1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Hillary Clinton for prison?

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Thunderlane, Nov 13, 2016.

  1. Thunderlane

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bruxelles
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    All but family
    Now that Donald Trump is president, can he put Clinton on trial?
     
  2. AlamoCity

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,656
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Lone Star State
    The President's Attorney General could appoint a special prosecutor, but I think it would lose legitimacy to many because it would be seen as political. Or Obama could just issue her a pardon on 1/20/17 for crimes that "may or may not have been committed" a la Ford/Nixon just to nip it in the bud.

    Trump may just see a Clinton trial as too much of a loss of political capital so early in a divisive campaign to even warrant attention.
     
  3. ThatBorussenGuy

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,054
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    Between the posts
    Gender:
    Male (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    A few people
    I think he could, but I don't think he actually will. I think one of his surrogates came out and said something like, "Yeah, that was just something we said on the campaign trail", implying that it was just BS to get votes. I don't think he gives enough of a damn to do so, honestly.
     
  4. europeanguy

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    somewhere
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Family only
    As much as i hate trump (even though im not even american) the stuff ive read that she did. maybe he can, but maybe due to family connections or money or just generally her power she probably cant be.


    plus trump has alot of cases against him
     
  5. Asking

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    New York
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    A few people
    No, it's illegal. It would be Double Jeopardy, as she was tried and passed for her emails already. I'm shocked nobody pounced on that fact, but it's true. I think it's horrible that he promised that, you lock your opponents up in places with no democracy.
     
  6. Chip

    Board Member Admin Team Advisor Full Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,797
    Likes Received:
    3,634
    Location:
    northern CA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    There's been no criminal trial for any of Clinton's alleged crimes, so there's no double jeopardy involved here. It would be entirely possible to bring bogus charges against her.

    That said, I agree that Trump has too many other things to worry about, and he's got to know that he's a hated man... and he's backtracking and tapdancing on a *lot* of his prior promises... so my guess is he won't want to waste political capital on this issue.

    It's looking more and more like he'll not do most of what he's claimed while campaigning, and he might just have done the best trolling job ever on the ignorant and under-educated folks that were his strongest supporters.
     
  7. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    It would be absolutely fucked up were he to attempt to do so, and it would push the United States out of most democracy indices' rankings as an advanced democracy. And Trump's political legitimacy is already weak enough that I think even the more boisterously authoritarian among his advisers wouldn't recommend it.

    All Trump can do is request that an investigation be opened. A special prosecutor must conduct an investigation and then seek to actually prosecute after that investigation results in a sufficiently reasonable case for conviction to pursue.

    In all likelihood, that would never happen. A special prosecutor would have to go out on a limb to prove criminal misconduct and she almost certainly would never be convicted. But even to recommend it given the level of scrutiny the case has already undergone and the fact that the Republican FBI chief already may well have been the ultimate cause of Trump's win, it would be such an outrageous breach of democratic standards that even Trump must see it's inappropriate.
     
  8. Andrew99

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2013
    Messages:
    3,293
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Arizona
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I thought Hilary was cleared?
     
  9. faustian1

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    722
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Well sure. When Richard Nixon resigned, he could have been indicted for a number of things. President Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon. For good reason.

    It would be tasteless and hideous for Hillary Clinton to be put on trial. I am sincere about this. Even though I am positive, given the treatment of people like Bradley/Chelsea Manning and others such as Daniel Ellsberg, that if Hillary Clinton wasn't connected she'd be indicted for putting classified information on a private server. No question about it.

    It would be a sideshow to put her on trial, something so bad that the Kardashians would be jealous. Also, whatever voters think of Hillary Clinton, she served with some distinction in the Senate and as Secretary of State. She doesn't deserve to be hounded like that, after losing the election.

    As little confidence as I have in Donald Trump's administration, I perhaps would reach unprecedented levels of appalled if he even went there. I think most people would. We don't like kicking people when they are down. It is undignified. Yes, it doesn't prevent us from doing it sometimes, but it's always ugly.
     
  10. findingjoy

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2016
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    130
    Location:
    NYC
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    What if she were guilty of serious crimes? For example, if she really were selling favors to foreign governments, then that's pretty serious. Should she just walk free? What if she really rigged the primaries?

    If she were really guilty of either, it would send a very dangerous message to not prosecute her.
     
  11. faustian1

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    722
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    I'd say that rigging the primaries, well that's something that Democrats (and Republicans) have perfected over decades. Chicago's notoriously corrupt government is a fine example.

    But your question, "What if she were guilty of serious crimes?," is reasonable enough to ask. If she were selling favors to foreign governments, or hiring hit men, or something like that, then of course I'd revise my answer.

    Let's return to Illinois for a moment. In Illinois, there appears to be an unwritten rule that anyone serving as governor must--is required somehow--to be sentenced to prison afterward. Otto Kerner, Ryan, Blago, etc. All of them were convicted of "serious" crimes. So yes, depending on your definition of "serious," it would be foolish to give politicians a pass. I have to say, though, that sending all those Illinois governors to prison hasn't helped the problem of corruption in Illinois. That problem, apparently, has been caused by voters having poor taste in governors, or in the balloting systems the crooks have "fixed" having poor taste, whichever you prefer.

    For a lot of things, if you don't like Hillary Clinton, then isn't it possible that losing the election to someone like Donald Trump is "punishment enough?" There apparently are a lot of people unable to explain, how Trump managed not to lose. I see they're having difficulty doing this.

    I know a lot of people are enraged by Clinton, and also by Trump depending on the person. However, there's a reason elections are over. In any case, people ought to have the same passions for issues on Sunday as they did last Monday. That's why turning from the Trump/Clinton drama and making sure our government knows what we think of important issues (war, torture, lgbt rights, the economy, trade, student loans, and hundreds more) needs to be our priority.

    It's hard for me to be kind to two-party politicians like Clinton and Trump in this post, but I do it to move on and go forward and not lose my focus too much. I hope many others can join me in that.
     
  12. Daydreamer1

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    5,680
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Gender:
    Male (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I don't think so, especially since the FBI cleared Clinton. Funny how he's all for jailing her, but not Bush when he "deleted" 22 million emails.
     
  13. AmyBee

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Japan
    Is this what we want to spend the next four years or so spending money on? Whatever she did or didn't do (spoiler alert: She didn't), Trump has a lot more important things to deal with including his own fraud trials. Spending millions of taxpayer dollars persecuting/prosecuting HRC simply because some people hate her guts when those same people have already wasted millions of dollars and hours on (oh, and by the way, she made them look like monkeys when she actually had to testify in front of them for 11 hours) is stupid, petty, vindictive and the stuff actual dictatorships are made of. Is that what people specifically voted on Trump to do? Punish HRC for their own projected nightmares? I thought it was to build a wall or something.

    Ridiculous.
     
  14. SkyWinter

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2016
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    GA
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    A few people
    The fact? You're telling me that the head of the FBI stole the election for Trump? Are you just reading from the Hillary playbook? Where is your proof?

    No, the reason Trump won is because people voted for him. I thought that was kinda obvious.
     
  15. Quem

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Key to Aussie's statement is: "may well have been", indicating a possibility. "The fact that it may (well) have been" is an expression.
     
    #15 Quem, Nov 13, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2016
  16. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    And people vote for reasons, among which could have been the FBI director's letters to Congress.

    If you read my statement again, there's a fairly clear indication that I am not saying that the role of the FBI definitely caused this outcome. I merely stated that it might have been the ultimate cause, but that it is certainly a fact that the FBI had a role - the only uncertainty is whether it was decisive in swaying swing voters. It is a fact that Clinton's polling suffered after the first letter to congressional Republicans. It is also a fact that the second letter clearing her yet again came two days before the election.

    That was a statement of possibility, for which I don't need positive proof.

    What is most important is that there certainly exists a legitimate perception that there was either political carelessness or partisanship on the FBI's part, which had a yet unassessed role in the election. The DNC's post-mortem and later academic work will no doubt tell us more.

    To compound the already difficult question, of whether the FBI favours one party over another, by encouraging a President who is already mistrusted in his commitment to liberal democracy to attempt to prosecute the leader of his opposition is a terrible thing to do, and it's why I mentioned that issue.

    American democratic institutions are under enough strain. That's why, as a mutual act of preserving your republic, I believe that short of state-sponsored persecution (including using executive prerogatives to bring about the prosecution opposition members), Democrats and the left must begrudgingly accept the legal legitimacy of the impending Trump presidency. A prosecution, however, could bring that mutual good faith into question.
     
  17. Austin

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I don't know if he can, to be honest. It sounds like he could. But, I don't think he will. He is now going to be president, of EVERYONE, and I think he really will try not to divide the country up further... Plus I don't think he really even cares.
     
  18. Psaurus918

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utica, New York
    He won because of the electoral votes. Hilary won the popular vote because people voted and wanted her
     
  19. SkyWinter

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2016
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    GA
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    A few people
    You write a lot of stuff in response to simple questions, which would be fine if I actually thought there was some substance worth considering in your posts and you weren't just backpedaling and trying to reframe what you originally said. Isn't it a lot easier to just say you spoke incorrectly than it is to play these games?
     
  20. happydavid

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Messages:
    1,617
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    A town near Birmingham England
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    She has been proven innocent so no