So about that email investigation...

Today I was reading an article about Jeff Sessions in which he was both criticizing the Mueller investigation and hyping the investigation into Hillary's emails. Let's forget for the moment that the former is an investigation of wrongdoing on the part of the sitting president which has turned up evidence against affiliated actors at every stage, and the latter is a years-old investigation into someone who is no longer holding a political position that has turned up nothing but speculation. Let's instead, remember, that this is the same Jeff Sessions who just last week said he had no problem with Trump pardoning Scooter Libby. Scooter Libby, for those who don't remember, is the human slimeball former Bush administration official who leaked a CIA operative's identity in retaliation for publicizing the now well-known fact that Hussein did no attempt to buy uranium from Niger. In the case of Scooter Libby you have someone openly convicted of intentionally leaking intelligence and sentenced for it, in the case of Hillary Clinton you have someone who, at the very worst, inadvertently could have caused an intelligence leak and has never even been prosecuted for it. Isn't it hypocritical of Sessions to be so blasé about Trump pardoning Libby while also being so militant about pursuing Clinton?

I think just because how hard the fbi pushed that he was guilty over the Russians being involved in the elections

Well his campaign certainly were involved and his son. I doubt he was in the dark.

oh hell yeah, he knew. I don't doubt that at all. but for him its all about business

You think what? What do the FBI's actions have to do with Sessions?

@theone86: forget what I said I read it wrong.

i saw a guy driving to work this morning w/ a "lock her up" bumper sticker on his truck

i had to just laugh. it's like tatooing "i'm an idiot" on your forehead.

I think that about anyone with a Trump bumper sticker to be honest.

Probably has to do with the hardboiled mentality of " With us or against us" that's in the US, Where you support "your team" no matter what and try to defeat the "Enemy team" no matter what.

So a reasonable person would think both Clinton and Libby should be in jail.

and why do you think Clinton should be in jail?

@tryit: It's pretty obvious. From PF: Clinton’s staff received a subpoena for Benghazi-related emails March 4. An employee managing her server deleted 33,000 of Clinton’s emails three weeks later.

People have gone to prison for less.

Trump's attorney is currently pleading the fifth in the Stormy Daniels case. Meanwhile Clinton testified for 11 hours because she isn't guilty of anything.

sounds about right.

I have been basically asking that question 'what has Clinton done that is so bad' for more than 20 years now, rarely ever get a strong answer

Don't forget bleaching hard drives and smashing phones which is obstruction of justice. Or you're a moron and think people randomly do that.

let me try this again

'for more than 20 years people have been telling me that Clinton is pure evil and a horrible choice but not able to explain why'

so to be clear, this is the first real attempt in more than 20 years that I have heard and its over things that happend less than 5 years ago.

I am not making excuses for it (I will look into the accuracy of the claims if i get a chance) but I am just illustrating 20+ years vs just a few years ago

took me 5 seconds to find out those claims are false

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-facts/

the second claim of 'smashing cell phones' was 1. not done by her. 2. seemingly not a bad move when you think your govement phone has been hacked by another country

What would Clinton be in jail for?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/

Okay, I'll go with this instead. She didn't do it at random, nor did she do it to conceal evidence. She submitted the deleted emails to review, she was told she could delete them, and she told her firm to delete them. They didn't delete all of them when they were supposed to, which is why they deleted them three weeks after the subpoena was served. Really, they should have been deleted three months before she received the subpoena. And multiple investigations have found no ties between the emails and Benghazi. They had concrete evidence in the case of Scooter Libby, they have none in the case of Hillary Clinton. But it's no surprise that a discussion of hypocrisy on the part of a high-ranking Republican ends in a discussion about perpetual right-wing boogeyman Hillary Clinton. Whataboutism isn't the right's first play in the playbook, it is the entire playbook.

You don't think she had anything to do with it? That's insane.

No that's not what you do.

oh my god the outrage!

lol....

yeah at least its better then it was in the 90s which was 'she is evil because she is talking'

How would we know if there was any evidence since it was deleted and destroyed?

Oh boy, where do we start:

1. Born a female

2. Stayed married to an adulterer.

3. Ummm...

4. Hmmm...

5. When she talks, it seems like she is yelling sometimes?

6. *scratches head*

Yeah I've never met a crowd so unconvinced they won and beat the opposition. So they just keep trying to beat them. Except the opposition has packed up and left. It's like someone in the winter Olympics talking about how much the other bobsled dudes suck and you're like "IT'S THE SUMMER OLYMPICS! Let it go!"

It is really silly how folks are bashing other folks for bringing up Hillary Clinton in a thread about Hillary Clinton.

Why is that? They haven't found anything on Clinton so would a person be reasonable that thinks that?

bu bu the emails

That can't be right. Only guilty people plead the fifth. Donald taught me that...

So, guilty until proven innocent, then? Guess that applies to Trump too, right?

So funny how a thread about Jeff Sessions keeps coming back to Hillary Clinton. It's almost as if you don't want to talk about Republican hypocrisy.

He's just trying to make nice with Trump to not get fired.

wow!

guilty because he might have destroyed evidence but we do not have any evidence that something like that happend.

and on top of it, statistics is just BS.

wow!

Wow! It's like you can't put 2 and 2 together.

couldnt that be said for 100% of all people in public service? 'guilty! because they might have destroyed evidence'

true for EVERYONE alive or dead

I didn't say she was guilty. I just said we'll never know because she destroyed a mass amount of evidence that was involved in the process of determining her innocence.

which is true for everyone on the planet.

everyone could be guilty of almost anything and we will never know if they are innocent

because they might have destroyed evidence

There was no might. They destroyed evidence.

everyone destroyed evidence because we have no way of proving that they didnt.

got it, well at least you are taking the higher moral ground in life.

later

@tryit: How are you not banned yet? You know what i'm talking about yet you're rambling about nothing, using circular logic and just plain trolling.

no I do not know what you are talking about.

you are saying 'she is guilty' BECAUSE 'we dont know if she destroyed evidence'

that is true for 100% of the people on the planet.

now please...calm yourself

do you not even notice the contradictions here?

If its Trump its not true because we dont have strong evidence

If its Hillary 'we could have destroyed the evidence so she is guilty'

come on !!

I said, we don't know if she is guilty or not.

When she found out she was being investigated and the email shit hit because her private server she deleted thousands of emails.

The very thing she was being investigated for, she had deleted and then handed over select emails. Stop throwing in imaginary scenarios because we already know what happened.

ah..gotcha fair enough my bad I thought you were saying something else

but to be fair, just because emails get hacked doesnt mean the content of the email likely has guilty information.

so it could be said about all emails ever deleted for any reason.

It doesn't look good though. We'll never know for sure.

think about this

1. I get my emails hacked

2. I delete what emails I can for national security reasons

3. a random person makes the claim that I was destroying evidence of illegal activities

4. doesnt look good.

basically it 'does look good' becasue she did what she should have done if there is a breach of security at that level but because someone random person made a random claim with no evidence it now 'looks bad'

nope

some asshat basically just made up a random assertion about the possibility of the contents of those emails and that is all it takes to make her 'look bad'

That's not what you do in those situations. You can actually get fired for your line of thinking.

I would think you absolutely would do that.

If you are secertary of state and you think your email just got hacked by a foreign country I would think that yes..you want to delete emails as quickly as possible.

but even if your not suppose to, the assumption is that its criminal content and not just politically embarrassing?

'I am selling nuclear weapons to iran'

instead of

'how hot did you think I was in that skirt yesterday'

why is it if is a liberal the tendency is always to default to the absolutely worst assumption even without evidence but with a Con you need a more mountains of evidence then even Trump has against him

ah n64dd complaining about someone trolling, that's pretty funny

Allegedly. Saying that she destroyed evidence assumes that what she destroyed was evidence in the first place. Circular reasoning is circular. I'll also remind you of that whole pesky "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Clinton is still innocent, Libby was found guilty. Again, what's your excuse?

exactly

very different from what we think Cohen was about to do (given an active investigation) which justified the warrant

She destroyed emails. Emails is the focus of the investigation. If you can't connect the dots, god help you.

not accurate.

that would mean the contents of the emails contained conversations about hacking emails and deleting emails.

the content of the emails where not part of the case, so the content of the emails would not proove or disproove anything related to the investigation you are refering to

this enire conversation is a bit like being outraged that someone deleted some files from Chelsea Manning disk just before she gave it to wikileaks AND on top of it trying to suggest the content of the disk itself on its own standing is somehow in of itself evidence of theft

All her emails were part of the case.

Just stop talking man.