If Hillary is indicted............

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Herdfan, Jul 1, 2016.

  1. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #1
    With the news that AG Lynch is going to follow the recommendation of the FBI and career prosecutors in the investigation of HRC's emails, I have a question.

    If she is indicted, or the FBI/DOJ recommends indicting her prior to the Democratic Convention, would you

    1) support her for the nomination anyway;
    2) support Sanders since he came in second; or
    3) support someone else such as Biden or someone else not part of the primary process.


    At this point this is a hypothetical discussion about what you would support, or think would happen if she is indicted. Comments about it not happening are not what this discussion is about. Think about it as when California had their recall election of Gray Davis. When people went to vote they had 2 choices, one was to recall or not recall Davis, but the second was who they would choose if he was recalled. We are working on the second choice here, not the first.
     
  2. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #2
    I'd support whoever has the best chance of beating Trump at that point in time.
     
  3. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #3
    What Zioxide said. Hillary's pretty damn bad, but Trump's worse. Though I would think that Hillary being indicted would probably harm her campaign beyond recovery, so...I guess I'll go with Johnson, maybe?

    The worst I can expect from Johnson would be a recession, since almost every attempt to cut government spending, and balance the budget has always resulted in a downturn in the economy. But hell, that's better than Trump!
     
  4. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #4
    I am on the other side of the aisle, but the smartest thing to do would be to put Biden in the mix. That way he could capture people that are not really happy about Trump, people that distrust Clinton and are bummed out about the indictment, and also people who would never vote for a socialist. Even I would not cry if Biden was elected for a term and, again, I am on the opposite side. The reason is that although I might not like his ideas etc, I respect him as a man and also as a politician. Yeah, he had to do the bad stuff that politicians do, but he's on a different field than Clinton/Obama/Bush.
    And if the GOP establishment was smart they would convince Biden to pick a moderate GOP as a VP, effectively capturing almost everything.
     
  5. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #5
    I would still vote for her just based on the pettiness.
     
  6. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #6

    If she were to be indicted on serious charges before the convention, I'd expect she'd withdraw. It's likely Sanders or Biden would be her replacement. I could even see Biden running with Sanders as his VP if that were to happen.

    It's too bad Biden didn't run. A Biden-Sanders ticket would steamroll Trump big time.
     
  7. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #7
    I disagree because evangelicals, far right and even National Review readers couldn't possibly support a socialist together with someone so linked to Obama. Not even if the remaining choice is Trump. Biden would have to go for someone in the GOP if he hopes to win, and given the lack of love for Trump in the GOP, that could happen.
     
  8. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #8
    Biden was always my first choice, so I would go with him. Though I have no idea how this would work.
     
  9. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #9
    It's clear that the FBI indicts it will be before the convention, as much as I dislike the DNC I would feel inappropriate if the FBI had to wait until after the nominee is selected. She would have to withdraw and her delegates would be free to vote for Biden.
     
  10. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #10
    That's the platform the Democrats should've run with to begin with. I understand they like Hillary. All political smearing aside, she is smart, and very accomplished. The problem is she's such a dark shade of grey, dragging so much baggage behind her filled with iffy circumstances and shady dealings, that any personable, relatively stable opposition candidate could pick her to shreds during the debates. She's practically the poster child of the darker side of Washington.

    It's so fortunate for her and the Democrats that Trump became the likely Republican nominee. They're countering bad with something far worse, and practically giving her the presidency, provided she's not indicted.

    Though if that indictment does come to pass, and they end fielding Biden and Sanders, they'll be using that better choice to stabilize themselves as the rug is being pulled out from under their feet. By that point, it may be too little too late, since their reputation will be damaged by association throughout the rest of the campaign.
     
  11. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #11
    Why do you say that? Biden hasn't been very vocal in the past year, since his son died. Prior to that he was rather gaffe prone. His current position as vice president is the only reason anyone would suggest him for the role.
     
  12. maxsix Suspended

    maxsix

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    #12
    It's this perverse thinking that rots America.
     
  13. shinji macrumors 65816

    shinji

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    #13
    The DNC has the final say, whether it happens before or after the convention, and I'm sure they'll go with 3.
     
  14. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #14
    None of Hilary's supporters will leave her if she is indicted. She is their goddess. Plain and simple. She extols their virtues and they approve of her illegal tactics since the means justifies the ends for all her supporters.
     
  15. APlotdevice, Jul 1, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2016

    APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #15
    Because there's nothing so saintly as a candidate who boasts about his own dick.
     
  16. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #16
    Because he's well known and fairly well liked by both sides of the aisle in the senate, where he's spent 6 terms, and has gained a lot of experience in domestic and foreign affairs over the years. He's about the safest, most steady choice you could ask for.
     
  17. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #17
    No. It's money in politics has separated governance from election results.

    Anyway, re the OP: I'd follow my plan which is to vote for Jill Stein. If I didn't live in NY I don't know what I would do if Clinton were indicted.
     
  18. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #18
    Huh. I don't think she could shoot someone on 5th avenue and retain that support like Trump himself said that he could. And Trump supporters don't seem to care that they are voting for a fake con man who defrauded people in his fake "schools". As many people, like Mark Cuban have pointed out, true billionaires don't resort to selling small little items like steaks and water online and doing infomercials to defraud people. But his supporters care about none of this and lap up the kool aid like a dying dog in the desert. It doesn't matter if Trump does illegal things. It doesn't matter if he lies. Trump is their king!
     
  19. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #19
    The FBI doesn't indict. A grand jury indicts, after being presented with evidence and testimony, some of which (maybe much of which) is from the FBI.

    If a grand jury were convened, and that information leaked out (grand juries are supposed to be secret), even without an indictment Hillary's ship would be lying low in the water.
     
  20. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #20
    Yeah, I slipped up there.

    Though one thing to be considered, even the mere suggestion that there's enough evidence to justify an indictment would be harmful to Hillary's campaign, even if a grand jury decides it's not warranted. Considering we seem to be in a scenario where the courts are being used as very effective campaigning tools, that might just be enough to put Hillary under, and force her to withdraw.
     
  21. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #21
    They're not going to vote democrat anyways...
     
  22. mildocjr macrumors 65816

    #22
    I say we all do a write in for Snowden, he's doing a good job of winning the hearts and minds.
     
  23. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #23
    That's absolutely true, I was too fast in typing it up. Thanks for the correction.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 1, 2016 ---
    From The Hill:

    "Roughly 1 in 15 of the approximately 30,000 emails that Clinton gave to the federal government from her private server for safekeeping have been classified at some level. Another 22 were classified as top secret, the highest level of sensitivity."
     
  24. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #24
    But the key part of the puzzle missing in that statement is WHEN were they classified? Many things are classified later on after the fact. Also there is a bit of a tug of war with different agencies disagreeing on what is and what is not classified. The whole classification system needs to be overhauled. We shouldn't have people disagreeing with what constitutes a classified document and all the agencies ought to be on the same page on that.

    Also the standards for email should have been put in place long ago. While I do fault Clinton for not having some common sense on this issue, the State Department's email system and processes were extremely antiquated. American's like to think of the U.S. as the greatest country in the world. But if that were really true shouldn't our infrastructure reflect that? Instead we have government doing things in a 1960's way, and trains that run at a snail's pace compared to the rest of the world. We really need to get moving on this stuff.
     
  25. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #25
    CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling, the first black whistleblower to be prosecuted by the USG under the Espionage Act of 1917 (and by Obama), is sitting in prison right now after being convicted of possessing classified files that were not classified at the time. The US government retroactively classified them. So in Hillary’s case, it doesn’t matter if they were not marked classified at the time. It is irrelevant. Plus, if you read Hillary’s ironclad NDAs with the USG, she was trained to properly identify UNMARKED classified material and how to correctly handle it. Hillary Clinton will be indicted for tons of felonies, including mishandling and sending/possessing classified material up to the TS/SAP level, the highest in existence.
     

Share This Page