The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Hillary Clinton is not a criminal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 761 times Debate No: 98451
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Hello! Before you join this debate, I would like to go over several rules:

1. This is quite the controversial topic, so please: no swearing, cursing, rudeness and unproffesional/overly emotional behavior, to everyone.
2. Follow the format I lay out, do NOT use Round 1 for arguments.
3. Do not bring up controversies that are not commonly known by the media, if the average political journalist hasn't mentioned it, it doesn't apply.

Round 1: Rules and Format, NO arguments
Round 2: Arguments and rebuttals
Round 3: Arguments and rebuttals
Round 4: Arguments and rebuttals
Round 5: Closing statements and Thanks


I accept

a person who has committed a crime.

don't need 5 rounds for that but hey, lets do this:
Debate Round No. 1


The two 'crimes' most usually associated with Hillary Clinton are the Benghazi terror attacks and the Email Scandal. For this round, I would like to cover the Email Scandal, which was one of the topics given the most coverage during the Presidential Election.

The Federal Records Act dictates that all correspondence and information in the State Department must be stored in a government-issued phone and email. Hillary Clinton, being the Secretary of State at the time, decided to avoid these directives by using one personal email server to use for all her work. Later during her time as Secretary of State, she deleted 30,000 of her emails. When word of this reached the media, the issue spiralled into a controversy that exists today. Some Republicans had accused Clinton of violating a statute, this was that '"Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine."' If you had deleted vast amounts of classified information, you could be put in prison for a year at most.

Clinton repeatedly stated that there was no classified information in the emails she had deleted. Wikileaks recently retrieved most of her emails and displayed them to the public. Of these emails, around 100 contained classified information, enough to warrant a fine. Even thought this information is public, I remain skeptical as Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks has praised Trump.


Excluding she had deleted E-mails related to her job as Secretary of State, here are a few of her other crimes

-Lied to FBI(18 U.S. Code " 1001 Statements or entries generally) Whitewater
A(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact

-Lied to Congress (18 U.S. Code " 1621 - Perjury generally) Email congression hearing
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true

-deleting emails and destroying bberries (18 U.S. Code " 2071)
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

-Stealing White House China and Furnature (18 U.S. Code " 641) - Public money, property or records
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof

-Bribery from foreign goverenments -(18USC"201) see speaking fee's
-Tax fraud with the Clinton Foundation -(18USC"7201) Attempt To Evade Or Defeat A Tax (Use Of Clinton Foundation Funds For Personal Or Political Purposes)
-IRS scandal during Bubba's presidency for sure and more than likely this last IRS scandal - (18USC"7212) Attempts To Interfere With Administration Of Internal Revenue Laws

I could go on but these are some of her greatest hits
Debate Round No. 2


You seem to have not responded at all to my points on her e-mail scandal, will you simply ignore that argument?

-James Comey, Director of the FBI himself has denied that claim. In Whitewater, Benghazi and the E-mail hearings she had not lied to the FBI.

-Hillary Clinton did not lie in any E-mail congressional hearings, I assume you were referring to the Benghazi hearings. It's good to quote the law behind an accusation, but please bring up evidence that the accusation is actually true.

-I've already talked about this point, please read my argument before you post yours.

-It is true, the Clintons did steal furniture and china from the White House, but they have told the public they thought these were gifts. They have expressed regret and the stolen furniture has been returned, this is no longer an allegation.

-Unfortunately, any information I found on 'foreign governments bribing Clinton' came from alt-right news sources who had major bias against Clinton already.

-I am going to give you a link to an article by Charity Watch, an independent organisation and the most trustworthy resource when it comes to policing charities.
The Clinton Foundation is way above standard when it comes to charity, you really need to check your sources and analyse media from all points of view.

-This quote comes from a reputable source (The Atlantic), on the Clinton IRS scandal
"A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts," the newspaper reports. "If the case proceeded, Switzerland"s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement"an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS."
This is what Donald Trump has done many times, and we do not consider it criminal, only an example of bad behavior.

The law you quote specifically mentions 'threats by force', Clinton settled the Swiss Bank's legalities - a process which is entirely legal - , she did not threaten to harm the IRS.

Please, do go on. It feels as if you are bringing in titles to untrustworthy Clinton criticism videos found on the darkest corners of Youtube, before you quote the law, find evidence that the scandals actually exist.


Okay lets go with the lying to congress:

Clinton's interview before congress

Gowdy interviewing Comey

lie - a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

Don't blow smoke, saying she didn't know it was classified.

"-It is true, the Clinton's did steal furniture and china from the White House, but they have told the public they thought these were gifts."

Seriously!!!!!!!! you believe that LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Besides the stolen furniture, the Clintons and their lackeys defaced walls, stole a presidential seal dating back to the Eisenhower years, damaged furniture they deemed not expensive enough to take, and left a huge mess in the offices.

They left behind offensive and derogatory statements about Bush, defaced keyboards so the letter W could not be used, stole doorknobs and other small items, and left behind prank signs as well as many other immature acts. A complete list of all the damages is in the GAO 02-360 "The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition," an official document of the aftermath of the Clinton Administration.
so we can add destruction of government property to the list (18 U.S.C. " 1361)

If you believed that the Clinton's made a mistake about stealing furniture and china I'm not even going to try to persuade you in the obvious bribes.

In summary, Hillary is a criminal.
Debate Round No. 3


Read the quote of what Hillary Clinton said in the video;

'Nothing was marked classified at the time I was sent or received it.'

This does not explicitely state nothing was marked classified, when the e-mails became public. You may see this as a phony claim, but it is entirely possible. Someone in her department may have been reviewing the e-mails and decided to mark them as classified, when Clinton did not think to. This is an entirely possible situation, and if it did occur, it makes sense that Clinton would not tell the public directly about this because she had feared the inevitable backlash from the media.

I do believe it, yes. Can you provide me with a reason why she wouldn't simply have apologised? Clinton, (unlike some of her adversaries) has apologised openly to the public and not evaded responsibility.
I do not doubt her trustworthiness in this situation.

When I read articles about defaced walls and keyboards during the 2001 transition, I came to the conclusion that Democrat-appointed White House staff committed these offences, and were unaware of the consequences. Do I Believe Hillary Clinton put stickers in drawers with the message 'Jail the thief', took off the 'W' key on keyboards? No, simply not in her character, you may call her two-faced, but read the article from this link below.

I certainly do not endorse these acts of vandalism, but I don't believe the Clintons were at fault.

Please quote these 'obvious bribes', I would like to analyse the allegations.

In summary, Hillary is a criminal, based on twisted news articles and false analyses. I would like to ask you, once again, to read other arguments and respond to them, as you have not fulfilled your burden of proof otherwise.


Being that this is my last argument round, I am going to go a different route. I do recognize that the Clinton's are good at lying to getting away with their crimes and that to many people let them get away with it. If it was just one or two things fine, but not as many scandals that the Clinton's (Hillary in this argument) have been involved. Like the example of the Clinton's dead body count, do I think they had something to do with all of them? No, but the number has to make you question that at least a few on that list is true.

Back to my argument, I will 'drop all other charges' and argue that the Clinton Foundation is guilty of 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 (The infamous RICO act)

Under code " 1962 of the RICO Act it states who can be charged with this...

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. ...........
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

Summed up, if the Clinton foundation violated 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 the Clinton's and any other high ranking members of that foundation are guilty.

That's the who, now the what.

" 1961 - Definitions
section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents)

Huma Abedin was asked to acquire diplomatic passports for himself and two unidentified people.

the e-mail-

There is no set of circumstances under which Band and friends could qualify for a diplomatic or even official US passports. While we don"t know if they received them, we do know that Abedin said she"d make it happen.

If they or anyone else acquire passports in this way it is a violation of section 1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passport) and section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents)

section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant),
Hillary reportedly threatens Juanita Broaddrick, Bill's alleged rape victim, into silence at a political fundraiser after the accused rape.
One story of many I would assume

section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant)
like I said before the list is way too long to be a coincidence.

section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion)
XL Keystone pipeline is very shady. They never claimed extortion, but we see a lot of 'pay to play' with the Clintons

section 1952 (relating to racketeering)
an argument can be made with the timing of arming Al-Qaeda with some of her foreign donation's, especially Saudi Arabia. Who was proven by the 9/11 commission to financially back Al-Qaeda. SA gives Clinton foundation money and Al-Qaeda gets weapons.

section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity)

-see Haiti earthquake fund (defrauding donors classifies as this)'any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11'

sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2260 (relating to sexual exploitation of children)
-See Bill Clinton and orgy Island

section 831 (relating to nuclear materials)
-See the Russian uranium deal

How this relates
Title 18 " Part I " Chapter 96 " " 1961
(5) "pattern of racketeering activity" requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity;

Title 18 " Part I " Chapter 96 " " 1963
(a) Whoever violates any provision of section 1962 of this chapter shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years (or for life if the violation is based on a racketeering activity for which the maximum penalty includes life imprisonment), or both, and shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law"

Under the RICO Act they do not have to prove if Hillary herself knew of these acts or did it, but her organisation did. Guilt is placed if at least 2 of these are true and I'm sure there is a hell of a lot more that we don't know about.
Debate Round No. 4


As a final word to finish this debate on my part, I would like to remind my opponent and any other readers of Hillary Clinton's good character, which is unfortunately drenched in scandal and controversy, I hope that in some way I have at least begun to cleanse her image.

Whatever result the voting period produces I will accept, and I will see as a trustworthy judgement.

I also want to commend my opponent's goal to bring justice and his skill in debating. I thank him for his time and I hope we may debate again sometime.


My closing is simple. It is based off the sheer number of scandals and controversies surrounding HRC. If it was only a few things we could just mark it up to exaggerations or other such dismissals and we could even chalk it up to here-say. Using Bill Cosby and Michel Jackson as an example, both can fall in the group of it may or may not be true (and they were only accused of one thing, (multiple times)) but we are talking scandal after scandal with Hillary. She has no redeeming character traits if you read anyone who ever meet her or talked to her. She is vile, vulgar, narcissistic, and a psychopath.

Yes we live in a society were you are innocent until proven guilty. However they keep refusing to indite her, even after the GJ says yes. We will keep seeing two sets of laws until she is brought to trail; a law for the Clintons and a law for the rest of us.

I want to thank pro for setting up the debate, I had a good time in debating this topic and I look forward to debating again with my opponent.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ILikePie5 2 years ago
You're stretching your resources too far Pro. The Politico one only talks about the private server controversy. Nothing about Whitewater. I'd be careful if I were you....
Posted by ILikePie5 2 years ago
Total overkill
Posted by ILikePie5 2 years ago
It's not whether she deleted those its it's about putting them on her private server in the first place. If classified info was on that server, and according to Comey, it was, she should be in jail for putting national security at risk to the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and North Koreans, or other enemies of the U.S.
Posted by VulpeLegatus 2 years ago
I am arguing Hillary Clinton is not a criminal already. Chris330 is arguing that Hillary Clinton is a criminal.
Posted by ILikePie5 2 years ago
She should be in jail, LOCK HER UP
Posted by ChadIrvin 2 years ago
I'm assuming you are arguing against her being a criminal? You don't believe her to be a criminal?
Posted by jo154676 2 years ago
Is this a debate on whether she is a criminal, or whether she should be a criminal?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.