Should Hillary talk to the FBI??

a reply to: SonOfThor

at what point you would admit that Hillary did wrong?

I would admit that she already has done something wrong. Considering how she is watched over like a hawk by anyone and everyone that despise her, she should have never used a personal-private email server. It was stupid of her to do that.

As far as legality is concerned, I will NOT condemn her to guilt until she is found guilty in the court of law and the evidence has been presented. At this point, I think it is safe to say that if the Justice Department does indict her, their case would have to be very, very good, and I believe it would be reasonable to conclude that her guilt is almost certain.

But I believe in due process and innocent until proven guilty. That goes beyond politics and I would apply that to everyone equally. Unfortunately, many people do not think that way and wish for her to be guilty because of their political or personal hatred of Hillary.

a reply to: introvert

It is good that you agree that she has done illegal things.

One thing to note though - you said:

Considering how she is watched over like a hawk by anyone and everyone that despise her

She should not have done these things regardless of whether anyone was watching her. That is the foundation of being a moral and ethical person - doing the right thing even if no one notices or is watching.

And she is not in trouble because people despise her and caught her doing something she should not have done.
People despise her because of what she has done.

ETA: Also, this is one of those rare type of cases where not being convicted does not necessarily mean innocence.
In her situation, there are many reasons that could result in lack of conviction that have nothing to do with innocence.
Normally, innocent until proven guilty is true.
In this case, there is enough already known to prove legal guilt, according to many experts.

a reply to: RickinVa

You're a real comedian Rick.

a reply to: BlueAjah

It is good that you agree that she has done illegal things.

That is not what I said. What's up with reading comprehension today?

She should not have done these things regardless of whether anyone was watching her. That is the foundation of being a moral and ethical person - doing the right thing even if no one notices or is watching.

It is disingenuous to confuse morality with legality. Morality is subjective. Legality is not.

People despise her because of what she has done.

People despise her because of her politics. She has not been convicted of any crime.

ETA: Also, this is one of those rare type of cases where not being convicted does not necessarily mean innocence.
In her situation, there are many reasons that could result in lack of conviction that have nothing to do with innocence.
Normally, innocent until proven guilty is true.
In this case, there is enough already known to prove legal guilt, according to many experts.

I hope you realize how that makes very little sense.

a reply to: introvert

ok, you said:

I would admit that she already has done something wrong.

And then, you say:

It is disingenuous to confuse morality with legality. Morality is subjective. Legality is not.

So, what do you think that she did wrong?
Was it morally wrong, or legally wrong?

I happen to think it was both.
But the illegality has been confirmed by experts with much more knowledge about such things.

Some people may despise her because of her politics.
Some, like me, despise her because of her actions, many dangerous, despicable actions, detailed in many threads here, and her attitude showing that she believes that she is above the law and can do whatever she wants with no risk of being arrested for it.

a reply to: BlueAjah

So, what do you think that she did wrong? Was it morally wrong, or legally wrong?

Neither. I think some of her decisions were poorly made and were wrong, but none of those decisions offend my personal sense of morality and she has not been convicted of any crimes.

But the illegality has been confirmed by experts with much more knowledge about such things.

Really? Anyone that has the proper information relating to the current investigation would not be at liberty to discuss the details of the case openly. So any "experts" that have discussed this case can only comment based on very little information. That's hardly enough to compel an intelligent, honest person to come to any conclusion.

Some, like me, despise her because of her actions, many dangerous, despicable actions, detailed in many threads here

Most of the "details" in threads on this site are complete bull#. What happened in Benghazi is one example.

Some people may despise her because of her politics.

Forgive me if I reasonably conclude you are one of those people.

a reply to: Sillyolme

The computer wasn't set up by the boy next door. She had a security expert set it up.

Actually...

He was NOT a 'security expert' by any means, from his resume:

TECHNICAL CERTIFICATIONS
MCSE NT and 2000 Certified, CCNA Certified, A+ Certified, CCA Certified

None of the above-listed certifications are specializations in cyber-security. In IT terms, he is very much 'the boy next door.'

Oh, and about this:

The investigation is a security inquiry no matter what you believe.

You might want to crawl out from under that HIllary-rock you've been living under:

Hillary Clinton for months has downplayed the FBI investigation into her private email server and practices as a mere “security inquiry.”

But when asked Wednesday by Fox News about Clinton's characterization of the bureau's probe, FBI Director James Comey said he doesn’t know what "security inquiry" means -- adding, “We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do.”

Fox News

Hope you're hungry for crow, there's a murder being cooked up for you right now...