Printable View
Go back and read James Comey's report. Nowhere in his publicly delivered remarks does he state anything close to "anyone else would rot in prison." That is outright false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Read that last paragraph a couple of times.Quote:
Originally Posted by James Comey
"Evidence of potential violations," huh? Classified information on a private server is a "potential" violation? I think it would "potentially" get me escorted from the building in handcuffs.
Look, I can appreciate that you like Hillary (at least more than Trump) and you're over the moon that she won't have to answer for this in court. But at least have the honesty to admit that nobody else who is found to mishandle classified info (be it on a private server, in a shoebox in your linen closet, wherever) would be treated so kindly. There's just no fucking way. She skated on something that would have ruined the lives of persons of lower stock.
Technically he said she would have been prosecuted if he had made the laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
I don't think Trump really understands how laws get made though. He seemed to think Hillary alone was responsible for all the laws that passed or didn't pass in her tenure regardless of what she supported or how she voted.
I don't know why this is still an issue people talk about. It was a totally stupid thing to do, that is enough for me. Criminal? Don't know, don't care. I suspect anyone would lose their job over something like this, though.
No, I'm actually arguing the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Someone who did what Hillary Clinton did *who was not Hillary Clinton* not only would not be prosecuted, but would not be subject to the Comey press briefing; i.e. a stern explanation why she was not being prosecuted and never would be prosecuted.
We would just never hear about it in the first place.
Feel free to present a counterexample, but plz read the Comey press release carefully before you do.
You really need me to provide examples of people who were punished for mishandling classified information? As if there haven't been any high-profile cases over the years? Come on.
And we haven't even gotten to the part about destroying evidence after being ordered to turn it over (acid washed bleach joke goes here). That's more your wheelhouse than mine, of course, but my gut tells me that wouldn't fly for lesser mortals.
Anyone who leaves was never really here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satsuki
That guy in Ant Man went to jail for leaking classified information. WHAT ABOUT THATQuote:
Originally Posted by sleeve
edit: maybe? I couldn't really make myself pay attention
I'll read that as a "no".Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Feel free to read through the Comey report and see where their conclusions do not jibe with your experience regarding civilians handling classified information.Quote:
And we haven't even gotten to the part about destroying evidence after being ordered to turn it over (acid washed bleach joke goes here). That's more your wheelhouse than mine, of course, but my gut tells me that wouldn't fly for lesser mortals.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I did, and they don't.
https://media.giphy.com/media/GG9wSkY6hjep2/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh? Do tell. Or is that classified?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
He could tell you but then James Comey would be lecturing his ass on national TVQuote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The dude holding the "Yeezy 2020" sign behind the newscasters was there for 12+ hours, and I admire that tenacity and think that they should be elected.
Is the resident Libertarian of TNL making exceptions in to government overstepping its place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
I've never been particularly good at being lockstep with any political party. And I still remain convinced that there are several other libertarians on TNL; they just don't know it yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
But you've been proven legally wrong by your very own Comey citation. It's simple: There's no precident other than fascism to imprison an opposing candidate based on non-legal findings. If you can't prove it, which several investigations haven't, then you move on.
Same play w Trump and tax avoidance. Sure people may not like it but he's playing by the rules. Don't hate the playa hate the game
I think the implication is that Trump would find a prosecutor better than anyone who served on the, what, nine different investigation committees and in the FBI. This prosecutor will uncover what all of these people missed because he will be better, and she'll be convicted because on his new findings.
It's not my citation. Sleeve continues to reference it like a holy scripture, even though it arrives at an erroneous conclusion. Intent is irrelevant. Whether you do it to avoid oversight, as Clinton did, or as a matter of convenience, as Clinton claims, or to act as a whistleblower, as Snowden did, intent is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
We're not going to change each other's minds. He's the lawyer. If he says it's legal to destroy evidence after a court orders one to turn it over, I'll take him at his word. But he's way off the mark when it comes to the handling of classified data. People have had their lives ruined for far less, be it maliciousness or carelessness. If an average intel analyst sent classified emails home, or stuffed them into their socks and underwear (ring any bells?), of course it wouldn't result in a public scolding from Comey (not everyone in that line of work is employed by the FBI). It would be much, much more painful. At a very minimum, and this is the rosiest of possible outcomes, if we remove criminal prosecution for a moment and keep things strictly administrative, they would never hold a security clearance again. Ever.
Andrew was the first person to mention (and misquote) James Comey. Here is a link to the entire FBI email investigation, not just the press statement.
I mention James Comey and the FBI because they, I dunno, actually investigated the emails.
uhhh intent is quite relevant under these statutes, and in these prosecutions, last i checkedQuote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Let's simplify:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
1) I said Trump's "I will put her in jail" remark was unprecedented and unethical.
2) You said it wasn't, and then you misrepresented what James Comey said -- suggesting that Comey said that Clinton should be prosecuted.
3) I said that was 100% false and quoted Comey's press briefing.
4) You said Comey was wrong.
TAKE IT AWAY
He will be tremendous.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
Lots of people are saying your mother is tremendous. I could say that, but I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say your mother is tremendous.
First of all, you're asking a libertarian to defend Trump, so the premise is all kinds of fucked up. I never said "I will put her in jail" is ethical. I said that his call for a special prosecutor or independent counsel is a very good idea, and it has precedent. Since every previous investigation that I know of has been answerable to an executive agency, it stands to reason that their findings don't pass the smell test. It's the same reason that inspectors general are largely toothless and ineffective; they exist as damage control for their bosses, not to sniff out fraud, waste, and abuse. While an independent counsel is technically answerable to the President, if the process is handled correctly and they are allowed as much autonomy as can be reasonably expected, they can be effective in their special role. There is prevent for this, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeve
As for your other points, I would in turn reference you to the grilling by Chaffetz and Gowdy about a week after Comey's news conference. They went over the statute line by line, compared it to the facts in the Clinton case, and made it very clear that intent is not relevant in the case of mishandling classified info. It may be true in other instances, but there's no "my bad" when it comes to state secrets.
Since you're a lawyer and I'm not, let mad ask you: that thing that Clinton (or her staff) did with wiping the servers, post-subpoena... Do you have a legal word or phrase for that? I'm curious. As a lawyer, a professional, that cannot sit right with you.
And as someone that knows people that work as far up as the Pentagon, she is a liar about saying she didn't know what confidential is. They all receive weeks of training on that shit. She lied and she willfully broke national security.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeve
You do not get her position without receiving that training.
Don't be silly. That rule only applies to people not named Hillary Clinton.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
I'm not saying it is a rule. I'm not even arguing if it was a crime or not.
I saying she lied on television about not knowing what that shit was. You can't have that job without receiving that training.
Did you follow the link? It's only a few short paragraphs. Bottom line, she had the job, and she did not receive the training. And you are right, it is absolutely mandatory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
I don't know if I buy that story on that website I haven't seen before.
Witch Hunters: The thread
Wait you mean someone who knows someone who works in the pentagon is still wrong about what went on in the pentagon? I for one am shocked telephone game anecdotes have failed us.
That went well.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Cheeks is right, though. There is mandatory training. This includes basic shit like what classified markings look like. Lesser mortals have to sign a memo stating that they received and understand the training. This can be used against them in a court of law if they are ever caught mishandling data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
I have no desire to go on a witch hunt. I'd rather just never hear from her again. But to pretend that she behaved legally and ethically in this matter is laughable. Trump and his supporters aren't completely out of bounds on this one. I get why they're upset. And why a lot of would-be Hillary supporters who worked under the same rules are upset, as well.
Andrew is right in that people who have mishandled classified data on a far smaller scale have been reprimanded or even jailed. Shit if I took personally identifiable info info from my job I would be fired at least and possibly prosecuted.
HRC was extremely careless and irresponsible, not good traits for someone who wants to be POTUS. I do believe that the final arbiter of all things Comey used the word "careless" in his presser.
The FBI found no basis to charge her with a crime. So what would this special prosecutor do? Prosecute her anyway? For what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Whose findings? The FBI? So you're telling me the FBI is not credible because it "has been answerable to an executive agency"? Remember, if you take issue with a specific portion of the investigation -- which is publicly available and linked in my previous substantive post -- you are welcome to look at it yourself and cite to it.Quote:
Since every previous investigation that I know of has been answerable to an executive agency, it stands to reason that their findings don't pass the smell test.
You seem to be ignoring the actual content of Comey's summary: that they "cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts." How would this part change under a "special prosecutor"?Quote:
It's the same reason that inspectors general are largely toothless and ineffective; they exist as damage control for their bosses, not to sniff out fraud, waste, and abuse. While an independent counsel is technically answerable to the President, if the process is handled correctly and they are allowed as much autonomy as can be reasonably expected, they can be effective in their special role. There is prevent for this, as well.
I saw that grandstanding performance by Jason Chaffetz (who BTW disavowed his support for Trump and at this point). Whether the strict language of the statutes matches up with cherry picked portions of the report, chosen for Chaffetz to win points among his hard right constituents, is not the issue. Comey's job was to find a case that could be prosecuted ethically according to DoJ standards, based on previous DoJ prosecutions, and he did not find it.Quote:
As for your other points, I would in turn reference you to the grilling by Chaffetz and Gowdy about a week after Comey's news conference. They went over the statute line by line, compared it to the facts in the Clinton case, and made it very clear that intent is not relevant in the case of mishandling classified info. It may be true in other instances, but there's no "my bad" when it comes to state secrets.
I hate to keep quoting this language over and over again, but I'm going to do it again because it really summarizes the investigation, and the decision not to prosecute, pretty well:
Now consider the above in relation to 18 USC 798, one of several statutes at play here. 18 USC 798 makes it a felony to knowingly and willfully transmit classified information. How much stuff does this statute apply to, you might ask? Well, as you might imagine from looking at the statute, it's pretty broad. But these cases don't get prosecuted very often because, if every single potential violation of 18 USC 798 was prosecuted, then the ramifications for the government would be catastrophic. Obviously, this one single statute is ripe for potential abuse. Which is why DOJ only charges violations of 18 USC 798 and similar statutes in cases where the above circumstances are met.Quote:
All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
Was there negligence? Perhaps. Recklessness? Probably. Did it meet the standard for prosecution? Nope.
Trump wants to change DOJ forever by using this statute, and others like it, to prosecute his political enemies.
Now tell me, Andrew, as a Libertarian, with absolutely no stake in this intellectual discussion whatsoever,
DO YOU REALIZE HOW FUCKING DANGEROUS THAT IS?
Well, I can definitely tell you that as a lawyer, a professional, I don't like to defend against hypotheticals. If Clinton (or her staff) did one of those things, it might amount to obstruction of justice. But since Comey found no evidence of a crime that would warrant prosecution, perhaps you could cite the page of the FBI report that cites the behavior that was overlooked?Quote:
Since you're a lawyer and I'm not, let mad ask you: that thing that Clinton (or her staff) did with wiping the servers, post-subpoena... Do you have a legal word or phrase for that? I'm curious. As a lawyer, a professional, that cannot sit right with you.
I really appreciate you taking the time to get into the weeds like that. Really, no sarcasm or snark. I simply disagree with Comey's position that what Clinton and/or her staff did isn't prosecutable. You remove classified info from secure systems, you're held accountable. You try to hide such a lapse in security/judgment, you're held accountable. Plenty of people have worn nickel-plated bracelets for far less when it comes to classified data. The real sticking point for me is the BleachBit issue. No amount of legal eagle mental gymnastics is going to convince me that it doesn't stink to high hell. You don't go that deep with a purge, especially post-subpoena, over some yoga appointment reminders.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeve
But back to Trump and the call for an independent counsel. I don't think it's dangerous, because his/her job is to investigate. Think back to Ken Starr and his investigation. He was really nothing more than a fact finder. Of course, his findings went to another entity to determine whether or not charges were appropriate, and the suspect had his day in court (in this case, Congress), and he prevailed. The system worked as it was supposed to, and nobody's civil liberties were endangered. Sure, you can say the entire affair was politically motivated (and it sure as hell was), but our system was never in jeopardy by the existence of an independent counsel.
It's all moot, because Trump's chances are pretty much sitting somewhere around a snowball's chances in hell at this point. But look on the bright side! We're guaranteed at least another four years of brand new Clintonland scandals to go back and forth on.
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
I think you're confusing Comey's position with that of the DOJ. First of all, as Comey reiterates, he's not a prosecutor but director of the FBI. He doesn't have the final say whether a case gets prosecuted. Comey is the guy who investigates the case. But according to the pattern of cases that are prosecuted under decades and decades of well-established precedent within the DOJ, this apparently does not meet the standard of a case that should be prosecuted.
As a practical matter, that is the same as saying that Clinton's case "is not prosecutable."
But here's why this election is so fucking important.
President Trump can appoint a new Attorney General and direct him to change that policy. He can simply order his Attorney General and his appointed U.S. Attorneys in each judicial district to prosecute his political enemies. He can order his Attorney General to prosecute Hillary Clinton for any crime he can muster probable cause. He can order his underlings to keep impaneling grand juries until he gets the indictments that he wants. Hell, he can even indict Hillary Clinton for treason.
Is that "prosecutable"? Practically speaking, under every measure of decency and precedent established by the DOJ, no. But 18 USC 2381, the treason statute, is also exceptionally broad. He could indict Clinton and Sid Blumenthal and Bill Clinton and whoeverthefuck he wanted. Would he get a conviction? No, probably not. But he could have a trial! Wouldn't 35% of the country love to see that?
You mean Ken Starr and impeachment and that farce that almost tore apart the country during the first Clinton administration?Quote:
But back to Trump and the call for an independent counsel. I don't think it's dangerous, because his/her job is to investigate. Think back to Ken Starr and his investigation. He was really nothing more than a fact finder. Of course, his findings went to another entity to determine whether or not charges were appropriate, and the suspect had his day in court (in this case, Congress), and he prevailed. The system worked as it was supposed to, and nobody's civil liberties were endangered. Sure, you can say the entire affair was politically motivated (and it sure as hell was), but our system was never in jeopardy by the existence of an independent counsel.
No, it really isn't moot. Even if Trump loses (which he will) others will follow him and they will employ the same tactics.Quote:
It's all moot, because Trump's chances are pretty much sitting somewhere around a snowball's chances in hell at this point. But look on the bright side! We're guaranteed at least another four years of brand new Clintonland scandals to go back and forth on.
You can't prosecute on looking suspicious. They looked into this, they found no evidence linking it to her or that it was deliberately obstructive, and that's that. You can think whatever you want about it, but there's no smoking gun and never will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Lets talk about something serious.
Is Trump a trigger?
If Trump on TV is making them ill, why don't they just turn off the fucking TV instead of talking about it on Twitter?
Yeah. I can't stand listening to him so I don't do it.
Though, to be fair, he was obviously doing all that shit the article's accusing him of.
Whoever wrote that article needs to get over her own victim complex and pay attention to how Clinton handled herself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunlap
The author saw it and wrote it off as Hillary having to sit there and take it. But she didn't do that because she's a victim - she did it because Donald Trump doesn't deserve the response.Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
The problem I see from the tumblr kids is that they insist on being defined by trauma. Trauma informs your decisions - it's not who you are.
Exactly. She wasn't intimidated in the least. I'm no fan of Clinton's by any means, but the author could learn a thing or two from how Clinton handles herself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
I checked with my wife, since I'm obviously not a woman and haven't had to deal with any of the shit women have to deal with and have never been in any kind of relationship or situation that generated any kind of super traumatic recalls. I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in doubting the veracity of the people claiming to be physically ill. (She said I shouldn't discount it but then quoted Diff almost verbatim.)
This was hard to watch. I genuinely feel bad for Kathy Shelton. Just from the tone of her voice, you can tell her life was destroyed. I tried to watch it again and couldn't. Paula Jones, on the other hand, is an Arkansas trailer park bulldog. I hope Trump and her go tag team in the Vegas match.
Also: I imagine Trump's "prepping for debates" consists of bumping eight balls with Blizzard of Ozz cranked up to eleven.
Last: have we talked about the Trump Network theory, this is all a scheme to launch a network? FOX is even speculating now.
EDIT: Rumpy did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy
TrumpTV makes a TON of sense.
After the election he'll have a really good idea of what the market looks like for something like that.
RaguQuote:
Originally Posted by Bill Ivey
What did he mean by this?
I think he's trying to reiterate his first point about how they had this idea about money in politics that got smashed by Trump's TV finesse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
And Roger Ailes and Donald Trump can use all their Trump TV proceeds to pay off their many lawsuits!Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was in a highly controlled, visible scenario too. So I'm not sure the "threatening" really holds any water, either. I could understand a victim with PTSD thinking this, but their judgment probably isn't the one to go off of here. They were basically saying he was one step away from raping her which is just categorically ridiculous. If he had done it to a man it would have been defined as a strange tactic to throw off your opponent. It didn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
It's a terrible idea. Without the presidential race horse keeping eyes on him he'd just go back to being a weirdo celeb. Hell even his actual show The Apprentice had shitty ratings after the second season so they had to dump celebrities on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Yeah, and the other thing I'm seeing is that it looked like Hillary was deliberately entering his space in an attempt to throw him off. I didn't watch the debate so I only have the observations of other people to go off of. But if she did do that, that's awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
She spoke to the audience a lot more while he spoke to her. She came off as surprisingly motherly a little bit actually. This was a terrible debate for him... the static podiums of the other were better except she clobbered him on policy specifics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
I could have sworn I'd brought it up, but I've been speculating this for months.
You could have, but I just searched for Network.
If there is any silver lining in this shit-slinging contest, it's that Kathy Shelton finally has people coming to defend her.
SnopesQuote:
“She was vigorously advocating for her client. What she did was appropriate,” said Andrew Schepard, director of Hofstra Law School’s Center for Children, Families and the Law. “He was lucky to have her as a lawyer ... In terms of what’s good for the little girl? It would have been hell on the victim. But that wasn’t Hillary’s problem.”
In terms of what’s good for the little girl? It would have been hell on the victim. But that wasn’t Hillary’s problem.”
that wasn’t Hillary’s problem.”
So will the Clinton campaign now mention the civil lawsuit Trump is facing in December for raping a 13 year old?
Uh... you did read this, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
While I was there I also had time to read a hard-hitting article concerning the use of dog's noses in the manufacturing of Gamecube controllers.
Click for full size
Yes. You have to read past a simple X.Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Pirate Roberts
She gaslight her victim, then laughed about how easy the case was to win, because of prosecutors incompetency, and admitted she knew the rapist was guilty, yet still passed the polygraph. If she had any empathy, she would not discuss the case in the jovial manner she did, and not force the child to go through the excess trauma of a psychological evaluation considering the prosecution already lacked evidence.
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...chmentid=79570
EDIT:They should, if only for the sake of both victims getting the Justice they deserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpy
Maybe it's being too critical. Maybe Sleeve can shed some light on wether gaslighting victims and using knowingly tampered evidence is ethical. But, this is the woman running on a feminist platform for the first woman president. The woman who chose not Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders for VP, but at the bank's wishes a TPP supporting Tim Kaine.
She worked there 50 years. What's your r3asoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
The Snopes article goes out of its way to explain Hillary's line of thought about the case. As I read it, I disagree with the assessment that she laughed heartlessly or maliciously did anything to this girl. I'd be interested to hear what stands out for you as contradictory to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
Also, I think the practice of gaslighting is reprehensible but god damn it, stop trying to shoehorn it in places it doesn't belong. That victim-shaming crap was unfortunately how they thought about rape cases back then. We've made good strides away from it, but there's still a long way to go. Conflating the two things doesn't help either scenario.
Did people think she was going to pick a radical over a moderate?Quote:
The woman who chose not Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders for VP, but at the bank's wishes a TPP supporting Tim Kaine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Implying that a bank industry whore is moderate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
If she actually meant what she said when she co-opted all of Sanders' positions she would have picked Warren. She was full of shit, lying about whatever she had to lie about to win, as always.
Hearsay not equal fact. Even if you believe she should be investigated more (which, okay, let me compromise and say lets do that)... bringing it up in a democratic debate during an election cycle is absolutely the most ridiculous thing that could have been done. There's only one type of social system of government that would condone investigating and threats of jailing an opponent in a political race—and I cannot believe any grown person who enjoys the freedoms we have now would actually condone this behaviour. It's pretty frightening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
well I'm convinced, gamecube is animal cureltyQuote:
Originally Posted by cigsthecatWhile I was there I also had time to read a hard-hitting article concerning the use of dog's noses in the manufacturing of Gamecube controllers.
Click for full size
Anyone else Remember all those times I was told to shut up for arguing against other people's life experience?
We? You're living here now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Also, are you saying that anyone running is in a safe zone?
*Excellent*.
Time to pop some more popcorn.
I really hope the political careers of Trump's supporters end with his bid for president.
You guys deserve at least that much.
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1476201616Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
It's that time...Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
http://i.imgur.com/laBKDG2.jpg
kinda got a semi now, but I think it's a political civil war rather than a full pants-on-head retard vs retard gunbattle extraordinaireQuote:
Originally Posted by the cnbc article
This is nuts, and pretty awesome and awful at the same time.
Now I want to vote for him because fuck the current party.
I hope The Onion does an article about him being too distracted with posting on Twitter to speak at some rally or another.
At least he talks about harming his political enemies out loud. If you vote for him, She will know and remember that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
That shit's already out of date - he's all up on McCain now.
The Republicans are reaping what they sowed
Nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
I thought it was pretty meta of me. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
True. They created this monster and now it's coming back to kill them. Just like that book where Dr. Frankenstein makes a Frankenstein who comes back to kill Dr. Frankenstein, The Man Who Made the Monster Who Came Back to Try to Kill Him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
This is a non story. Trump should not be dragging this poor woman around like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
Clinton did nothing improper. She represented her court-appointed client and counseled him to accept a plea agreement. She demanded disclosure from the State and then, when she learned that key evidence had been destroyed, she negotiated a plea offer.
This is what criminal defense attorneys do every day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or I'm enjoying similar democratic freedoms to your own?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
The act of carelessly handling files may have a chance of threatening the security of your country. The action of threatening to jail your political opponents definitely threatens the security of your democratic process (country). If she hadn't been investigated before I probably would have agreed... but she has (and wasn't found criminal), so it's probably okay to wait a month.
I am curious to see if he shifts any of his talking points. Because it would give more direct insight in to what they're pushing behind closed doors (though it's not hard to guess).Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Punishing someone politically for representing a "bad guy" in their defense is one of the most dangerous and awful things to come up lately in our discourse.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeve
Hillary got no one "off" (omg maybe that's why Bill cheated!). Her client accepted a plea deal that was put on the table in large part due to the insistence of the victim's own mother:
I've asked this before...how is Trump not being sued daily for slander/libel for the untrue shit he constantly says about other people?Quote:
The victim says it was her mother, who had recently been abandoned by her husband, who pushed for a quick plea deal to avoid the humiliation of having her daughter testify in open court. The mother, who died several years ago, was so eager to end the ordeal she coached her daughter’s statements and interrupted interviews with police, Sgt. Dale Gibson [the department’s lead investigator] recalls.
“We both wanted it to be over with,” the victim told Newsday. “They kept asking me the same questions over and over. I was crying all the time.”
I still think there's a 50/50 shot Trump pulls this off. 28 days is an eternity in politics. Even if more tapes surface, it's now priced in, and people will be more inclined to shrug it off. It was too soon; the Dems (or some trigger-happy lad acting in their interests, as we still don't know the source) revealed the climax in Act 1. Should've built up to it, with the pussy grabbing around Halloween.
To be fair, if there's anybody who shouldn't be bashful about coarse language, it's McCain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
the only realistic way it would get close to 50 is if the public hears a Clinton bombshell
On a side note: Is anybody else really, really disappointed in the Tea Party? When shit blew up in 2008 and people got angry and organized, I was like "Yeah! Let's do something about this! Fuck those banks and fuck this bailout! What's the plan?
...J...Jesus? That's the plan?
And an abortion war?
And racism and creationism and doubling down on letting monopolies act like rampant assholes?
Trump?
Fuck."
I don't think either of them will get to 50, but that's fine, neither did Bill. Someone just has to get to 270. Or in Trump's case, 269 will do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
no I meant in response to your "50/50 chance"
there will be no "Trump bump"...there could only be a "Clinton implosion"
Trump pivoted, he just pivoted in the wrong direction lol.
If the "Tea Party" kept it to being a pure tax/banks movement, they'd really have something. They're a soft mass of grey nonsense with all that religious social conservative hillbilly crap in there. Same with whatever is left of the Bernie/Occupy movement on the left. Too distracted, too off message.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
Yeah the way he's currently blowing up and repubs are jumping off ship like rats on the titanic pretty much says it all. He's continuing to get love from his base which is the crazy alt-right people but that's it, and that's not even close to enough people to win an election.
Not so much a "Trump bump," as he's pretty much hit his ceiling as far as conventional polling goes. But I think those who are opposed to Hillary but might have been put off by the pussy grabbing will fall back in line. The third debate will matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
A "Clinton implosion" isn't exactly required, either. Never underestimate her inability to close the deal.
You've never been right so far, I'm not so worried about it going forward.
How's ol' Johnson doing this week, still alive? It was looking like he had half a sniff of a shot in Arizona or New Mexico for a second there.
Trump is a total dumpster fire right now. A "debate" could not possibly change this unless Trump literally came out with "just kidding" and turned into a political genius.
I don't think anything has changed. No one that was going to vote for trump is going to vote Hillary. They might vote Johnson though. But if they were going to vote trump in the first place, they probably believe they have to vote trump to stop Hillary and still won't change their vote.
Trumpster fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams