Hillary and Trump

[redcairo]

Thank you for the conversation, everyone. I am sure this thread will continue on happily without me. :-)

 

I wish the election would just be over already... gods.

 

RC

[dust]

If one weighs the responses in this thread it is very unbalanced in a negative way toward Hillary. Whenever I post relevant information on Trump there is a backlash in almost every case towards what I have posted, in which certain posters immediately begin piling on the negatives toward Hillary.

 

All true. I have given up. Asking for anything in the realm of balanced discussion yields only,

 

"Trump is just a dude, man, just a guy who says stuff, no big deal, might even be good for the country, has a great foreign policy, probably actually is the only one who knows how to fix what's wrong with this country.. but Hillary? Hillary is evil incarnate! Hillary is the personification of corruption, cronyism, criminality, and conspiracy! Trump's just an honest guy, though, probably will make America great again.."

 

I don't believe it's always sexism, but it's certainly unbalanced. At the same time, now, I'm not finding much to defend about Clinton any longer. I still think she'd make a less dangerous president, but that's not saying much.

[Karl]

All true. I have given up. Asking for anything in the realm of balanced discussion yields only,

 

"Trump is just a dude, man, just a guy who says stuff, no big deal, might even be good for the country, has a great foreign policy, probably actually is the only one who knows how to fix what's wrong with this country.. but Hillary? Hillary is evil incarnate! Hillary is the personification of corruption, cronyism, criminality, and conspiracy! Trump's just an honest guy, though, probably will make America great again.."

 

I don't believe it's always sexism, but it's certainly unbalanced. At the same time, now, I'm not finding much to defend about Clinton any longer. I still think she'd make a less dangerous president, but that's not saying much.

Less dangerous ? Hillary is a confirmed hawk, a warmonger that boasts about the horrific death of Gaddafi. Then she is threatening Russia in Syria calling on her generals to set up a no fly zone, she is rattling the nuclear sabre, she has been receiving pay for play cash for the most viscious dictators on the planet, she threatened a drone strike on Assange.

 

Where have you been living ? Have you not been taking notice ? She even threatened the women that her husband raped.

 

No one knows much about Trump, but he certainly hasn't got a record like the megalomaniac Al Capone, Bonny HRC. Apparently Trump may not have paid one of his contractors, 11 years ago he talked of grabbing women by the crotch who let him do it. He kissed a porn star on the lips and has been accused of raping a child of which there is no evidence, but for certain, if it's true, then expect every stone to be overturned to find some.

 

Meanwhile HRC does whatever she likes and the prosecuter merely asks her 'did you do it ? ' she says no and that's the end of the investigation. She 'bleach bit' her computer for Gods sake-who does that ? It's the equivalent of going to a murderers house to discover the carpets and all the furniture have been disappeared.

 

Less dangerous ? Really ? Really ? I don't get it at all.

[dust]

I do admire your fervour. I'm not as fervent in my hatred as you, but I'm no longer denying that HRC is a bad one (I never claimed she was a good one, to be fair, just that she didn't seem as bad as you lot were making out).

 

At the same time, the lack of balance remains. There's a lot of nasty stuff about Donald, and the fact that he hasn't been in a position of direct political power yet doesn't mean he wouldn't be dangerous, doesn't mean I want to find out what he'd be like. The sexual stuff doesn't even need to come into it -- we have decades of evidence pointing to the fact that he's a scumbag too.

[Karl]

I do admire your fervour. I'm not as fervent in my hatred as you, but I'm no longer denying that HRC is a bad one (I never claimed she was a good one, to be fair, just that she didn't seem as bad as you lot were making out).

 

At the same time, the lack of balance remains. There's a lot of nasty stuff about Donald, and the fact that he hasn't been in a position of direct political power yet doesn't mean he wouldn't be dangerous, doesn't mean I want to find out what he'd be like. The sexual stuff doesn't even need to come into it -- we have decades of evidence pointing to the fact that he's a scumbag too.

 

Its not really hatred DB, it's more caution about a maniac that seems impervious to prosecution and can lie better than any actor on Broadway. This is a woman who condones the violence of her husband and uses threats, intimidation and who knows what else to get her hands on money. The warning signs are all there. If she did these things as Secretary of State, imagine what she will do when she gets the top job.

 

I don't like Trump, but he isn't carrying that kind of baggage, he has a few blemishes, but, watch how he had the Trump foundation shut down by a judge - a dimes and cents operation compared with the Clinton Foundation which is allowed to continue unabated.

 

Even HRC has admitted that 'there's an awful lot of smoke, but no fire'. We know there is no smoke without fire. Look at her arrogant quip about cleaning her private server 'with a cloth or something' ? These are the words of a paid up member of a new aristocracy which will do anything to keep this woman in the Whitehouse.

 

What will Trump do if he wins ? He wouldn't have any power. The republicans are as bent as the democrats, it's all part of the same system. If he isn't a player, can you imagine ? If he isn't a player and tries to change things as the top honcho of a massive powerful criminal gang who utilise the CIA, military and black ops contractors to destabilise entire countries ?

[dust]

Yeah..well.. for now I'm going to sit back and watch it unfold. Detachment might be the key to sanity.

[Karl]

Yeah..well.. for now I'm going to sit back and watch it unfold. Detachment might be the key to sanity.

Can't disagree with you on that score DB. Grab some popcorn.

[joeblast]

He is part of the DOJ and any investigation needs a warrant. Besides, this could be construed as electioneering.

Stonewalling these investigations has been in effect steering the elections, because she'd be in jail in the rule of law were followed.

 

Don't lecture me on what constitutes hate speech. I know very well what is happening on this forum. Several threads have been locked due to anti-Semitism and one person suspended.

 

Joeblast stated earlier that Hillary should be in an electric chair. This is the type of speech that is out of bounds here and if you fail to understand the far reaching ramifications of such, then you are living in denial.

Treasonous felon vs loudmouth CEO, that's about all you got and its pretty fkn pathetic ralis, that you would rather lend your support indirectly to ISIS than stand behind the constitution.

 

(or do you still think benghazi was about a youtube video, and not the guns and Hillary & Chris Stevens were orchestrating to move from Libya and into the hands of ISIS in Syria?  Its amazing what you will ignore.)

 

And yes...sometimes, treason has the death penalty attached to a conviction.  Hence the chair.

Edited October 30, 2016 by joeblast

[joeblast]

Like I said he violated DOJ policy and you fail to understand that simple documented fact. This thread is a pathetic waste.

NOT having taken action would have made them look even less competent than they've already made themselves look.  They already covered for her and its not their fault more was found because the muslim brotherhood's husband thought he could be bill clinton and pedo it up.

[liminal_luke]

Reading through this thread, I often feel like a creature from another planet.  Trump, really?  Not that I trust Clinton because I don`t.  It seems oddly plausible to me that she would kill people who get in her way.

​

Anyway, I`m not voting.  As far as I can tell, there`s nobody worth lifting a pencil for.  Even discussing the issues, as we do here, is an exercise in futility.  Everyone seems to have made up their mind and they`re not budging.  We`re all aghast that otherwise intelligent people somehow manage to see things differently than we do.  I know I am.

 

I`m reminded of a practice discipline suggested sometime ago by BaguaKicksAss.  She did a certain amount of cultivation practice every time she posted.  That strikes me as an elegant way of maintaining balance, and I would like to suggest a similar discipline.  How would things change around here if we all took a few minutes to breathe and center every time we read an outrageous opinion in the off-topic section?  I suspect I`d be pretty mellow by now.   

Edited October 30, 2016 by liminal_luke

[dust]

Everyone seems to have made up their mind and they`re not budging.  We`re all aghast that otherwise intelligent people somehow manage to see things differently than we do.  I know I am.

 

I budged... a little...

 

But also, I'm not American, so... my position isn't really relevant..

 

 

 

I`m reminded of a practice discipline suggested sometime ago by BaguaKicksAss.  She did a certain amount of cultivation practice every time she posted.  That strikes me as an elegant way of maintaining balance, and I would like to suggest a similar discipline.  How would things change around here if we all took a few minutes to breathe and center every time we read an outrageous opinion in the off-topic section?  I suspect I`d be pretty mellow by now.   

 

Yeah. Any ideas on how to proceed?

 

I can read the opinion, get irritated, come back later, read again and be irritated all over again...

[liminal_luke]

 

Yeah. Any ideas on how to proceed?

 

I can read the opinion, get irritated, come back later, read again and be irritated all over again...

 

You may not have a vote, Dustybeijing, but your opinion is certainly relevant -- at least here.  And good for you for budging.  We could all stand to expand our capacity to be budged; I think it`s an essential aspect of emotional intelligence.

 

I`ve got my own ways of coming back to center, but I think it`s a very individual thing so no particular suggestions here. When I start to get irritated with a topic, I often think it`s time to just stop, give it a break.  That`s easier said then done, at least for me.  The topic of how we relate to the board (irritated? angry? inspired?) is a rich one, probably deserving of it`s own thread.

[ralis]

Policy and not law. Big difference. It's not illegal, it's just not the norm. That suggests something big.

 

Comey may have violated the 'Hatch Act'.

 

http://hatchact.uslegal.com/

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html?_r=0

 

Richard W. Painter former George W. Bush ethics head wrote the following.

 

 

The F.B.I. is currently investigating the hacking of Americans’ computers by foreign governments. Russia is a prime suspect.

Imagine a possible connection between a candidate for president in the United States and the Russian computer hacking. Imagine the candidate has business dealings in Russia, and has publicly encouraged the Russians to hack the email of his opponent and her associates.

It would not be surprising for the F.B.I. to include this candidate and his campaign staff in its confidential investigation of Russian computer hacking.

But it would be highly improper, and an abuse of power, for the F.B.I. to conduct such an investigation in the public eye, particularly on the eve of the election. It would be an abuse of power for the director of the F.B.I., absent compelling circumstances, to notify members of Congress from the party opposing the candidate that the candidate or his associates were under investigation. It would be an abuse of power if F.B.I. agents went so far as to obtain a search warrant and raid the candidate’s office tower, hauling out boxes of documents and computers in front of television cameras.

The F.B.I.’s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an election.

Such acts could also be prohibited under the Hatch Act, which bars the use of an official position to influence an election. That is why the F.B.I. presumably would keep those aspects of an investigation confidential until after the election.

And that is why, on Saturday, I filed a complaint against the F.B.I. with the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, and with the Office of Government Ethics. I have spent much of my career working on government ethics and lawyers’ ethics, including two and a half years as the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, and I never thought that the F.B.I. could be dragged into a political circus surrounding one of its investigations. Until this week.

(For the sake of full disclosure, in this election I have supported Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Hillary Clinton for president, in that order.)

On Friday, the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, sent to members of Congress a letter updating them on developments in the agency’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s emails, an investigation which supposedly was closed months ago. This letter, which was quickly posted on the internet, made highly unusual public statements about an F.B.I. investigation concerning a candidate in the election. The letter was sent in violation of a longstanding Justice Department policy of not discussing specifics about pending investigations with others, including members of Congress. According to some news reports on Saturday, the letter was sent before the F.B.I. had even obtained the search warrant that it needed to look at the newly discovered emails. And it was sent days before the election, at a time when many Americans are already voting.

Violations of the Hatch Act and of government ethics rules on misuse of official positions are not permissible in any circumstances, including in the case of an executive branch official acting under pressure from politically motivated members of Congress. Such violations are of even greater concern when the agency is the F.B.I.......

[Karl]

The investigation should never have been closed. It was clearly swept under the carpet with no attempt to pursue it beyond asking Clinton if she was guilty.

 

I would guess that Comey is now under extreme pressure as he may have effectively implicated the entire FBI in a conspiracy. When things start getting hot, then people begin looking for scapegoats to sacrifice and the more junior FBI will be well aware of the chances of becoming a sacrificial offering.

 

Something big has broken. Comey is being challenged by the Elite to expose the entire thing, which probably includes himself. How high and deep does it go ?

 

Apparently next week Anonymous (who released the emails and claim they are not Russian, but global) will post video footage of Clinton.

[wilfred]

[ralis]

 

A review of the 'Hatch Act' would be apropos before you post such stuff. I posted a few posts ago regarding the 'Hatch Act'. BTW, this is the USA and not the UK.

[Brian]

You appear to have given him a free pass. Further, I posted reports from journalists, but some respond with hearsay as if such persons have some understanding of the legal process in regards to the latest email revelation.

 

I could care less as to what Comey's politics are, but in this case according to AG Lynch, he acted against DOJ policy. Until that is given clarification, then all comments here are BS. Comey appears to be engaged in electioneering.

 

No, I don't want your opinion unless I see a more balanced discussion here which must include Trump's transgressions, which I stated earlier.

 

BTW, I am tired of the veiled or overtly stated hate towards a woman that is a presidential nominee. Whether it is on this forum or from Trump during several debates.

Quite an interesting pair of goggles you have there, ralis. I'll reply in detail tomorrow, when I have a chance.

 

Until then, however, are you aware that the FBI and AG Lynch are currently being sued to force them to disclose what was learned in the initial e-mail server investigation and what led them to recommend not prosecuting Hillary despite acknowledging very clear felony violations (might wanna read the Espionage Act). I suspect the Hatch Act has been very much on Comey's mind recently (and, apparently, on his wife's mind...) but not quite in the way you suggest.

 

 

EDIT: Oh! And would you be so kind as to point to an example of an investigation warrant? Sounds intriguing! (There is no such creature, mind you, but sometimes imaginary creatures are quite interesting...)

Edited October 30, 2016 by Brian

[ralis]

Quite an interesting pair of goggles you have there, ralis. I'll reply in detail tomorrow, when I have a chance.

 

Until then, however, are you aware that the FBI and AG Lynch are currently being sued to force them to disclose what was learned in the initial e-mail server investigation and what led them to recommend not prosecuting Hillary despite acknowledging very clear felony violations (might wanna read the Espionage Act). I suspect the Hatch Act has been very much on Comey's mind recently (and, apparently, on his wife's mind...) but not quite in the way you suggest.

 

 

EDIT: Oh! And would you be so kind as to point to an example of an investigation warrant? Sounds intriguing! (There is no such creature, mind you, but sometimes imaginary creatures are quite interesting...)

 

Post to your hearts content Brian. Just because law is a hobby of yours means absolutely nothing. In regards to the warrant, the computer in question is part of another investigation and the FBI must show probable cause to convince the judge to issue a warrant.

[Karl]

They might have an issue if there is some protection for Huma as the emails were on his computer not on hers.

 

Clinton has no one but herself to blame even if this all turns out to be a storm in a teacup. Delaying handing over the server, wiping it with bleach-bit, smashing up a laptop and lying at every turn. Then putting pressure on the FBI to back off. She looks as guilty as hell. What FBI director would dare to just let it go and then get the full wrath of the US public ? An impossible position for Comey. Still, there is no smoke without fire, it's just a matter of finding that fire.

[LAOLONG]

Hillary blew the trumpet????

[ralis]

Quite an interesting pair of goggles you have there, ralis. I'll reply in detail tomorrow, when I have a chance.

 

Until then, however, are you aware that the FBI and AG Lynch are currently being sued to force them to disclose what was learned in the initial e-mail server investigation and what led them to recommend not prosecuting Hillary despite acknowledging very clear felony violations (might wanna read the Espionage Act). I suspect the Hatch Act has been very much on Comey's mind recently (and, apparently, on his wife's mind...) but not quite in the way you suggest.

 

 

EDIT: Oh! And would you be so kind as to point to an example of an investigation warrant? Sounds intriguing! (There is no such creature, mind you, but sometimes imaginary creatures are quite interesting...)

 

I am imagining things? Post a link to the lawsuit.

[Wells]

.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Wells

[zerostao]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/anthony-weiner-cooperating-with-fbi-on-email-probe/article/2606004

[zerostao]

warrant obtained

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/us/politics/justice-department-warrant-clinton-abedin-fbi.html?smid=fb-share

Edited October 31, 2016 by zerostao

[wilfred]