• 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!

If Hillary Isn't Indicted, the Rule of Law and the Republic Are Dead

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The United States has reached a crossing the Rubicon moment: either Hillary Clinton is indicted for knowingly violating statutes regarding State Department security, or the rule of law and the Republic are dead. This is a binary moment: we either let Hillary evade the laws that were established to protect the security of the nation and confess there is no rule of law now for the Oligarchy, or the agencies tasked with defending the nation indict her.

As much as I detest all the fake Republican conspiracy theories, they happen to be right on this one. The rule of law either works for everybody or it doesn't exist, and this is no longer America.

Discussion?

Article is here.
 
We all know in a week or two..............

The FBI well hold a press conference and say.........

WE could not find any evidence of wrong doing................... not that HRC is innocent................ but just they could not find any........

Case closed for the general public..........but to live on in RW circles for a couple of generations
 
As much as I detest all the fake Republican conspiracy theories, they happen to be right on this one. The rule of law either works for everybody or it doesn't exist, and this is no longer America.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Most partisans already don't care if there side breaks laws. Sadly, the rule of law is not for everyone, not just because of Hillary.
 
I doubt she will be indicted.
 
I doubt she will be indicted.

Me as well, but there's still always that chance, if it happens soon, it could be Trump vs. Sanders as her standing among democrats will tank, and that will sure be interesting.

Light vs. Dark, the ultimate showdown.
 
In the eyes of a Ranger;

Hillary is guilty of every GOP smear until she can prove herself innocent .
 
If they don't indict, they should cut Bradly Manning loose, and quash the arrest warrant for Snowden.
 
As much as I detest all the fake Republican conspiracy theories, they happen to be right on this one. The rule of law either works for everybody or it doesn't exist, and this is no longer America.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Too late. The rule of law and the republic died with Bush vs. Gore in 2000.
 
Me as well, but there's still always that chance, if it happens soon, it could be Trump vs. Sanders as her standing among democrats will tank, and that will sure be interesting.

Light vs. Dark, the ultimate showdown.

I almost agree but think it is more a case of establishment vs. outsiders. There is justice vs. 'just us' - which may sound the same but are worlds apart in their application.
 
Me as well, but there's still always that chance, if it happens soon, it could be Trump vs. Sanders as her standing among democrats will tank, and that will sure be interesting.

Light vs. Dark, the ultimate showdown.


If she gets indicted more than likely the shakeout will trump/Cruz vs Biden.:2wave:
 
As much as I detest all the fake Republican conspiracy theories, they happen to be right on this one. The rule of law either works for everybody or it doesn't exist, and this is no longer America.

Discussion?

Article is here.

If that is the case then it hasn't been America for a long time. Because I am sure that she is not the first high ranking politician to get away with violating the law.

Even if she is indicted it doesn't mean she will be found guilty.
 
We all know in a week or two..............

The FBI well hold a press conference and say.........

WE could not find any evidence of wrong doing................... not that HRC is innocent................ but just they could not find any........

Case closed for the general public..........but to live on in RW circles for a couple of generations

Lol...

Yea, a elitist Politician not being held to the same standards as your average everyday American is exactly what the American people want right now. :roll:

She would almost be better off if she were indicted.
 
Lol...

Yea, a elitist Politician not being held to the same standards as your average everyday American is exactly what the American people want right now. :roll:

She would almost be better off if she were indicted.

"Elitist" means best and brightest...............what's wrong with that?
 
If she gets elected I wonder how that will impact anyone that ever has been or ever will be charged with the improper handling of classified data. Kinda tough to enforce those laws on the little people when the person sitting on the throne isnt held accountable.
 
Too late. The rule of law and the republic died with Bush vs. Gore in 2000.

The very fact that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al., are out and about, freely walking the earth is enough evidence for me to know that some people are just above the law.
 
"Elitist" means best and brightest...............what's wrong with that?

"Elite" means best and brightest.

"Elitist" means the belief that certain roles, responsibilities, rights and privileges should be reserved only for the best and brightest.

And in the strictest sense I don't really know that there's anything necessarially "wrong" with that, but neither am I sure that there's anything necessarially "right" with that.

I would think that it would be contingent upon what we define as "elite".

And I'm not sure that I'd consider a carpet-bagging felon who rose to power pretty much exclusively on the true greatness of her husband and the "cult of personality" to be "elite" to the degree that I'd want to reserve any roles, responsibilities, rights or privileges to her or those like her.
 
As much as I detest all the fake Republican conspiracy theories, they happen to be right on this one. The rule of law either works for everybody or it doesn't exist, and this is no longer America.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Dan,first thing, its an "editorial" not an article and a WND "editorial" that. And did you notice that your WND “editorial” waxed poetically for 6 paragraphs before even mentioning Hillary. Now, why is “not indicted” means “she didn’t break the law” automatically ruled out? Methinks you’ve been reading too many conservative headlines. And of course your “editorial” requires you to “just know” she broke the law. it reminds me of your Glass Steagall posts. you had an a version of reality that just wasn't supported by the facts. the first we need to do is to find out what version of “reality” you believe. Are you a conservative who believes….

It was illegal to even have a private server

It’s a crime to have emails that weren’t classified when they were sent

She told an aid to strip off the “TOP SECRET” from email (this is the back up narrative for the above narrative)

The .gov server is secure. (this is key to believing the above back up narrative)

Deleting non work related emails is a crime

The only smart thing from conservatives with the email narratives is that you guys are getting your excuses ready ahead of time. No more fumbling for answers when your version of reality is shattered. No more cutting and running from threads anymore like you did with the facts about Glass Steagall. And just like your Glass Steagall posts, actual facts were simply ignored that contradicted your narrative.

Dan, until you hold the conservative media accountable for lying to you, they’re not going to stop
 
"Elitist" means best and brightest...............what's wrong with that?

Nothing unless you're a hack who thinks the rule of law should only apply to the GOP and its supporters.
 
Dan,first thing, its an "editorial" not an article and a WND "editorial" that. And did you notice that your WND “editorial” waxed poetically for 6 paragraphs before even mentioning Hillary. Now, why is “not indicted” means “she didn’t break the law” automatically ruled out? Methinks you’ve been reading too many conservative headlines. And of course your “editorial” requires you to “just know” she broke the law. it reminds me of your Glass Steagall posts. you had an a version of reality that just wasn't supported by the facts. the first we need to do is to find out what version of “reality” you believe. Are you a conservative who believes….

It was illegal to even have a private server

It’s a crime to have emails that weren’t classified when they were sent

She told an aid to strip off the “TOP SECRET” from email (this is the back up narrative for the above narrative)

The .gov server is secure. (this is key to believing the above back up narrative)

Deleting non work related emails is a crime

The only smart thing from conservatives with the email narratives is that you guys are getting your excuses ready ahead of time. No more fumbling for answers when your version of reality is shattered. No more cutting and running from threads anymore like you did with the facts about Glass Steagall. And just like your Glass Steagall posts, actual facts were simply ignored that contradicted your narrative.

Dan, until you hold the conservative media accountable for lying to you, they’re not going to stop

At least we now know why she needed that private server

It was so she could just use one device
 
"Elite" means best and brightest.

"Elitist" means the belief that certain roles, responsibilities, rights and privileges should be reserved only for the best and brightest.

And in the strictest sense I don't really know that there's anything necessarially "wrong" with that, but neither am I sure that there's anything necessarially "right" with that.

I would think that it would be contingent upon what we define as "elite".

And I'm not sure that I'd consider a carpet-bagging felon who rose to power pretty much exclusively on the true greatness of her husband and the "cult of personality" to be "elite" to the degree that I'd want to reserve any roles, responsibilities, rights or privileges to her or those like her.

Really now............... That's absurd
 
Nothing unless you're a hack who thinks the rule of law should only apply to the GOP and its supporters.

You said that.......not me....................Is all you can do in discussing a serious subject is to "piss" on the poster because you have not a wit of a clue of what's going on.........
 
UPDATE and RELATED


'Fear of losing' another reason why Justice Dept. may not indict Clinton | Washington Examiner
'Fear of losing' another reason why Justice Dept. may not indict Clinton

“A former Justice Department official under two Republican presidents said the department is unlikely to indict Hillary Clinton, in part because the agency may be afraid to lose.

Ronald Sievert wrote in USA Today that as many suspect, politics is a big reason why the Obama administration's Justice Department is unlikely to pull the trigger on Clinton.

"[P]olitical appointees who make the final decisions will at least unconsciously be searching for ways to evaluate the case in a way that would evade an obvious debacle for the Democratic Party ……….
…. Sievert, who worked under the administrations of Reagan and George H.W. Bush, also said that institutionally, Justice has always taken its time with these sorts of cases. "Justice has not always had a reputation for being strong and aggressive, especially in the face of an intimidating defense," he wrote……….

……….. "There sometimes appears to be an institutional fear of losing, however minimal the chance," Sievert wrote. "This is an endemic characteristic of many bureaucracies."

Several reports have said the FBI is looking to interview Clinton and her aides about her use of a non-secure email system, and that the FBI wants to bring charges against Clinton. But Sievert said Justice is most likely working now to "avoid applying the plain language of the law to Hillary Clinton."

From the start, there was never going to be an indictment of HRC……….
Unless she shot someone while sending an email with Top Secret – For your eyes only……. That not being the case here……….

There is no prosecutor willing to risk his or her future employment………. Now being seen as a peoria being his/her legacy………..

All that remains now is a Press Conference………….

My guess, to be held right after the primaries and before the start of the convention……….


ALSO SEE:
Hillary's 'classified' smokescreen hides real crime: Column
 
Please. She won't be indicted. She's probably paid half of them off, under the table. The other half have probably been promised all kinds of sweetheart deals and incentives if she becomes president. Hell...I wouldn't doubt most of them end up voting FOR her.
 
As much as I detest all the fake Republican conspiracy theories, they happen to be right on this one. The rule of law either works for everybody or it doesn't exist, and this is no longer America.

Discussion?

Article is here.


I think the article's assertion that the rule of law and the Republic are "dead" if Hillary isn't indicted is a tad overblown.

1. The citizenry does not actually know for a fact whether or not Hillary is guilty; the FBI is the body with access to that information, and they are investigating.

2. Conscientious FBI agents could always leak the information, or allow it to fall into, say, Anonymous's hands.

3. Apparently, in an article I don't have a link to but saw in a couple of threads on DP, Hillary is only one of many SoS's that have done such things with classified information. She's the only one a fuss was made over. Two wrongs don't make a right, but still. Why is she the only one to catch such flak?

4. It bears keeping in mind that the only way this even came up is through 7 bogus investigations into Benghazi, which multiple GOPers have since admitted were pure political theatre designed to smear her. So on this point, it's kind of like Bill's situation: He lied under oath, and that is a crime. But I simply cannot put out of my mind the fact that the only reason he was in a position to lie under oath is that the GOP spent something like 30 million bucks to investigate a blowjob; a politician cheating on a spouse is simply not the kind of thing that an official investigation should be about.
 
Last edited:
I think the article's assertion that the rule of law and the Republic are "dead" if Hillary isn't indicted is a tad overblown.

1. The citizenry does not actually know for a fact whether or not Hillary is guilty; the FBI is the body with access to that information, and they are investigating.

2. Conscientious FBI agents could always leak the information, or allow it to fall into, say, Anonymous's hands.

3. Apparently, in an article I don't have a link to but saw in a couple of threads on DP, Hillary is only one of many SoS's that have done such things with classified information. She's the only one a fuss was made over.

4. It bears keeping in mind that the only way this even came up is through 7 bogus investigations into Benghazi, which multiple GOPers have since admitted were pure political theatre designed to smear her. So on this point, it's kind of like Bill's situation: He lied under oath, and that is a crime. But I simply cannot put out of my mind the fact that the only reason he was in a position to lie under oath is that the GOP spent something like 30 million bucks to investigate a blowjob; a politician cheating on a spouse is simply not the kind of thing that an official investigation should be about.

Yea, impeachment over a blow job was a little over the top, especially considering the fact that Dennis Hastert was diddling little boys and paying them hush money to keep quiet. LOL.
 
Back
Top Bottom