U.S. Elections: 9,444 days

[TrackerNeil]

53 minutes ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

I haven't fully looked at Huma's Saudi connections, but I believe she is linked to dodgy Saudi organisations/individuals implicated in 9/11.

"Is linked"? What does that even mean? Jane Wiedlin officiated my wedding, which is a "link", but that doesn't mean I'm making royalties from the sales of Go-Go's albums. "Has links to" and "is associated with" are bullshit terms used by lazy journalists who either don't feel like doing the research or have done the research and come up with nothing substantive.

[Kalbear]

13 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

"Is linked"? What does that even mean? Jane Wiedlin officiated my wedding, which is a "link", but that doesn't mean I'm making royalties from the sales of Go-Go's albums. "Has links to" and "is associated with" are bullshit terms used by lazy journalists who either don't feel like doing the research or have done the research and come up with nothing substantive.

Seriously, it's bullshit. Basically the journal she worked for has really absurdly small ties to potentially the Muslim Brotherhood through like 6 degrees of separation and it's nothing. Like usual. 

[DraculaAD1972]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yep, and all of it is complete bullshit, like usual

I don't think you understand what a 'bluff' is. 

If the emails are released right now, and they contain serious issues, Comey is going to recommend to press charges. She isn't free and clear after the election regardless of who wins, as it is an open investigation (and has remained so). And by asking for (and potentially getting) the emails, she is basically trusting that they are not problematic whatever is in them. 

She has no authority to make Comey resign, and chances are good she wouldn't do that anyway simply because of how bad it looks. But she can't make him resign in any way. So he's free to investigate the case as he sees fit - which he certainly would continue to do. 

If Clinton becomes President she cannot ignore his findings, and she cannot stop him from releasing them. And at that point it doesn't matter if the DoJ chooses not to indict - because there will be evidence to impeach, which is also independent of Clinton. If the FBI found violation of the Espionage Act or of perjury she'd almost certainly be impeached regardless of who controls the house - and chances are still very strong that Republicans would control it. 

So basically what you're implying is that as President Clinton can control the FBI (she can't), can control the DoJ (only in a very loose sense), and can control the House (not even close). And that she is willing to risk impeachment in order to...uh...look good for a few days?

Whereas if Trump gets into office he'll find that investigating 'her' doesn't work, period; you investigate crimes, not people. If he decides to violate that law chances are good the DoJ will resign on the spot, and congress will call for impeachment (they might not get it, but they'll call for it) or call on SCOTUS to make a decision on the violation of executive power done. 

Thanks for the link Kalbear, I will look into it. A bluff is where you play a false hand, no? A display of false confidence. Hillary is calling for the release in order to help her get elected. We saw the previous investigation. It was a paradox. Guilty yet not guilty. He even said that the same actions performed by someone else would indeed be crimes. So it's all a bluff with Hillary, she is guilty of disgraceful handling of emails but she just laughs and says, sorry I was a bit careless, but it was nothing serious. The shame of it is how her followers always excuse her actions, paper over her lies, downplay her dangerous decisions and justify her corruption. I'm not implying that the President can 'control' the FBI , I'm saying the previous investigation resulted in a controversial decision - and if she is elected it will be the same. Will this decision be influenced by whether or not she is President? Of course. If like the previous investigation it comes down to a judgement call from Comey, I would expect the question of who is President might be a big factor in the final decision of a similar investigation. Of course Obama should probably be prosecuted as well. But I concede that the idea of Judge Trump, bringing justice to Wicked Hillary, is perhaps not so straightforward as some would like to think. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, DraculaAD1972 said:

Thanks for the link Kalbear, I will look into it. A bluff is where you play a false hand, no? A display of false confidence. Hillary is calling for the release in order to help her get elected. We saw the previous investigation. It was a paradox. Guilty yet not guilty. He even said that the same actions performed by someone else would indeed be crimes.

Okay, let's stop you right there. No, Comey did NOT say that. Ever. Not once! He did say that she might lose privileges or security clearances - but THOSE ARE NOT CRIMES. Again, doing your job irresponsibly is NOT a crime in the US. 

Furthermore, the previous investigation was not whether or not she was guilty (that's not what investigations do) but whether or not there was enough evidence to indict, which is where you have a trial. So not only was Clinton not found guilty - she was never even found innocent. She was never charged with any crime. 

A bluff is when you play a false hand, and assume no one will call you on it, and therefore win. Clinton is asking for the emails to be released right away. If she were bluffing it would be because she knew that they wouldn't likely get released - but if they did it would hurt her. Instead, what is actually the case is that regardless of when they are released the damage is done, and she is now trying to get less damage. It isn't a bluff. 

 

Just now, DraculaAD1972 said:

The shame of it is how her followers always excuse her actions, paper over her lies, downplay her dangerous decisions and justify her corruption. I'm not implying that the President can 'control' the FBI , I'm saying the previous investigation resulted in a controversial decision - and if she is elected it will be the same. Will this decision be influenced by whether or not she is President? Of course.

Again, if she is president it won't matter, because the House can vote to impeach. 

And what actions are we papering over, here? Right now we're talking about how reckless it is to make the statement Comey did so close to an election when there is nothing to report and the investigation hasn't even happened yet. Do you think that it should be standard policy to state that you are looking into investigating something a candidate has done 11 days before an election? Do you think that this is reasonable behavior? 

Just now, DraculaAD1972 said:

If like the previous investigation it comes down to a judgement call from Comey, I would expect the question of who is President might be a big factor in the final decision of a similar investigation. Of course Obama should probably be prosecuted as well. But I concede that the idea of Judge Trump, bringing justice to Wicked Hillary, is perhaps not so straightforward as some would like to think. 

The previous investigation came down to a judgment call from Comey, the entire FBI and the DoJ, as well as a lot of previous law enforcement officers. All of whom said that there was not enough evidence to indict. Again, this really isn't that hard to figure out if you know anything about law or can at least read. That you don't like the decision is apparent, but your liking it is immaterial to whether or not it was the correct call. 

And again, whether or not Obama is in office is immaterial. What you're basically suggesting is that a Republican who has been criticized repeatedly for slamming Clinton publicly was under pressure to not recommend indicting, despite there being no clear evidence of actual laws being broken. And now you're suggesting that emails that DO have that evidence would be not important enough or would be clear evidence depending on what president is in power...because reasons?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

I haven't fully looked at Huma's Saudi connections, but I believe she is linked to dodgy Saudi organisations/individuals implicated in 9/11.

 I hear she bought a Street Falafal from Mohamed Atta back in 1999.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I can't see this doing too much damage - anyone who cares about Hillary's emails would be unlikely to vote for her for anyway. At most it will mobilise some Republican voters to hold their nose and vote for Trump.

This is primarily a headache for after the election. 

[lokisnow]

38 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

 

This is primarily a headache for after the election. 

Is the Gerald ford solution (after the election, of course) A good idea?

[ThinkerX]

If the republicans get especially delusional/suicidal after the election, and if there is anything incriminating in this newest batch of Clinton's emails, I can see at least the start of a serious, almost immediate impeachment effort.  As in, Clinton gives her acceptance speech in January, and the republican response is 'we are commencing with impeachment proceedings.'

 

Then again, in the unlikely event he wins, I view Trump as being so reckless as to warrant a bipartisan impeachment effort within a year or two of taking office. 

 

 

[lokisnow]

28 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

If the republicans get especially delusional/suicidal after the election, and if there is anything incriminating in this newest batch of Clinton's emails, I can see at least the start of a serious, almost immediate impeachment effort.  As in, Clinton gives her acceptance speech in January, and the republican response is 'we are commencing with impeachment proceedings.'

 

Then again, in the unlikely event he wins, I view Trump as being so reckless as to warrant a bipartisan impeachment effort within a year or two of taking office. 

 

 

I think you are a little delusional about just how difficult impeachment is to pull off.

[Castel]

9 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

I think you are a little delusional about just how difficult impeachment is to pull off.

And how utterly servile the GOP has proven itself to be on Trump and Trump's seeming ability to appear just tolerable enough that peace is preferable to war.

As far as I'm concerned, any scenario where the GOP controlled Congress stops Trump is fantastical (even worse maybe, depending on what motivates it). They'll have the trifecta and they've already compromised all for a losing candidate, they'll go even further for a President.

[Ordos]

I have never been brave enough to make an election prediction for any democracy that is not a dominant party system even though I consider myself something of a self-made political scientist (as a hobby, not for a living). But on Wednesday morning in the UTC + 8:00 time zone, I'll make my first election prediction and it will be for the US presidential election. They say a week is a long time in politics and by the time I make my prediction it will be exactly one week before I wake up and watch the returns on CNN.

By then I do not believe there will be any unforeseen event that could change the outcome of the election because there just is not that much time anymore. If I get my prediction wrong, I'll never make election predictions again.

[ThinkerX]

I think you are a little delusional about just how difficult impeachment is to pull off.

Yet at least attempted impeachment has happened within recent history. 

45 minutes ago, Castel said:

And how utterly servile the GOP has proven itself to be on Trump and Trump's seeming ability to appear just tolerable enough that peace is preferable to war.

As far as I'm concerned, any scenario where the GOP controlled Congress stops Trump is fantastical (even worse maybe, depending on what motivates it). They'll have the trifecta and they've already compromised all for a losing candidate, they'll go even further for a President.

You assume a GOP congressional majority in the case of a Trump victory.  I do not. 

You also appear to under estimate (yet again) just how much Trump ticks off people. 

[The guy from the Vale]

The GOP almost assuredly has control of the House, and if Trump wins, better than even odds of getting the Senate. And yes, all the Republicans so far have proven themselves to be spineless cowards in dealing with Trump (Kasich and Romney excepted, instead.

[Inigima]

I had to look this up to refresh myself, but impeachment by the House requires a 2/3 majority. Republicans currently have 247 House members, out of a total of 435, which is only about 56%. Even if the Republicans vote in lockstep, I can't imagine you'd get over 40 Democrats supporting it.

The right hasn't accepted the right of an elected Democratic party to govern since the '70s. It really needs to get over this tantrum.

[The Marquis de Leech]

10 minutes ago, Inigima said:

The right hasn't accepted the right of an elected Democratic party to govern since the '70s. It really needs to get over this tantrum.

Funny thing is back in the '70s, Jimmy had his own issues with Congress, because he had very little clue how to make the entrenched power structures work for him.

[zelticgar]

One thing that has become apparent between the email server issue and wikileaks is Hillary has some shady ass underlings. A lot of them are in Bill's circle but even her own staff does not seem very impressive. Not filling me with a lot of confidence if she wins. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

25 minutes ago, Inigima said:

I had to look this up to refresh myself, but impeachment by the House requires a 2/3 majority. Republicans currently have 247 House members, out of a total of 435, which is only about 56%. Even if the Republicans vote in lockstep, I can't imagine you'd get over 40 Democrats supporting it.

Impeachment requires a straight majority in the House.

Actual conviction and removal from office requires a trial in the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice. Conviction requires 2/3 vote. In neither of the two impeachment trials (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) was the 2/3 reached, though Johnson came within one vote of being removed (the one vote was from a Republican Senator who thought that impeachment shouldn't be politically motivated. How quaint).

[The Marquis de Leech]

Unless Hillary really has been revealing critical secrets, to the point where the public turn on her (a really unlikely scenario), the 1990s precedent suggests that any impeachment proceedings might make 2018 look more like 1998 than 2010.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

I had to look this up to refresh myself, but impeachment by the House requires a 2/3 majority. Republicans currently have 247 House members, out of a total of 435, which is only about 56%. Even if the Republicans vote in lockstep, I can't imagine you'd get over 40 Democrats supporting it.

The right hasn't accepted the right of an elected Democratic party to govern since the '70s. It really needs to get over this tantrum.

Carter had a Democratic congress.

[The Marquis de Leech]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Carter had a Democratic congress.

Technically he had a Republican Senate for his last seventeen days in office.