How many of the OV35 folks think they should still pursue Hillary

[bodyhard]

and indict her, or just say the hell with it, she is no longer a threat?

Me I am not sure, I never really wanted her to go to prison, I just didn't want her to be the POTUS. I also could not believe that during the election common sense was thrown out the window when she deleted her emails and broke her cell phones.....I mean seriously WTF??

With that said, I really am not sure one way or another, however I am leaning more towards, leave her alone, she is old and going to prison at her age is kind of f'cked up.

How about you guys what do you think?

[EdwardTheGreat]

A crook's a crook, lock her up.

[Karl_Hungus]

I would leave it up to the FBI, but if it is determined that she broke the law, then she should absolutely face the same consequences that any other citizen would face.

[bodyhard]

A crook's a crook, lock her up.

Kool, I can respect that, right to the point.

I would leave it up to the FBI, but if it is determined that she broke the law, then she should absolutely face the same consequences that any other citizen would face.

So you are saying they should pursue it?

[Mark1T]

If it were me, I would not pursue. Yes, it would not please some, but it is time to start fresh and not pour salt on open wounds.

Agree also with Karl.

[Karl_Hungus]

So you are saying they should pursue it?

If the FBI thinks it is worthy of pursuit, then absolutely. Do I think DT should go after her? No.

[Iceman1800]

Nope, let it go. All it would do is further the divide in this country. The government should focus on fixing what's broke instead of going on a witch hunt. The last estimate is $500 million of our tax dollars investigating her already. Future actions would push this over a billion.

[DuracellBunny]

I think that they should ignore the fact that the accused is Hillary Clinton and treat her as Jane Doe. If Jane Doe passes the evidentiary threshold to prosecute, then prosecute, if not, don't.

Lets be honest though, as a former first lady, senator and presidential candidate, she is never going to prison. Whatever happens, this will be a sore that festers and people will pick at the scab for decades.

[fishnbrah]

let her go? they cant just let her go, shes still under 2 investigations as we speak. both clintons are being investigated for their foundation btw

[bodyhard]

My question is not based on if she is guilty or not, or if Trump should pursue her ver the FBI, my question is to the folks on here. Do YOU think she should be pursued (regardless if she is guilty or not) or just let it go?

[2nd_chance]

How would the rest of the citizenship of the country be dealt with under the same circumstances? My guess is that they would be pursued. I don't want her to be singled out, just treated the same with no special favors.

[DuracellBunny]

My question is not based on if she is guilty or not, or if Trump should pursue her ver the FBI, my question is to the folks on here. Do YOU think she should be pursued (regardless if she is guilty or not) or just let it go?

I don's see how the optics would allow her to just be let go, but that's just me. The establishment is viewed as being corrupt and HC as being, at the very least, complicit in that corruption. What message does it send to the country if the establishment gives her a free pass and says "nothing to see here".

Treat her the same as anybody else; otherwise the system is worthless.

[MissHolly]

How would the rest of the citizenship of the country be dealt with under the same circumstances? My guess is that they would be pursued. I don't want her to be singled out, just treated the same with no special favors.

This.

Trump should have the FBI pursue this and he needs to take a backseat. He doesn't need to hammer it home or gloat in any way. That would lead to more division in the country. Let the FBI do their job and see what happens.

[bodyhard]

So it appears (at least from the post thus far) that the consensus is, pursue her, just like anyone else would get pursued. It is more along the lines of the "law" more so of what each individual thinks.

Example, (and this is an extreme example) if your mother/father killed someone and you knew about it, would you turned them in, or would you not say anything?

I know most here wont answer this truthfully but I think some will

[Karl_Hungus]

My question is not based on if she is guilty or not, or if Trump should pursue her ver the FBI, my question is to the folks on here. Do YOU think she should be pursued (regardless if she is guilty or not) or just let it go?

She is currently under investigation already, so yes, I think the FBI should continue with that investigation until it has reached a proper conclusion.

[Jdizzlean]

A crook's a crook, lock her up.

unfortunately, Obama is almost certain to give her a blanket pardon on his last day in office and it'll all go away.

cronyism ftw.

[DuracellBunny]

So it appears (at least from the post thus far) that the consensus is, pursue her, just like anyone else would get pursued. It is more along the lines of the "law" more so of what each individual thinks.

Example, (and this is an extreme example) if your mother/father killed someone and you knew about it, would you turned them in, or would you not say anything?

I know most here wont answer this truthfully but I think some will

I'd turn them in. What they did was either justified and/or in self defence, in which case they should clear their name and get on with their lives or it was murder and they deserve to be judged. The law either applies to everybody or to nobody.

This comes from somebody who had a relative serve time for manslaughter.

[Mark1T]

This is a tough scenario. I do not disagree with most here, but to further divide the country, I do not know. Yes, she should be dealt with like any other citizen, but it seems that our government is always bogged down with hearings and not doing what they were elected to do.

[caprica6]

Here's an in-depth story on the origins of the whole mess if anyone is interested. Hillary sounds a lot like my mom - extremely bright but overwhelmed by tech at times. My mom is a doctor and she retired partly b/c she couldn't keep up with the demands of email. With privacy laws, an overwhelmed IT dept and outdated operating systems at work she had trouble getting support setting up secure access to hospital info and email at home. She had to stay at work until late at night to respond to stupid emails.

Pretty crazy. Someone on Hillary's staff fedexed a laptop to another location for tech help at one point.

The program aired on This American Life on NPR:
https://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio...er-domain-name

And here are the transcripts:
https://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio...601/transcript

[Iceman1800]

Go back in history and look at the effect of Ford pardoning Nixon. A political suicide but it was necessary for the country.

[Mark1T]

Go back in history and look at the effect of Ford pardoning Nixon. A political suicide but it was necessary for the country.

I objectively agree. To do that would not be easy, but may be for the greater good.

[JUSA]

I think they should look into it and see what's there. If she's a criminal and it can be proven, they need to expose her and serve justice.

The worst thing which could happen is that she's guilty of some stuff, but it's fairly minor. The left would be upset. It'd be better if she's actually fairly clean OR if she's just unbelievably dirty. If it's the later, at some point when more and more comes out - everyone will turn on her. How many liberal friends do you have who would defend John Edwards in 2016?

Now that her political career is pretty much over, she's not going to save the US from Trump (as they see it), there isn't as much sense to be loyal to her. They probably will, if they investigate and only find a little dirt, the second worst would be if they look into her and she's clean (people would be upset they even went after her) but if even 1/10th of the rumors and what the implications of the Wikileaks suggest turn out to be true -- once it's out, only the most extremist liberals will rally to her (and nobody pays much heed to extremists, nor should they).

[poundXpound]

I like to put the shoe on the other foot. Does anyone here think that if Dick Cheney was under investigation that the dems would have just dropped it after Obama was elected? The investigation should continue. No one should be above the law.

[Squid24]

When a High Ranking Official in the Military gets fired for 1 delete....

How is she any better with the amount she did????

Pursue da Biatch

[Karl_Hungus]

Go back in history and look at the effect of Ford pardoning Nixon. A political suicide but it was necessary for the country.

But this election was a repudiation of the political elites. Pardoning Hillary would simply reinforce the notion that the elites aren't subject to the same rules everyone else, further fomenting distrust of those in government and the system in general. Therefore, I don't believe it is in the best interest of the country to just let her off the hook. Let the legal process unfold as it would for anybody else.

[Karl_Hungus]

I like to put the shoe on the other foot. Does anyone here think that if Dick Cheney was under investigation that the dems would have just dropped it after Obama was elected? The investigation should continue. No one should be above the law.

Truth.

[wesleysh21]

FBI should continue its investigation. Trump needs to step aside and don't fan the flames. Let it be whatever it's going to be and move on.

[KeepItMoving]

Just so it's clear. The FBI does the investigating. The DOJ does the pursuing, if they choose to indict. Under the current power structure and people that occupy the positions of power, she would never be indicted. No way. Never. If there were other people in the DOJ, heck even the FBI. If there is a different Attorney General, then you can consider whether to pursue charges against Hillary. Our government agencies are stinking polluted with leftists who will use their power to advance their ideology, not to pursue justice. Our military is just as corrupted right now, particularly at the highest levels of power.

My point? There needs to be an overhaul of personnel at numerous levels before the rule of law would be applied to someone as powerful to the leftists, anti-Americans in our government as Hillary Clinton. (An when I say anti-American, I apply that literally. These are socialist. These are Communists. These are people who believe that the very founding and establishment of our Country was illegitimate, racist, and needs to be "Fundamentally Changed," by whatever means necessary, including rioting, using the IRS to pursue citizens based upon their political views, using the EPA to kill off businesses that are not part of the crony capitalism of the left, etc. "Anti" American people.) To them, the accomplishment of their ends justifies whatever means they decide to use to achieve it.

Once Trump is able to literally overhaul the personnel and current culture in the DOJ and, to the extent necessary, the FBI, he will be able to even get to the point of considering whether the legal pursuit of Hillary Clinton is worthwhile and substantive.

So, ask this question again in June-July 2017, and let's see where we're at.

I say she should be held accountable under the law. From what I've read and what has been made public, it looks to me like she should be prosecuted. Definitely.

[katya422]

If the FBI has a substantial case I expect Obama will issue a pardon.

Don't think she should be above the law, but also don't see that it is worth it to pursue conviction. A lot of money would be spent trying the case, then probably more than the usual amount if she actually saw a prison cell due to her continued Secret Service protection.

It isn't fair, but then neither was the near complete lack of prosecution of executives following the financial collapse.

[bodyhard]

I'd turn them in. What they did was either justified and/or in self defence, in which case they should clear their name and get on with their lives or it was murder and they deserve to be judged. The law either applies to everybody or to nobody.

This comes from somebody who had a relative serve time for manslaughter.

Thanks for keeping it real.