32rollandrock

Connoisseur
6,894
United States
illinois
springfield
Last edited:

Acct2000

Connoisseur - Moderator
9,625
United States
Michigan
Lansing
It will only create sympathy for her and make her election as president even more likely.

Since Watergate, most special prosecutions have just carried out the prosecutor's political agenda whether it was Republican's attacking Clinton or Democrats attacking Reagan's cabinet.

I'm not a fan of special prosecutors and hope it doesn't happen.
 

Acct2000

Connoisseur - Moderator
9,625
United States
Michigan
Lansing
I don't even want to get into the self-righteous preening and posturing posed by the outraged prosecutors who all secretly hope to create the next Watergate. Sigh.
 

SG_67

Connoisseur
14,800
United States
Illinois
Chicago
It would create sympathy for her if people had true affection for her.

Aside from her last name, she has none of the charm and personality of her husband which time and time again, saved him in terms of public opinion.

To paraphrase Lloyd Bensten: "Hillary, you're no Bill."
 

Acct2000

Connoisseur - Moderator
9,625
United States
Michigan
Lansing
A brutish special prosecutor (is there any other kind) will generate sympathy no matter who the victim is.

Besides, if there is a real crime here above and beyond questionable security practices (a REAL crime, not something on page 993 of a 3000 page law that is so obscure that someone is obviously interpreting it in the most self-serving way possible), it's not obvious to me.

I'm no fan of Hillary, but this will not work out well for those who try to spring this on her.

Hillary is far more sympathetic to most non-tea party people than any of the tea party champions. Most of the tea party champions could use a real course in public relations. They mostly come off like the Pharisees in the bible even when they have a valid point (which is not always, no matter how self-righteously they posture.)
 

SG_67

Connoisseur
14,800
United States
Illinois
Chicago
^ I'm not a tea party type.

I'm simply stating an opinion widely shared by many and part of her public character, or at least perception of it.

She is incredibly awkward as a campaigner and though sympathetic to some, I doubt she is so widely.

The fact is people just don't trust her, or at best have reservations about trusting her.

I, for one, am very curious as to why someone within the national command chain opted to channel all of her emails through a server located in the basement of her private residence. All of the product of her official office is public record and as such, property of the people.

I'm further curious as to why this was never detected or questioned by anyone in the administration. I wonder how people would be treating this were it revealed that all of Dick Cheney's official emails were locked away in a server in his home and then erased without public scrutiny.
 

32rollandrock

Connoisseur
6,894
United States
illinois
springfield
I don't give a rip about the politics of it. I just want to get to the bottom of it, and I fear that won't be possible absent a special prosecutor.If Hillary Clinton broke the law, she should be treated like anyone else and face the music in a court of law.

Saw a very good documentary on Lance Armstrong the other night. Tyler Hamilton and other former teammates related how they'd been hauled before the grand jury and told the truth about Armstrong's use of PED's. They also told how Armstrong, guilty as all get-out, had contacted them and others and warned that he had friends in high places and so they shouldn't cooperate. Sure enough, the federal probe was dropped, even though the charges were not difficult to prove, as the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency showed with its damning report that came out shortly after the feds pulled the plug. Armstrong now stands accused of defrauding the government out of more than $30 million, the money spent sponsoring his team of dopers. If the USADA hadn't stepped in and done DOJ's job, Armstrong would have gotten away with it.

The point here isn't whether the government should have been sponsoring a cycling team (I don't think that it should have). The point is, the government had him dead-to-rights with tens of millions of dollars at stake and then inexplicably dropped the case even as evidence mounted to the point that Armstrong could no longer deny the truth. Hamilton and others interviewed in the documentary said that the case convinced them that the Department of Justice is subject to political whims and is all-too-willing to forget about justice in certain cases. Armstrong had friends on both sides of the aisle, from the White House all the way down. He made that clear to those who dared tell the truth, and, sure enough, look what happened.

If Lance Armstrong could kill a federal investigation, surely Hillary Clinton could do the same, especially with a Democrat in the White House. Just because Kenneth Starr went off the deep end does not mean that a special prosecutor now would do the same thing. Archibald Cox, after all, was a good man. This is just too darn important to let fester, and it's too important to entrust to an agency that is not at arms-length in a political sense. When two inspectors general call for a criminal probe and that hasn't resulted in a criminal probe, it's time to do something.
 

SG_67

Connoisseur
14,800
United States
Illinois
Chicago
Except that Lance Armstrong doping doesn't have national security implications.
 

32rollandrock

Connoisseur
6,894
United States
illinois
springfield
True enough. OTOH, I suppose there might be other similarities. Armstrong was certainly never in the running for Mr. Congeniality, and some might say the same about Mrs. Clinton.

Classified material is obviously a more serious issue than taking drugs to win a bicycle race. All the more reason to farm it out, the sooner the better, to a neutral investigator and let chips fall where they may. It's too important to just ignore. It shouldn't be overly difficult. The emails should speak for themselves, and so the truth should be able to come out in plenty of time for the election. If there's nothing to it, as she says, we should know before the first primary. If there is, well, we will also know that before the first primary.

Except that Lance Armstrong doping doesn't have national security implications.
 

SG_67

Connoisseur
14,800
United States
Illinois
Chicago
I think going forward, the Clinton's should just have an independent prosecutor attached to them 24/7 for just such things.

Otherwise, it's the equivalent of waiting until your shoes have come undone before looking to buy a new pair.
 
Ratio Clothing Custom Shirts