Ethics Quote Of The Week: Hillary Clinton


“There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail.”

Hillary Clinton, in last night’s NBC Presidential debate.

Like Hillary’s infamous declaration that all accusations of sexual assault must be believed, this statement shows a troubling disconnect between Clinton’s own complex and corrupt life and her rhetoric. 15o FBI agents are investigating what may be very serious violations of national security laws by Clinton, with penalties including prison. Shall we presume that Hillary is issuing a preemptive, honorable insistence that if Obama’s ultra-politicized Justice Department is tempted to try to oppose an FBI conclusion that an indictment is warranted by the evidence, it should treat her like anybody else?

25 thoughts on “Ethics Quote Of The Week: Hillary Clinton

  1. I predict that Clinton will never do jail time even if she were to be convicted of violating national security laws.

    If it were to ever go to court, I think Hillary can justifiably claim stupidity; after-all she stupidly lies all the time, she’s stupidly claimed that she didn’t know she was doing anything wrong with the emails, she’s stupidly chosen to live a life sentence as a liberal, and she’s stupidly chosen to to live with Bill Clinton. Maybe she could devise a new form of “affluenza” or a “stupifluenza” defense, I hear there’s lots of that going around these days in the political left. How can we as a society condemn a person to prison that’s so obviously stupid, what would the world think about us.

    Isn’t it obvious that the laws that are wrong, not Hillary Clinton. Oh wait, there’s another Clinton defense.


    • Actually, she CAN correctly assert that the Secretary of State has the authority to decide what the ultimate classification level is of any and all State Department information. Essentially, she can’t be convicted for mishandling something when SHE is the one who sets the policy on how it should be handled.

      In practice, it’s an even bigger mess to take this route, because now we have to start arguing over what the appropriate classification level is every little thing.

      And, of course, this does not extend to classified information that originates outside the State Department.


  2. She will end up in the slammer by the time the ice age rolls around.

    I would post what I seriously feel about Hillary, but would probably have several fed agencies up my arse.

  3. Oh Jack, you fell victim to one of the classic blunders – The most famous of which is “never get involved in a land war in Asia” – but only slightly less well-known is this: “Never go in against a Clinton when prison is on the line”!

    For years republicans have been saying ‘this, this will get the Clintons’ and going full court press only to have it blow up in their faces. They want to too badly, you want it too badly, and you push, then it gets politicized and then the Clinton’s win. I’ve been watching this since I was a tiny little valkygrrl being talked into going out for the track team. As long as it looks like people out to get the Clintons going after the Clintons, it’ll never work, they’re too good at what they do.

    If there’s an investigation, let it happen. Hope it stays on topic because fishing won’t help perception and never appear as if you’re trying to punish your political enemies.

    • Nope. That works for a while. It worked for Nixon for a while too. History shows that very, very few incredibly lucky villains keep getting away with it—they eventually get cocky, or arrogant, or just unlucky. Smarter ones than Hillary have been nailed in the end. Her time is coming.

      • they eventually get cocky, or arrogant

        Which is what I said about republicans thinking that they’ve finally nailed the Clintons. Hubris ain’t just a river in Egypt…. or was that a three way street? Many splendid thing? I’m lost looking for a funny line, the jerk store called?

      • So when do you think that members of the Bush administration are going to jail for war crimes?

        Those were far more egregious – in fact, they’ve been publicly acknowledged – and yet, zero prosecution.

        If they’re unwilling to prosecute over that, it seems unlikely that prosecuting Hillary over the comparatively minor email fiasco – in which it isn’t even entirely clear that Hillary personally did anything illegal – is going to yield much.

        • Political argument, and a deflection. 1) I don’t agree with the concept of war crimes. 2) No US official, taking action on behalf of the national security and well-being, should be, after the fact, indited for war crimes. There is no mens rea. This is an anti-war position, and political vengeance.

          There is no comparison with Hillary, and the e-mail matter was NOT “minor.” In one case, there is an after the fact determination that measures taken with national interests in mind were violative of international law. In the other, national security was intentionally or recklessly placed at risk for PERSONAL gain. The latter is just short of trason. The former shouldn’t even be treated as a crime. Bush and company received legal authorization for its actions. Clinton his them, lied abut them, and was violating regulations and laws…and placing personnel at risk.

          The alleged war crimes of the Bush administration placed no Americans at greater risk.

        • It’s interesting how in three short sentences someone can positively identify them self as a Bush basher and a Clinton apologist.

          Point by point…

          Titanium Dragon said, “So when do you think that members of the Bush administration are going to jail for war crimes?”

          Please list the specific war crimes along with the specific statutes and associated definitions from the International Criminal Court at the Hague that specifically identify actions taken directly by members of the Bush Administration as war crimes.

          Titanium Dragon said, “…in fact, they’ve been publicly acknowledged…”

          Publicly acknowledged by whom, Democratic Party paritsan hacks? Please provide links to documents and/or video where the Bush administration admitted to committing war crimes.

          What Bush bashers, like you, do is intentionally twist everything out of shape and blame Bush for everything and ignore the FACTS that the Bush Administration literally got permission from congress (and many Democrats) and the UN for the actions authorized by the Bush Administration. I’m not going to justify away any intentional war crime actions taken by the Bush Administration, Congress or anyone else; the fact is, that facts remain facts and intentional partisan twisting of those facts to try and make the Bush Administration solely responsible for these so called “war crimes”, that you Bush bashers tout, is just BS.

          If I remember correctly; wasn’t Hillary for, what some now call, torture for the sake of National Security before she felt politically motivated to present a different facade? Hillary has shown is that she cares nothing about truth and honesty, for her it’s all about projecting her political facade for political gain; she’s no damned different than Obama, 100% politics – truth be damned!

          Titanium Dragon said, “If they’re unwilling to prosecute over that, it seems unlikely that prosecuting Hillary over the comparatively minor email fiasco – in which it isn’t even entirely clear that Hillary personally did anything illegal – is going to yield much.”

          Risking National Security by violating existing rules and general practices with willful actions that put Top Secret communications, Secret communications, and general communications at serious risk IS a crime and should be prosecuted regardless of the reason for the action. Have you conveniently forgotten about General Petraeus who plead guilty in federal court to a charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information; Hillary has openly admitted to the email server and has justified its usage with a pile of rationalizations and lies but her reckless actions were equivalent to that of General Petraeus the only difference is Hillary is a Clinton and the Clinton’s can do what ever the F they want and the political left ignores it and/or justifies it.

          Hillary Clinton should be immediately charged with unauthorized removal and retention of classified information, she’s already admitted to it, now she should be charged for it.

    • By the way, there IS an investigation, or did you miss that? And the current administration can’t be called an enemy, even by the creative Clinton defense thugs. If she gets indicted under a Democratic administration trying to meet Hillary’s stated standards. she’s toast.

      • The optics Jack.

        The FBI doing something in their way, going through a process is a far cry from trying to make political hay of it. It is the latter that’s blown up on everyone who’s gone after the Clintons. They, not the Clintons, turn an investigation into a witch hunt, then the Clintons use that witch hunt to their advantage.

        To my outsider eye, I see the republicans try to turn a standing double into an inside the park home run and getting tagged out at the plate over and over.

        • I just don’t know what to say to person who says “the Republicans had been trying to get the [the Clintons] for [X number] of years.” It happened just last week when I was mentioning a possible indictment over the email server thing in a conversation with a fifty year old adult. It’s as if has succeeded in hypnotizing a large portion of the population. I guess it just shows the power of propaganda.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.