50% Say Clinton Should Keep Running Even If Indicted

Do you really think the facebook ads helped Trump? Or perhaps, the wikileaks exposure? Let's take the whole wikileaks thing. As awful as it is that a foreign government was more probably than not the source, it's even more shameful that it HAD to come from a foreign government and not the DNC itself.

Essentially a HRC Presidency would not have been a transparent one.

 

As always ignoring the dnc hack. What page of the defend Russia handbook says to ignore that part?

 

I never said it was Hillary herself, I said it was her campaign. So stop projecting what you're doing here.
It's a good thing you didn't take that wager....


https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-b...6548-how-birtherism-became-hillarys-waterloo/

Patti Solis Doyle, who was Hillary’s campaign manager until the Iowa caucuses in 2008, admitted first in a tweet and second in a CNN interview that a Hillary staffer first spread the birther issue. While the staffer was fired, the termination happened after the cat was let out of the bag. Patient Zero, thus, was a member of Team Hillary.

 

If the ads didn’t then the advertising industry has been wasting its time for years


How soon after the Russia if you are listening was the DNC hacked?

 

Don’t call me names.

Russia DID interfere. Whether they had an effect is unknown. Comey also interfered. In a way that probably changed the outcome.

Acknowledging those things doesn’t make me an election “denier”. I do not think the 2016 election was “stolen”. Trump won. He got help he should not have had, but he won.

You are trying to make an equivalence between that, and the lies spread by Trump that he actually won the 2020 election, but he was denied the victory due to the votes not being counted correctly. Due to fraud.

There is no equivalence. What I say about 2016 happened. What he says about 2020 is a lie. A fabrication. He and his followers are telling lies.

 

An HRC presidency would have been infinitely less corrupt and almost certainly much more transparent than Trump.

The point is that a lot of people who criticized Dems for being willing to vote for someone who potentially MIGHT have been under indictment are now supporting someone who is actually under indictment and who might be a convicted felon by election day.

 

How did I ignore it? The wikileaks information de-facto CAME from that.(Well, allegedly so says the DOJ. It never definitively proved it or attempted to. 'National security' and all of that jazz). So by citing wikileaks, I am also citing the hacking. They are NOT separate events.

Not only did I not ignore it, but like I said: It's a tragedy that it took a foreign government for the kind of transparency we should want from our own elected officials. Had they been transparent, the hackings would be of little value.

Or do we have low standards that it's okay for the government to hold secrets that aren't at the classified level. Everything we deserve to know, we should know. And we shouldn't need Ruskies to find out.

 

The DOJ did prove it, read the indictment of the hackers. They lay out exactly what they did.

 

An indictment is a lay out of the allegations, but since it never made it past that phase a court and/or a jury wasn't able to weigh on it. So even today, you wouldn't get an official DOJ statement to be affirmative, because there wasn't an affirmative resolution.

They basically gave up on it.

 

So how would you propose they prove it then?? Invade Russia to kidnap the hackers? You’ve created a ridiculous standard you know is impossible.

 

Not my standard, the standard of law. It's the same as you saying 'I know AmericanNationalist hacked the world trade center'. Well, how would you prove it?

The DOJ by itself is not an authoritative voice of law, an accusation is only an accusation. But what the DOJ and society has done a very good job of, is painting the DOJ as this authoritative voice. So much so, that DOJ lawyers expect and often get the judges to be little more than the DOJ's lapdog.

Again, the reasoning of the 10th circuit in the documents-gate case is all we need to know the court's absurd position about the government. It is an uphill battle should this government seek so much as a speeding ticket.

 

• 50% Say Clinton Should Keep Running Even If Indicted

​

 

This is too funny. When I first saw the title, I thought Sec was being clever, finding a Right wing article that shows how today's Democrats-- asking what is wrong with Trump voters, who don't apparently care if he is indicted or even convicted-- were themselves holding the same view, regarding Hillary. But then I saw that this thread is from 2016; and that, at least on page six, the new posters aren't really talking about this comparison of voter attitudes, but instead, are mostly re-litigating the 2016 race!

So allow me to steer things to the double standard theme, with some posts from page 1:

So, that would mean that you feel all the Republicans who say they'll vote for Trump (who, unlike Hillary, has actually been indicted) "disregard the law," and our Constitutional democracy? That they "put Party first?"

And you'd apply that same "low on morals," description, to Republicans who now say they'd vote for an indicted and, in many cases, even for a convicted Donald Trump?


Now, to be fair, let me present a Democrat, giving the type of answer we are now hearing from Republicans:

And sure enough, that is Bluesguy's cue, to start talking the same trash about Democrats, that he now objects to, when Dems say it about Repubs:

I have to interject, here-- so Bluesguy, do you really believe the Justice Department, and the FBI (and 3 district attorneys, in two states) are just "grinning up bull?"

And that Republicans who'll vote for Trump, regardless, will do so "out of ignorance?"

Well? Comparing the "weight of evidence" against Hillary-- which Director Comey, who clearly had no love for Clinton, didn't think was enough for a conviction-- to the evidence against Trump (which has made numerous prosecutors confident enough for 91 indictments)-- what does that indicate, to you?

 

Ahh, its always such a pleasure when the left gets caught with their "DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO" mentality. They essentially wanted Hillary to do the SAME thing Trump is doing and this thread PROVES it 100%
I think the left has a minor problem of DOUBLE STANDARDS

 

Both sides are exposed as hypocrites with this. Dems are hypocrites for supporting Hillary even if she were indicted even though they say Trump shouldn't be able to run due to being indicted.
Repubs are hypocrites for wanting Hillary locked up, but are cool with Trump running after being indicted.
So there you have it folks…plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides.

 

The whole "Hillary is being investigated" thing was actually very persuasive for me and was the main reason I didn't vote for her. So why shouldn't I vote against Trump when his situation is even worse?

 

Trump was doing far, far more than what Clinton was doing. Whoever told you they were doing the "SAME thing" was a ****ing idiot.

 

....SEVEN AND A HALF YEARS AGO???

 

Meaning what? That one was ignorant, if they didn't trust government investigations, 7 1/2 years ago, but now one is ignorant, if they do trust them?

Wow-- the Trump Presidency did that much damage, huh?

 

And you guys are so desperate your going back SEVEN YEARS??

 

It's to look at the crazy stuff that crashed and burned.

 

So, this topic was resurrected from 2016. Does this mean that someone is trying to say that Hillary Clinton should run again for president? I knew that Biden's popularity ratings were getting very low...

 

You think hypocrisy only counts if it's recent? Try again.

 

No, they think it only counts when someone else does it.

 

Sadly yes.