• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton is not a Criminal

C

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
CriticalThought said:
This thread is to fact check the rhetoric that Hillary Clinton has acted in clearly illicit ways and is a criminal. Let's start...

Fact-checking the Clinton Foundation controversy | PolitiFact

Pro-Trump super PAC ad misleads on Clintons' wealth, foundation cash link | PolitiFact

PolitiFact Sheet: Hillary Clinton?s email controversy | PolitiFact

Fact-checking Benghazi: The rhetoric hasn't matched up with reality | PolitiFact
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. Criminal law says you are not a criminal and must be considered innocent, till you are convicted. That is in criminal law. But it does not mean civil law cannot find you responsible and hit you with damages. And in an election, it is absolutely crazy to mention as relevant for the decision for whom to vote the fact, that the person is massively suspected but not convicted.
 
joG said:
You are absolutely right. Criminal law says you are not a criminal and must be considered innocent, till you are convicted. That is in criminal law. But it does not mean civil law cannot find you responsible and hit you with damages. And in an election, it is absolutely crazy to mention as relevant for the decision for whom to vote the fact, that the person is massively suspected but not convicted.
Click to expand...

No, criminal law says no such thing. Our criminal law system likes to pretend that you're innocent till proven guilty but the moment Ted Bundy killed his first woman he was a murderer. The moment Hillary Clinton stuffed money from Marc rich's family into her pocket while President Clinton gave Marc Rich an unprecedented Presidential Pardon they were both criminals. When Hillary Clinton decided to have her email on her personal server to avoid public scrutiny she was violating the law. When she had emails destroyed that the court had ordered preserved she was a criminal.

When Mr. Trump proudly announced he gave money to politicians, including Hillary Clinton, only so they'd do what he wanted when he called them, he was admitting he was bribing politicians. That's criminal.

You become a criminal when you commit the crime but sometimes you're never convicted. Bill Clinton will never be convicted for the crimes he committed against women or the crimes he will commit against women. Thanks to plea bargaining, criminals are most often not found guilty of the crimes they committed.
 
Last edited:
Patrickt said:
No, criminal law says no such thing. Our criminal law system likes to pretend that you're innocent till proven guilty but the moment Ted Bundy killed his first woman he was a murderer. The moment Hillary Clinton stuffed money from Marc rich's family into her pocket while President Clinton gave Marc Rich an unprecedented Presidential Pardon they were both criminals. When Hillary Clinton decided to have her email on her personal server to avoid public scrutiny she was violating the law. When she had emails destroyed that the court had ordered preserved she was a criminal.

When Mr. Trump proudly announced he gave money to politicians, including Hillary Clinton, only so they'd do what he wanted when he called them, he was admitting he was bribing politicians. That's criminal.

You become a criminal when you commit the crime but sometimes you're never convicted. Bill Clinton will never be convicted for the crimes he committed against women or the crimes he will commit against women. Thanks to plea bargaining, criminals are most often not found guilty of the crimes they committed.
Click to expand...

When you call a person criminal before she is proven so, you can be sued for damages and will likely win. The same suit after the court has found her guilty, will get you nowhere.
 
Nonsense. Tell me which liberal who called President Bush or VP Cheney criminals got sued? If you'll recall, after OJ Simpson was found not guilty, but not innocent, he was sued by the family of Ron Goldman for murdering their son. They won. OJ Simpson did not sue the Goldman family for calling him a murderer and if he had he wouldn't have won.

There is nothing in criminal law that says a man is innocent until convicted or that says a man who has been found not guilty is innocent. In our town, a young man stabbed a 19-year old woman at least 39 times. The police had a confession, they had clothes covered in the victim's blood, they had the knife caked with the victim's blood, they had footprints that matched the killers shoes but an attorney got him off as insane. Not guilty by reason of insanity. Now you're saying he was an innocent man because he was found not guilty. He murdered that young woman. He stabbed her at least 39 times.

But, she may never see a courtroom because...she's Hillary Clinton.

No, he was a murderer and a criminal. He was and still is. Always will be. Sen. Edward Kennedy was a criminal. He wasn't innocent of vehicular homicide. He wasn't found guilty but that was because he was a Kennedy and not because he was innocent.

Hillary Clinton was a criminal the moment she accepted money from the family of Marc Rich at the same time her husband was giving Marc Rich an unprecedented Presidential Pardon. Hillary Clinton was a criminal when she had emails destroyed that the court had ordered kept. Hillary Clinton was a criminal when she decided to evade the FOIA laws by having her own bathroom server.
 
CriticalThought said:
This thread is to fact check the rhetoric that Hillary Clinton has acted in clearly illicit ways and is a criminal. Let's start...

Fact-checking the Clinton Foundation controversy | PolitiFact

Pro-Trump super PAC ad misleads on Clintons' wealth, foundation cash link | PolitiFact

PolitiFact Sheet: Hillary Clinton?s email controversy | PolitiFact

Fact-checking Benghazi: The rhetoric hasn't matched up with reality | PolitiFact
Click to expand...

That first link was intriguing.
Politifact took ...
"The fact is" the Clinton Foundation has "got about 80 percent in overhead and 20 percent of the money is actually getting into the places it should." from Reince Priebus
Click to expand...
and then said ...
"Contrary to Priebus’ assertion, Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton receive no compensation from their work on the foundation’s board of directors, according to tax documents."
Click to expand...
Which doesn't contradict what Priebus said at all.
They went on to correctly say, albeit trying to minimize the significance, that, yes, the Clintons made a ****load of money by using the Foundation as if it was their manager for speaking engagements.
That is, after all, how they managed to make $240,000,000 in 10 years. Not to mention how they kept their friends (FOB) busy through the Clinton Foundation.
Perhaps you've seen the WIILEAKed emails about the Haiti earthquake?

In a series of candid email exchanges with top Clinton Foundation officials during the hours after the massive 2010 Haiti earthquake, a senior aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly gave special attention to those identified by the abbreviations “FOB” (friends of Bill Clinton) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs).
Click to expand...
'FOBs': How Hillary's State Dept. Gave Special Attention to 'Friends of Bill' After Haiti Quake - ABC News
 
CriticalThought said:
This thread is to fact check the rhetoric that Hillary Clinton has acted in clearly illicit ways and is a criminal. Let's start...

Fact-checking the Clinton Foundation controversy | PolitiFact

Pro-Trump super PAC ad misleads on Clintons' wealth, foundation cash link | PolitiFact

PolitiFact Sheet: Hillary Clinton?s email controversy | PolitiFact

Fact-checking Benghazi: The rhetoric hasn't matched up with reality | PolitiFact
Click to expand...

Fact is the Deplorables have totally overplayed their hand. Three things come immediately to mind.

1. Benghazi, foundation and email wolf-cries numbed the public to all these accusations such that even if an actual Clinton wrongdoing now suddenly surfaces, most of us will ignore it.

2. Trump dominating the news cycles for 6 months, although at first helping his candidacy with limitless free advertising has now begun to take it's toll. He can't get off page 1.

3. All things Trump supersede anything Hillary does. So, she probably could eat a baby on live TV now, and all the media will focus on is Trump saying the baby was fat.
 
bubbabgone said:
That first link was intriguing.
Politifact took ...

and then said ...

Which doesn't contradict what Priebus said at all.
They went on to correctly say, albeit trying to minimize the significance, that, yes, the Clintons made a ****load of money by using the Foundation as if it was their manager for speaking engagements.
That is, after all, how they managed to make $240,000,000 in 10 years. Not to mention how they kept their friends (FOB) busy through the Clinton Foundation.
Perhaps you've seen the WIILEAKed emails about the Haiti earthquake?


'FOBs': How Hillary's State Dept. Gave Special Attention to 'Friends of Bill' After Haiti Quake - ABC News
Click to expand...
They should have just disproved Priebus's comment straight out.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

According to Charity Watch the foundation only spends about 12% on overhead.
 
CriticalThought said:
This thread is to fact check the rhetoric that Hillary Clinton has acted in clearly illicit ways and is a criminal. Let's start...

Fact-checking the Clinton Foundation controversy | PolitiFact

Pro-Trump super PAC ad misleads on Clintons' wealth, foundation cash link | PolitiFact

PolitiFact Sheet: Hillary Clinton?s email controversy | PolitiFact

Fact-checking Benghazi: The rhetoric hasn't matched up with reality | PolitiFact
Click to expand...

Well, if your objective is to fact check, why would you use an operation run by the Progressive Machine as the basis for it?

The simple fact is, so far, Hillary Clinton has escaped indictment and conviction. It doesn't take any fact checking to confirm that.
 
MrPeanut said:
They should have just disproved Priebus's comment straight out.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

According to Charity Watch the foundation only spends about 12% on overhead.
Click to expand...

Oh no. Not that again.
Okay. One more time.
The Clinton Foundation has a lot of employees but they don't actually DO anything.
They talk. They fly around the world acting like organizers for their friends to meet people in charge in hotspots that need help who then hire the FOBs.

Charity Watch doesn't vet numbers ... they just report them.
They also don't determine the quality or value of the "services" charities provide.
How do I know these things?
Because I asked Charity Watch and they told me.

What does all that mean? It means the Clinton Foundation included their travel expenses to talk to people as "getting to the places it should".
And it also means they can arrange for their friends to make a bundle in places like Haiti by under-performing and under-delivering ... which is what happened.
 
Of course she is. It just so happens that she resides under an administration that has a corrupt Justice Department hell bent on protecting her.
 
bubbabgone said:
Oh no. Not that again.
Okay. One more time.
The Clinton Foundation has a lot of employees but they don't actually DO anything.
They talk. They fly around the world acting like organizers for their friends to meet people in charge in hotspots that need help who then hire the FOBs.

Charity Watch doesn't vet numbers ... they just report them.
They also don't determine the quality or value of the "services" charities provide.
How do I know these things?
Because I asked Charity Watch and they told me.

What does all that mean? It means the Clinton Foundation included their travel expenses to talk to people as "getting to the places it should".
And it also means they can arrange for their friends to make a bundle in places like Haiti by under-performing and under-delivering ... which is what happened.
Click to expand...

So as far a charity organizations go, the Clinton Foundation is at the bottom of the barrel. They spend waaaay more money operating the "charity" overhead than they do on actually helping the people they claim to. That sounds like the United Way on steroids, and the United Way is a piss poor charity organization.
 
humbolt said:
So as far a charity organizations go, the Clinton Foundation is at the bottom of the barrel. They spend waaaay more money operating the "charity" overhead than they do on actually helping the people they claim to. That sounds like the United Way on steroids, and the United Way is a piss poor charity organization.
Click to expand...

It's a good thing to be able to define "services" any damn way you like, innit?
 
joG said:
You are absolutely right. Criminal law says you are not a criminal and must be considered innocent, till you are convicted. That is in criminal law. But it does not mean civil law cannot find you responsible and hit you with damages. And in an election, it is absolutely crazy to mention as relevant for the decision for whom to vote the fact, that the person is massively suspected but not convicted.
Click to expand...

Like Trump? After all who has had more civil cases suing them, so if that means something I would suggest looking at the entire picture for a change of pace.
 
bubbabgone said:
It's a good thing to be able to define "services" any damn way you like, innit?
Click to expand...

It sure is. Services sometimes includes dragging a dollar bill through a trailer court to see who nibbles, according to Carville. Dey's all trailer trash, so they had it coming, and they got the dollar, too. Charity. It's a great thing.
 
Casper said:
Like Trump? After all who has had more civil cases suing them, so if that means something I would suggest looking at the entire picture for a change of pace.
Click to expand...

I don't see the relevance. What do you want to say?
 
bubbabgone said:
Oh no. Not that again.
Okay. One more time.
The Clinton Foundation has a lot of employees but they don't actually DO anything.
They talk. They fly around the world acting like organizers for their friends to meet people in charge in hotspots that need help who then hire the FOBs.

Charity Watch doesn't vet numbers ... they just report them.
They also don't determine the quality or value of the "services" charities provide.
How do I know these things?
Because I asked Charity Watch and they told me.

What does all that mean? It means the Clinton Foundation included their travel expenses to talk to people as "getting to the places it should".
And it also means they can arrange for their friends to make a bundle in places like Haiti by under-performing and under-delivering ... which is what happened.
Click to expand...

Factually false. 12% on travel.

Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?

Do you check your stuff or just believe it because you read it on a conservative blog?
 
CriticalThought said:
Factually false.

Reince Priebus' False claim that 80% of Clinton Foundation costs are overhead | PolitiFact
Click to expand...

Don't hand me any of that Politifact garbage. The place is as biased as Podesta. They just hide it better. The Clinton Foundation is just a money laundering operation with a little charity thrown in on the side to make it look good for people like you. Politifact is right just enough of the time to maintain some credibility. Beyond that, their agenda is pretty clear. Hillary may not be a convicted criminal, but that doesn't wash the stains from her hands. They're in plain view.
 
humbolt said:
Don't hand me any of that Politifact garbage. The place is as biased as Podesta. They just hide it better. The Clinton Foundation is just a money laundering operation with a little charity thrown in on the side to make it look good for people like you. Politifact is right just enough of the time to maintain some credibility. Beyond that, their agenda is pretty clear. Hillary may not be a convicted criminal, but that doesn't wash the stains from her hands. They're in plain view.
Click to expand...

Well if you want to make a claim, then substantiate it. That is the purpose of this thread as was clearly stated in the OP.
You can contest what Politifact says if you want, but dismissing it outright without providing any evidence of disqualifying bias means little more than you are sharing an unsubstantiated opinion. Sorry, but this is not your typical, "this is what I believe" thread. If you can't back it up and I have a counter source that is generally bipartisan, then you will called out for making a factually false statement.

So I reiterate. Your claim is factually false.
 
CriticalThought said:
Factually false. 12% on travel.

...

Do you check your stuff or just believe it because you read it on a conservative blog?
Click to expand...

You make a convincing argument.
Just kidding.
But congratulations for posting the 2nd of the 2 links that are always posted when trying to defend the Clinton Foundation.

I said ...
The Clinton Foundation has a lot of employees but they don't actually DO anything.
They talk. They fly around the world acting like organizers for their friends to meet people in charge in hotspots that need help who then hire the FOBs.
Click to expand...
Did you read what FactCheck said? ...
Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.
Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects.
Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.
Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom