Debunking the “But Hillary” nonsense

[Jetboogieman]

So one idea that gets trotted out a lot, is that Hillary Clinton was basically “let off” and that the Mueller investigation is politically motivated by the political elite to “get” Trump at all costs.

It’s not always stated that explicitly, but that’s the general structure of the story.

So I asked myself, would that perception have changed if Hillary had been prosecuted?

I quickly came to the conclusion that it would not, let’s paint a picture shall we?

During the 2016 election, exactly the same everything occurs, every word and every action by both candidates remains the same EXCEPT, When Comey goes before congress, his recommendation is that Hillary Clinton is indicted on mishandling classified information etc.

She is successfuly prosecuted and either faces jail or a massive financial penalty.

The same concerns remain about Trumps possible wrongdoing in various forms, he still fires Comey over an active investigation (which he admitted) and Mueller is appointed as SC and what would Trump supporters most likely response be?

”this is an act of political revenge of the elite because Hillary got in trouble”.

so please, spare us the sob story of how someone you hate politically didn’t get in trouble, therefore the SC’s investigation is illegitimate, because you’d most likely think it even if she had.

 

[Mr Person]

Sessions could have convened a grand jury to seek indictment of Hillary at any time.

Hell, Whittaker still could for anything within the relevant SOL.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So one idea that gets trotted out a lot, is that Hillary Clinton was basically “let off” and that the Mueller investigation is politically motivated by the political elite to “get” Trump at all costs.

It’s not always stated that explicitly, but that’s the general structure of the story.

So I asked myself, would that perception have changed if Hillary had been prosecuted?

I quickly came to the conclusion that it would not, let’s paint a picture shall we?

During the 2016 election, exactly the same everything occurs, every word and every action by both candidates remains the same EXCEPT, When Comey goes before congress, his recommendation is that Hillary Clinton is indicted on mishandling classified information etc.

She is successfuly prosecuted and either faces jail or a massive financial penalty.

The same concerns remain about Trumps possible wrongdoing in various forms, he still fires Comey over an active investigation (which he admitted) and Mueller is appointed as SC and what would Trump supporters most likely response be?

”this is an act of political revenge of the elite because Hillary got in trouble”.

so please, spare us the sob story of how someone you hate politically didn’t get in trouble, therefore the SC’s investigation is illegitimate, because you’d most likely think it even if she had.

Your premise that, had Clinton been prosecuted and convicted of destroying evidence (obstruction of justice) and mishandling of classified data, she would have still been the 2016 demorat POTUS nominee is seriously doubtful. With another challenger in the general election, Trump may well never have been elected POTUS.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Your premise that, had Clinton been prosecuted and convicted of destroying evidence (obstruction of justice) and mishandling of classified data, she would have still been the 2016 demorat POTUS nominee is seriously doubtful. With another challenger in the general election, Trump may well never have been elected POTUS.

Also, Mueller was not appointed because Trump fired Comey. Mueller was appointed because of an investigation during the tail-end of the Obama Administration into allegations of possible conspiracy with a foreign power to undermine the 2016 election, generated by a dossier financed by the DNC and pushed by elements of the FBI as an "insurance policy" if Trump did get elected.

IMO that would still have occurred if Hillary had been "convicted" regardless of who the DNC ran if Trump still got elected. If Trump were defeated by a replacement DNC candidate, then there would probably have been no Mueller investigation. In that case the "issue" would have been moot.

 

[Yakshi]

If we explode your theory to say that "Trump supporters will never have an opinion about anything without having a hand on the back door," then I agree with that, too.

Once they decided to render reality irrelevant, then they were free to believe whatever they liked without consequence, because if that belief got exposed as fraudulent, then they were free to say "Fake news" and continue believing it anyway, or they could simply choose to hop into another reality instantly.

 

[Mycroft]

So one idea that gets trotted out a lot, is that Hillary Clinton was basically “let off” and that the Mueller investigation is politically motivated by the political elite to “get” Trump at all costs.

It’s not always stated that explicitly, but that’s the general structure of the story.

So I asked myself, would that perception have changed if Hillary had been prosecuted?

I quickly came to the conclusion that it would not, let’s paint a picture shall we?

During the 2016 election, exactly the same everything occurs, every word and every action by both candidates remains the same EXCEPT, When Comey goes before congress, his recommendation is that Hillary Clinton is indicted on mishandling classified information etc.

She is successfuly prosecuted and either faces jail or a massive financial penalty.

The same concerns remain about Trumps possible wrongdoing in various forms, he still fires Comey over an active investigation (which he admitted) and Mueller is appointed as SC and what would Trump supporters most likely response be?

”this is an act of political revenge of the elite because Hillary got in trouble”.

so please, spare us the sob story of how someone you hate politically didn’t get in trouble, therefore the SC’s investigation is illegitimate, because you’d most likely think it even if she had.

One thing you are not considering is the fact that the corrupt people who worked to let Hillary off are the same corrupt people who concocted the whole "Trump/Russia" nonsense. Their motivation for doing all of it was their desire to see Hillary elected and their desire to prevent Trump from being elected. Also, when Trump got elected anyway, those corrupt people started working on getting Trump out of office.

So, if those people were NOT corrupt, they wouldn't have worked so hard to get Hillary off and they certainly wouldn't have been corrupt enough to use their executive branch powers to attack Trump.

 

[apdst]

So one idea that gets trotted out a lot, is that Hillary Clinton was basically “let off” and that the Mueller investigation is politically motivated by the political elite to “get” Trump at all costs.

It’s not always stated that explicitly, but that’s the general structure of the story.

So I asked myself, would that perception have changed if Hillary had been prosecuted?

I quickly came to the conclusion that it would not, let’s paint a picture shall we?

During the 2016 election, exactly the same everything occurs, every word and every action by both candidates remains the same EXCEPT, When Comey goes before congress, his recommendation is that Hillary Clinton is indicted on mishandling classified information etc.

She is successfuly prosecuted and either faces jail or a massive financial penalty.

The same concerns remain about Trumps possible wrongdoing in various forms, he still fires Comey over an active investigation (which he admitted) and Mueller is appointed as SC and what would Trump supporters most likely response be?

”this is an act of political revenge of the elite because Hillary got in trouble”.

so please, spare us the sob story of how someone you hate politically didn’t get in trouble, therefore the SC’s investigation is illegitimate, because you’d most likely think it even if she had.

That's exactly right.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Also, Mueller was not appointed because Trump fired Comey. Mueller was appointed because of an investigation during the tail-end of the Obama Administration into allegations of possible conspiracy with a foreign power to undermine the 2016 election, generated by a dossier financed by the DNC and pushed by elements of the FBI as an "insurance policy" if Trump did get elected.

The bolded is horse poop. As we've come to learn, US counterintelligence had plenty of reasons sans the dossier to investigate the Trump campaign/Russian meddling.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Sessions could have convened a grand jury to seek indictment of Hillary at any time.

Hell, Whittaker still could for anything within the relevant SOL.

According to Sessions' congressional testimony, "it would take a 'factual basis' to appoint a special counsel" to investigate Hillary, let alone indict her.

Hillary has been investigated for 25 years by multiple congressional committees as well as the FBI. She herself has testified openly and freely in front of Congress for many hours. And in all that time, not a single criminal charge has been filed or referred for prosecution.

How many more investigations and years will it take? It seems to me they would have found something - anything - to charge her with a crime by now.

How many more years do you need?

 

[Grokmaster]

Also, Mueller was not appointed because Trump fired Comey. Mueller was appointed because of an investigation during the tail-end of the Obama Administration into allegations of possible conspiracy with a foreign power to undermine the 2016 election, generated by a dossier financed by the DNC and pushed by elements of the FBI as an "insurance policy" if Trump did get elected.

IMO that would still have occurred if Hillary had been "convicted" regardless of who the DNC ran if Trump still got elected. If Trump were defeated by a replacement DNC candidate, then there would probably have been no Mueller investigation. In that case the "issue" would have been moot.

Excellent points.

 

[Grokmaster]

The bolded is horse poop. As we've come to learn, US counterintelligence had plenty of reasons sans the dossier to investigate the Trump campaign/Russian meddling.

Bullcrap. Comey's 2nd in command admitted UNDER OATH, "No dossier/no FISA warrant". The MYTH of Papadopolou.s and Carter Page's "Russian links" WERE/ARE TOTAL LIES.

 

[markjs]

Bullcrap. Comey's 2nd in command admitted UNDER OATH, "No dossier/no FISA warrant". The MYTH of Papadopolou.s and Carter Page's "Russian links" WERE/ARE TOTAL LIES.

Oh NO! A Grok sighting! BULL**** ALERT!

Prepare for pure partisan tripe and nonsense!

 

[zimmer]

So one idea that gets trotted out a lot, is that Hillary Clinton was basically “let off” and that the Mueller investigation is politically motivated by the political elite to “get” Trump at all costs.

It’s not always stated that explicitly, but that’s the general structure of the story.

So I asked myself, would that perception have changed if Hillary had been prosecuted?

I quickly came to the conclusion that it would not, let’s paint a picture shall we?

During the 2016 election, exactly the same everything occurs, every word and every action by both candidates remains the same EXCEPT, When Comey goes before congress, his recommendation is that Hillary Clinton is indicted on mishandling classified information etc.

She is successfuly prosecuted and either faces jail or a massive financial penalty.

The same concerns remain about Trumps possible wrongdoing in various forms, he still fires Comey over an active investigation (which he admitted) and Mueller is appointed as SC and what would Trump supporters most likely response be?

”this is an act of political revenge of the elite because Hillary got in trouble”.

so please, spare us the sob story of how someone you hate politically didn’t get in trouble, therefore the SC’s investigation is illegitimate, because you’d most likely think it even if she had.

Comey all but laid out the legal case against Hillary on national TV, then said they couldn’t prosecute because she didn’t mean it.

1. All manner of criminals are indicted who really didn’t mean it.

2. Strzok and McCabe were the point men on both Hillary and Trump. With thousands to chose from, we get one guy... who lets Hillary skate, and who is as a dogged to get Trump as he was passive with Hillary?

Hillary is lucky she’s not in jail... in jail Like the sailor who took 5 pics of a Top Secret section of a submarine to show family.

You didn’t ask yourself enough questions, nor the right questions...

One being... how the **** did a woman who had signed a contract with State, have a server in her bathroom, and had it hacked by numerous enemies? How the **** did she not get perp walked?

How the **** did this woman end up putting a dozen documents on said server, that are above Top Secret, and she not end up behind bars for 30-years?

How is it Hillary deleted 30,000 emails when Congress asked for them... and she deleted them after their request.

Or,

How the **** did the FBI get away with lying to a FISA Court Judge in order to spy on the Trump campaign... a political opponent?

How the **** did the FBI and DoJ get turned into a 3rd World Banana Republic ****hole, and Obama was in on what was happening? (as noted in the Strzok/Page text messages).

 

[Mr Person]

According to Sessions' congressional testimony, "it would take a 'factual basis' to appoint a special counsel" to investigate Hillary, let alone indict her.

Hillary has been investigated for 25 years by multiple congressional committees as well as the FBI. She herself has testified openly and freely in front of Congress for many hours. And in all that time, not a single criminal charge has been filed or referred for prosecution.

How many more investigations and years will it take? It seems to me they would have found something - anything - to charge her with a crime by now.

How many more years do you need?

Why do you assume a special counsel would be needed for the AG to personally convene a grand jury to seek indictment or to ask an underlying US Attorney or one of they many assistants? Hillary is a private citizen, not President. Unless there's some really weird provision I'm not familiar with, I don't see any reason Sessions couldn't have done it, and the only reason Whittaker might not is that the clock is ticking...

 

[Xelor]

"...But Hillary..." is nothing other than tu quoque BS.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Why do you assume a special counsel would be needed for the AG to personally convene a grand jury to seek indictment or to ask an underlying US Attorney or one of they many assistants? Hillary is a private citizen, not President. Unless there's some really weird provision I'm not familiar with, I don't see any reason Sessions couldn't have done it, and the only reason Whittaker might not is that the clock is ticking...

A special counsel would be necessary and was being demanded of Sessions by some Republicans because the allegations were regarding matters that allegedly occurred while she was Secretary of State, not a private citizen. These allegations were reviewed repeatedly by several people in the DOJ, and they consistently concluded there was no "factual basis" for a special counsel.

Now, you are free to, even encouraged to conclude that all those people, most lifelong career civil servants, are all corrupt and untrustworthy. Trump wants you to believe every last FBI agent and DOJ employee is part of a conspiracy to topple his administration. And that is why Hillary is not rotting in prison today.