You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: My initial thoughts on the current Judge Roy Moore controversy
Easiest prediction ever: Roy Moore will not be the next Senator from Alabama.
Oddly, so many of those who presume his innocence until proven guilty don't extend the same benefit of the doubt to anyone name Clinton.
Clinton has plenty of evidence against her so she has been PROVEN guilty in many cases. Yet they treat her unlike anyone else I know of. I mean that literally ANYONE. She is allowed to get away with things when they have the evidence, while they will hang anyone not her for far less.
So comparing Clinton to ANYONE else that may have done things on accentuates how messed up the system is. She is likely the most corrupt political figure I have ever encountered. I have researched her extensively. I used to like her. Until I did research of my own. I also think it'd be cool to have a woman as president, but I don't consider gender a good reason to elect someone. It might be a good tie breaker if a man and a woman were neck and neck. I'd go for the woman then just because it hasn't been done. Yet, if it were not a tie then Gender doesn't mean anything to me and I see it as a very poor reason to elect anyone. That includes being a man.
Yet Clinton very much reminds me of a mafia Don. She is smart. She practices the Rules of the Radical by Saul Alinsky very well. This is not surprising since he was one of her mentors. One of their rules is to blame your opposition for the things that you do. It's in the book.
As to Roy Moore. I kind of doubt he will be Senator for Alabama either. It is a sad state when all a person do is make a claim without any evidence, or proof and that is all that is required. This is NOT the case with Clinton. The evidence is overwhelming. It is not just opinion. It is not just allegations. They have acknowledged the evidence. They just don't do a damn thing to her.
I just don't buy it.
Let's assume for the moment that Hillary Clinton has indeed committed a litany of felonies and that there exists copious actual evidence of said crimes.
Trump has a long history of throwing people (including close associates) under the bus.
We have a President who's led crowds in chants of "Lock her up! Lock her up!"
A President who's made it quite clear that all Federal employees are his to command.
An Attorney General who has a history as a junk yard dog. And a bevy of United States Attorneys appointed by Trump, every one of them an aggressive prosecutor. Has there ever been a U.S. Attorney who wasn't ambitious? Prosecuting and convicting Clinton would be a huge prize for anyone's career. Fame and fortune, at a minimum.
Even if Clinton was a mafia Don, so what? The DOJ has a long history of crushing mafia Dons.
If Clinton is even possibly as guilty of as many crimes as folks on the right claim, in what possible universe would she not be indicted? Trump, Sessions, and dozens of ambitious prosecutors have zero reason to give her a pass.
They don't deny it. Much of it was in the wikileaks email release. They don't deny the contents of those emails. They just focus on how it was leaked in the first place.
That is common these days. If a leaker reports a crime. Shoot the messenger.
You don't have to buy anything just do the damn research. Dig deep into Hillary and there is nothing to BUY. She get's away with tons of stuff that NO ONE else does that I can find.
Really? That's why he hasn't forced Jeff Sessions to do anything.
Do you really buy into Slate and Talking Points Memo propaganda?
I have a suggestion for you. Ditch that type of outlet for awhile. In fact ditch ANY outlet. Go research yourself. That is what I did. Go all the way back to Watergate and work forward if you want to go back to around where I did. So during the time of Richard Nixon. Work your way forward in time.
Then you may actually have the background where we can at least discuss it. Slate, and Talking Points Memo clearly have not done this. In reality, most people haven't.
OFCOL. Trump could fire Sessions in a heartbeat and replace him with someone who's even more of a toady.
As I said, assume that Clinton is guilty and that all of your research is spot on. Indicting her and convicting her might well hand Washington to populist conservatives for a generation. If so, I cannot imagine a scenario where Trump and Company would have any reason to not indict her.
No he can't. Look what happens any time he fires or talks about replacing anyone. Those sites I mentioned are all over it.
He could fart and they'll write about how he looked awkward or didn't position his butt cheeks properly.
As to why Clinton isn't prosecuted. She isn't the only one involved. A lot of these things impact a lot of other people in BOTH parties. It is one of those things if people truly go after her who will get caught up right along with her.
That seems to be the most likely reason she has not been indicted. Those that would have to go after her would very possibly get caught up in it. This is certainly true of both Comey and Mueller.
Like I said... don't guess, don't assume, don't let outlets do your thinking for you. Research with no opinions but your own. Though it is really noisy out there so getting to info past all the noise is a lot tougher than it was a few years ago when I really dug. So it can be a challenge to find the information when it is buried among so many other news stories from ALL sides.
Yet going all the way back to Watergate you'll find her technically committing crimes.
Why isn't she indicted?
That is easy. There is a double standard. She isn't the only one not indicted for crimes, she is just one of those that has the most crimes I am aware of to be indicted for.
There are a lot of people getting away with things.
Many of those people are targeting Trump for things that are pretty petty when you put it side by side with what they themselves have done.
Trump has his hands tied pretty heavily by the propaganda machine and dirt slinging. Fire Sessions in a Heartbeat. That is bullshit. Look what happened when he fired Comey. Suddenly we have a Russian Collusion Investigation and Obstruction of Justice and MILLIONS of dollars spent following it. Honestly he should have fired Comey long before that.
At this point I'd say he should fire Sessions if all Sessions is going to do is recuse himself and go after marijuana.
He could fire Sessions today. Of course those sites would complain. So what? Republicans control the White House, both chambers of Congress, and the Supreme Court.
I just don't buy the supposed double standard assertion. Conservatives have everything to gain and nothing to lose from sending a Clinton to a Supermax. That they are not doing so speaks volumes.
Yeah I don't really care if you buy it or not. I also don't care about Appeals to the Stone such as OFCOL.
I gave you my recommendations. If you only listen to media outlets and you form your opinions based upon what they tell you and you decide some are not worth viewing and others are not then you've already BOUGHT someone else's line.
My advice was to throw those all aside and go do some research of your own.
Until you do that then you may not BUY what I said. Yet, you clearly have BOUGHT something.
EDIT: And I don't care if you buy what I say. I do care that you have an informed opinion if you wish to discuss it. So far I've seen assumptions and repetition of things I often hear that I completely disagree with.
Here is a challenge for you.
Show me an actual CRIME committed by Trump that is more than opinion and allegations with no evidence.
I've looked. So far haven't seen it.
That doesn't mean I agree with everything Trump does. I didn't vote for him.
Yet, I know opinions and speculations do not make things factual and are not evidence.
In the meantime... Hillary HAS committed crimes. She was not indicted for doing more than other people have spent years in jail just with her email issues alone.
As to Watergate... look into the documents she took home, and then told the courts they did not exist. ;) That was back in Richard Nixon's time... that is the oldest CRIME that I know of... she just expanded her skills from there.
She is also very good at the rules Saul Alinsky penned to paper.
Also it is not just the sites complaining. Mueller and his many million dollar witch hunt was justified due to Trump firing Comey. So you are deluded if you think he could fire Sessions without similar outcomes.
There are really four groups in the government.
There are the "establishment" which are people that have been there regardless of which party the president is in. Many of them more than 30 years in office. This is a problem with no term limits. These established people really don't act all that different from each other regardless of party. Neither of them actually tends to do what they run for office to do. They just keep the establishment going. They really are Republican or Democrat in NAME ONLY.
Then the other two are actual Republicans or Democrats.
Then there are third party or independents of which there are not many.
The problem is that while in LABEL the Republicans Control the government. In reality, the Establishment controls the government.
That is very clear if you pay attention and it crosses party boundaries.
Many Many first have happened since November 8th, 2016 (some before then) and they were not just from Trump. Look at the unheard of things that people are getting away with.
You call that "control"?