, but is it evidence before anyone comes looking for it? IMO, no. If you flush drugs down the toilet because cops are knocking on your door, they got nothing. Your stash was not evidence in a criminal trial at the time it was flushed; and flushing a toilet is not evidence.
Click to expand...

Of course it is evidence, they just haven't got it yet. And if you destroy it with the intention of preventing investigators from finding it, you are committing a crime. With your flushing the drugs down the toilet when the cops come example, yes, you are destroying evidence in order to prevent the cops from getting it. A crime. Though they may have a very hard time proving it.
 
Minoosh said:
Why? People have a right to destroy their own computers. Who's going to say anything? Weiner?

ETA: With her hubby, there's reasonable grounds to believe the computer would be seized. Therefore, destroying the computer would be prudent.
Click to expand...
Also illegal. If you have evidence of a crime on your own computer, you do not have a right to destroy the computer. That you own the hardware it is stored on is irrelevant. That is textbook Obstruction of Justice.
Minoosh said:
Virtually everyone feels the need to hide something, IMO. People close to presidents have to keep all kinds of secrets. That's not damning to me. Having nothing to hide is not something I demand of politicians and their operatives.
Click to expand...

No argument here.

While I would agree with you that if I knew I had incriminating evidence on a computer and I wanted to avoid prosecution, I would destroy the computer..well I'd destroy the hard drive. It would still be a felony. Go back and look at Watergate. Almost everyone who went down did so for the cover up not the original crime.

But my point is that only guilty people try and cover up. If you're innocent, there is no need.
 
Tony Stark said:
The people that are mad that she didn't get indicted aren't going to be satisfied because of this unless she loses the election as a result.
Click to expand...
I'm mainly speaking of undecided voters. Please remember that I've concluded the info was about to be leaked.

Tony Stark said:
Was she even aware of that?
Click to expand...
Don't know.

Tony Stark said:
Of course it is evidence, they just haven't got it yet.
Click to expand...
At what point does something become evidence?

I think people have the right to destroy their own property before anyone comes looking for it. I don't know if this has been litigated.

ETA: You're probably right, but I don't think you should be!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom