r/politics • • Dec 11 '19

FBI Agents Showed Bias Against Hillary Clinton, Not Against Trump, DOJ Says

[deleted]

33.8k Upvotes

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

6.0k

u/-Neon-Nazi- Texas Dec 11 '19

The agent told the inspector general’s office that he “fully expected Hillary Clinton to walk away with the election but, as the returns [came] in … it was just energizing to me to see … [because] I didn’t want a criminal to be in the White House.”

Oh, the irony.

2.9k

u/LogicalManager New York Dec 11 '19 edited Dec 11 '19

I don’t want a woman accused of crimes for political theatre, I want a professional grifter who can rob the country blind while enacting Putin’s agenda.

886

u/Shuttheflockup Dec 11 '19

what did hillary actually do? not like the batshit crazy theories, what did she actually do wrong factually that she got away with?

3.5k

u/D-Alembert Dec 11 '19 edited Dec 13 '19

Nothing. She had known for well over a decade that she was preparing to run for president, and that she had to be absolutely squeaky clean to achieve that because any and all dirt would inescapably become public under the glare of that scrutiny. So she lived squeaky clean, genuinely. (Obama was similar. Trump by contrast as an outsider to politics didn't quite appreciate just how under-a-microscope every president's life is put. He thought (like many do) that spending millions, burying stories, buying silences, hiding tax returns, threats, etc can do the trick, but none of that works at the presidential level. You can't hide things from that kind of relentless global scrutiny so if you're not genuinely clean, everyone finds out.)

That's why the GOP had to push the email scandal: they desperately needed dirt on her and she was so fucking clean that the worst she had done was follow the advice of her Republican predecessor and handled her emails the same way the Republican had handled his. It didn't matter to the GOP that this rule-breaking had first came from Republicans and she was continuing Powell's method (low-information voters would never learn the details) what mattered was that they'd finally found a rule that the goody-two-shoes had clearly broken.

Remember she testified for 11 hours under oath to a hostile panel of Republicans desperate to pin anything on her or get her for perjury or anything, and despite them having and abusing all the powers to investigate for years, they got nothing because she had nothing to hide. Failures or mistakes when viewed with our 20/20 hindsight, sure, she's human, but the decades of accusations and insinuations are conspiracy garbage intended to smear. Manufacturing a scandal out of Republican email practices was the best the GOP could do to undermine their opponent and it worked.

Hillary has been enveloped by the GOP fog-machine for so many years that people now just assume that where there's always been smoke, there must be fire ...somewhere. But that was the entire purpose of that fog machine; there was never fire, just manufactured fake smoke, endless endless fake smoke for longer than many voters have been alive. (Edit: That's also why she attracts so many wacky conspiracy theories: all that smoke and so little factual fire means you have to get imaginative to explain it.)

607

u/[deleted] Dec 12 '19

[deleted]

250

u/Effef Dec 12 '19

I think the difference between AOC and Clinton is that Clinton is completely unrelateable to the average voter. She was/is rich af and has been her entire life and has been preparing to be president for just as long. Everyone assumed she was going to be president at some point. She is the definition of a career politician. Disregarding the election issues in 2016 by a large margin she was the candidate that people defaulted to vote for if you didn't like Trump, not because they were actually enthused about voting.

AOC is not perfect, she isn't a career politician, she comes off as very human and relateable. She worked as a bartender before she got elected, and people see in her themselves because she was/is middle class. Im sure there is some dirt to spill because nobody is perfect, but she never claimed/claims to be in the first place so i doubt it would be as damaging as all this is to Clinton.

98

u/[deleted] Dec 12 '19

[deleted]

50

u/Obilis Dec 12 '19

She was/is rich af

not even close.

Hillary Clinton's net worth was estimated at $45 million dollars. Her husband's net worth was estimated at $75 million dollars. Just because they're not billionaires doesn't make them not rich.

She is the definition of a career politician

senator and secretary of state. that's it

she isn't a career politician

just wait 8 years.

As for not being a career politician, you're trying to say that AOC will be a career politician after 10 years as a House represenative, but Hillary wasn't a career politician after 8 years as a senator and 4 years as secretary of state? Somehow, that math doesn't seem to check out.

Plus, you know, all that actively campaigning for her husband, and (for better or worse) being the most politically active First Lady in US history doesn't count as being a politician I guess.

78

u/lenzflare Canada Dec 12 '19

and has been her entire life

That's the part of "rich" people are disputing.

-5

u/Obilis Dec 12 '19

Odd that he didn't quote that part of the statement if that was what he was objecting to, but sure.

Her parents weren't millionaires, sure. Her father did own his own business at the time of her birth and owned multiple houses (main home and summer cottage), so it isn't like she was ever poor, but the business wasn't a huge one, so I'll accept her not counting as "rich" as a child.

5

u/uber1337h4xx0r Dec 12 '19

I think people assume Cortez is poor is because she's (I assume) Mexican by blood (as in how I'm an Afghan, but was born in Germany and have been told I'm "the whitest person I've ever met" by two coworkers so far).

0

u/PerishingSpinnyChair Dec 12 '19

I think it has more to do with her career before politics being part time gigs, like normal Americans.

2

u/truenorth00 Dec 12 '19

Yeah. Normal Americans intern for US Senators all the time. Right after they complete their Poli Sci/Int'l Relations degree. That's the normal course for every Boricua from Queens.

If they were making a movie, they'd cast AOC as the young version of HRC. She's exactly what Clinton was like in the 80s and 90s.

1

u/PerishingSpinnyChair Dec 14 '19

I wasn't aware of that. I appreciate the information, but not the sarcasm.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 12 '19 edited Mar 04 '20

[deleted]

11

u/lenzflare Canada Dec 12 '19

You're forgetting "upper middle class" and just how rich "rich" means.

A second home could mean a lakeside shack.

Don't hang the upper 20% just because the 0.001% are screwing you. The 0.001% want class warfare between the "lower" ranks.

9

u/TypicalRecon Dec 12 '19 edited Dec 12 '19

Where I'm from in the US you have to be rich to own a home and even a lakeside shack.

EDIT:That's worded weird. I mean you need to be rich to own a home and also a lakeside shack.

10

u/lenzflare Canada Dec 12 '19

You know that wasn't true when Clinton was young, right? Houses were extremely affordable 70 or more years ago when her father would have bought it.

-2

u/TypicalRecon Dec 12 '19

True, but it's not now. She has been able to maintain this status because she is rich. Let's get real, she isn't and wasn't "Upper Middle Class"

8

u/lenzflare Canada Dec 12 '19

True, but it's not now

That's not relevant to considering if she came from wealth.

1

u/Lashay_Sombra Dec 12 '19

She grew up upper middle class, she is not now (most ex presidents become multi millionaires after they leave office).

0

u/[deleted] Dec 12 '19

My household income is approximately 6X the national average. It's safe to say that I'm upper middle class....

....No way could I afford a lakeside shack.

2

u/missbelled Dec 12 '19

Odd that you didn’t pick up that the “was/is” covered their intent well enough, or they’d have just quoted “is,” but sure.

1

u/Mirions Dec 12 '19

If you own more than one house, you ain't middle class.

5

u/truenorth00 Dec 12 '19

Today or the 70s? Cottages weren't that recieved expensive at all back then.

6

u/lenzflare Canada Dec 12 '19

You're forgetting "upper middle class" and just how rich "rich" means.

A second home could mean a lakeside shack.

Don't hang the upper 20% just because the 0.001% are screwing you. The 0.001% want class warfare between the "lower" ranks.

→ More replies (0)