this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10176 readers
71 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Archive Link from archive.today

Original Link from The New York Times

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Arguably that’s worse since she could also be charged with destruction of evidence.

but like. she wasn't. she was investigated extensively--and that investigation probably cost her the presidency insofar as any singular thing can be blamed for her loss--and she wasn't. do you have a reasonable explanation for why she'd not be charged with these things if she was actually as damned as you're suggesting?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because the FBI is very clearly politically motivated.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

i'm... sure you recognize that this is quite literally a case where the facts disagree with your personal feelings. i also i don't really know where we can go from here if your earnest belief is the FBI was "politically motivated" into clearing Hillary Clinton when it literally said her actions did not rise to the standard of criminality and again, their investigation may be the single biggest reasons she lost the presidency.