Election 2016: Trump vs Clinton

[houndawg]

I read somewhere this morning (either WaPo or WSJ - I forget) that Huma is saying she never used the laptop in question and doesn't know how the emails got on there.

That Carlos Danger is a motherfvcker! Chatting up the teenies with cockshots and reading the old lady's emails without her knowing.

I bet HRC saved a few of those candids....

[93henfan]

I read somewhere this morning (either WaPo or WSJ - I forget) that Huma is saying she never used the laptop in question and doesn't know how the emails got on there.

That Carlos Danger is a motherfvcker! Chatting up the teenies with cockshots and reading the old lady's emails without her knowing.

I bet HRC saved a few of those candids....

Confused: If you're talking about Carlos' snausage, she's not into that sort of thing. If you're referring to Huma's burka lounger, well I have news for you. Hillary scissors it whenever she wants.

[houndawg]

I bet HRC saved a few of those candids....

Confused: If you're talking about Carlos' snausage, she's not into that sort of thing. If you're referring to Huma's burka lounger, well I have news for you. Hillary scissors it whenever she wants.

I don't blame her - I bet you'd scissor it too if she'd let you...

[kalm]

And...Eric Holder chimes in.

I began my career in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section 40 years ago, investigating cases of official corruption. In the years since, I have seen America’s justice system firsthand from nearly every angle — as a prosecutor, judge, attorney in private practice, and attorney general of the United States. I understand the gravity of the work our Justice Department performs every day to defend the security of our nation, protect the American people, uphold the rule of law and be fair.

That is why I am deeply concerned about FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision to write a vague letter to Congress about emails potentially connected to a matter of public, and political, interest. That decision was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and tradition. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season. That guidance, which reinforced established policy, is still in effect and applies to the entire Justice Department — including the FBI.

The department has a practice of not commenting on ongoing investigations. Indeed, except in exceptional circumstances, the department will not even acknowledge the existence of an investigation. The department also has a policy of not taking unnecessary action close in time to Election Day that might influence an election’s outcome. These rules have been followed during Republican and Democratic administrations. They aren’t designed to help any particular individual or to serve any political interest. Instead, they are intended to ensure that every investigation proceeds fairly and judiciously; to maintain the public trust in the department’s ability to do its job free of political influence; and to prevent investigations from unfairly or unintentionally casting public suspicion on public officials who have done nothing wrong....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... f5325fbe11

[houndawg]

And...Eric Holder chimes in.

I began my career in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section 40 years ago, investigating cases of official corruption. In the years since, I have seen America’s justice system firsthand from nearly every angle — as a prosecutor, judge, attorney in private practice, and attorney general of the United States. I understand the gravity of the work our Justice Department performs every day to defend the security of our nation, protect the American people, uphold the rule of law and be fair.

That is why I am deeply concerned about FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision to write a vague letter to Congress about emails potentially connected to a matter of public, and political, interest. That decision was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and tradition. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season. That guidance, which reinforced established policy, is still in effect and applies to the entire Justice Department — including the FBI.

The department has a practice of not commenting on ongoing investigations. Indeed, except in exceptional circumstances, the department will not even acknowledge the existence of an investigation. The department also has a policy of not taking unnecessary action close in time to Election Day that might influence an election’s outcome. These rules have been followed during Republican and Democratic administrations. They aren’t designed to help any particular individual or to serve any political interest. Instead, they are intended to ensure that every investigation proceeds fairly and judiciously; to maintain the public trust in the department’s ability to do its job free of political influence; and to prevent investigations from unfairly or unintentionally casting public suspicion on public officials who have done nothing wrong....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... f5325fbe11

Eric Holder? The guy that put nobody in prison for crashing the economy? Fvck Eric Holder. I hope his plane crashes and his mother is in it.

[Pwns]

And...Eric Holder chimes in.

I began my career in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section 40 years ago, investigating cases of official corruption. In the years since, I have seen America’s justice system firsthand from nearly every angle — as a prosecutor, judge, attorney in private practice, and attorney general of the United States. I understand the gravity of the work our Justice Department performs every day to defend the security of our nation, protect the American people, uphold the rule of law and be fair.

That is why I am deeply concerned about FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision to write a vague letter to Congress about emails potentially connected to a matter of public, and political, interest. That decision was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and tradition. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season. That guidance, which reinforced established policy, is still in effect and applies to the entire Justice Department — including the FBI.

The department has a practice of not commenting on ongoing investigations. Indeed, except in exceptional circumstances, the department will not even acknowledge the existence of an investigation. The department also has a policy of not taking unnecessary action close in time to Election Day that might influence an election’s outcome. These rules have been followed during Republican and Democratic administrations. They aren’t designed to help any particular individual or to serve any political interest. Instead, they are intended to ensure that every investigation proceeds fairly and judiciously; to maintain the public trust in the department’s ability to do its job free of political influence; and to prevent investigations from unfairly or unintentionally casting public suspicion on public officials who have done nothing wrong....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... f5325fbe11

That's rich coming from an affirmative action attorney general who ran the justice department in the wake of a financial crisis and went straight to a cushy Wall Street job after leaving. STFU.

[Gil Dobie]

Should the people be voting for the VP that would best run the country, as both Cliton and Trump could be in jail in less than a year?

[kalm]

Should the people be voting for the VP that would best run the country, as both Cliton and Trump could be in jail in less than a year?

Yes. Bill Weld.

[Ibanez]

This election has been incredible. Clinton, from the beginning has had a difficult time proving to America that she's not corrupt. That's she's an honest person. We've had a presidential candidate (or her practices, however you want to describe it) under FBI investigation for large part of the campaign. And just when we thought it was over and Clinton was preparing to coast for the next 2 weeks, the FBI announces that while investigating the perverted husband of Clinton's right hand woman, they might have found emails pertinent to the investigation about her email server. WTF is happening?! I enjoy the talking heads of Talk Radio, especially Glenn Beck. That guy is so ridiculous and deluded, he makes the others appear to be sane. He was pontificating this morning how we've never had the FBI do this to a presidential candidate before (wrong. It happened to Bush, Sr. and the Clinton's used it to there advantage.) but actually saying that now was the perfect moment to usher in Trumps administration.


All Trump has to do, and I doubt he can, is to not say anything stupid. Allow the specter of this investigation hang around Clinton's neck. Will it be enough to swing some states? Doubt it. I think we'll see Clinton win, shore up support in the DOJ, fire Comey and promote McCabe (who is a supporter) and all of this will be forgotten.

And if..IF..she survives her first term, it'll only be b/c she murdered the opposition. Or we'll have President Kaine. Which would be better. in comparison.


Let's face it, there's no point in her dropping out, as if she would. She won't be investigated if she wins and the FBI most likely can't make a case from now until Nov. 8. If anything, the time between Nov. 8 and January 20 will be more a roller coaster than the previous 18 months.

[∞∞∞]

I doubt they'll find anything with malicious intent to harm the United States to incriminate her. I'm biased as a blue-blood, but I'm very much questioning Comey's decision to release that letter as well. But I'm not an expert on law, so I'll let the Justice Dept. figure if he's violating the Hatch Act or something.

Clinton might lose the popular vote, but I think she'll get enough states (probably by a decent amount) to win the Presidency. We can discuss 2020 when we get there...

[Bronco]

Confused: If you're talking about Carlos' snausage, she's not into that sort of thing. If you're referring to Huma's burka lounger, well I have news for you. Hillary scissors it whenever she wants.

I don't blame her - I bet you'd scissor it too if she'd let you...

Here's a recreation of what it might look like...but I would assume Hillary would just lay there and let Huma do all the work

[Ibanez]

I doubt they'll find anything with malicious intent to harm the United States to incriminate her. I'm biased as a blue-blood, but I'm very much questioning Comey's decision to release that letter as well. But I'm not an expert on law, so I'll let the Justice Dept. figure if he's violating the Hatch Act or something.

Clinton might lose the popular vote, but I think she'll get enough states (probably by a decent amount) to win the Presidency. We can discuss 2020 when we get there...

Does intent really matter here? As a security clearance holder, she's supposed to safeguard any emails, documents, etc...that come into her possession. If Huma classifies an email and sends to Clinton, Clinton should have the knowledge that certain information should be classified (if it requires a classification). She's also supposed to protect it. That means locking it up in a safe that is cleared for classified information; using a printer that is cleared for classified information; using a device that is cleared for classified information, etc...

Ignorance of the law isn't a get out of jail free card. Whether you intend to break the law or not, shouldn't really matter. She knew the rules when it came to handling classified information. From what i've read and as I understand it, prosecution under 18 USC 793 only requires that the information end up residing outside of its proper place of custody. I would suggest a private server isn't a proper place for Government emails and documents.

[SDHornet]

I doubt they'll find anything with malicious intent to harm the United States to incriminate her. I'm biased as a blue-blood, but I'm very much questioning Comey's decision to release that letter as well. But I'm not an expert on law, so I'll let the Justice Dept. figure if he's violating the Hatch Act or something.

Clinton might lose the popular vote, but I think she'll get enough states (probably by a decent amount) to win the Presidency. We can discuss 2020 when we get there...

Funny how all we heard from leftists after he said there was no intent to indict was how much of a standup guy Comey is.

Now the left wants him crucified for acting on potential new evidence...you know...doing his job...because he is a standup guy.

And houndie going into full leftist spin mode.

This is Weiner using his "get out of jail free" card...consider him dead when hilldog wins next week.

What great entertainment.

[93henfan]

I doubt they'll find anything with malicious intent to harm the United States to incriminate her. I'm biased as a blue-blood, but I'm very much questioning Comey's decision to release that letter as well. But I'm not an expert on law, so I'll let the Justice Dept. figure if he's violating the Hatch Act or something.

Clinton might lose the popular vote, but I think she'll get enough states (probably by a decent amount) to win the Presidency. We can discuss 2020 when we get there...

Reid's Hatch Act assertion is beyond a stretch. Please cite anything in the Hatch Act that Comey violated.

[93henfan]

Speaking of the Hatch Act, I think I may have just violated it. On the way to Starbucks, I saw two FEMA employees in costumes. One was an alien and one was a witch. I looked at the witch and said, "Hillary?"

I got a raised eyebrow reaction and a gritty smile that seemed to silently say "yeah fvck you @sshole."

[∞∞∞]

I doubt they'll find anything with malicious intent to harm the United States to incriminate her. I'm biased as a blue-blood, but I'm very much questioning Comey's decision to release that letter as well. But I'm not an expert on law, so I'll let the Justice Dept. figure if he's violating the Hatch Act or something.

Clinton might lose the popular vote, but I think she'll get enough states (probably by a decent amount) to win the Presidency. We can discuss 2020 when we get there...

Reid's Hatch Act assertion is beyond a stretch. Please cite anything in the Hatch Act that Comey violated.

I can't...that's why I said I'll let the Justice Department figure it out (if they even want to go for it). Like Clinton's case, I think Comey's intent is key here. If he did this intentionally in order to influence the election, then there's an issue. If he's just ignorant of the investigative process, then he should be fine.

To answer Ibanez's question, I'm the type that believes in the law of common sense over the law of man. I don't really fault people too harshly for mistakes that weren't malice, whether they're former Secretary of States or a common citizen. If you steal food to feed your family, I'm not throwing you in jail. If you use a private server, I'm not throwing you in jail. Murderers, rapists, treasoners...they can go to jail.

[93henfan]

The Clinton investigation disclosure is not a Hatch Act violation. Not even close.

Now the one thing brought up that might fall under it would be if Comey suppressed news of any investigations of Trump for political reasons, but I have not heard or seen any evidence of that, and you can bet the liberal mainstream media would be all over it.

[CAA Flagship]

Reid's Hatch Act assertion is beyond a stretch. Please cite anything in the Hatch Act that Comey violated.

I can't...that's why I said I'll let the Justice Department figure it out (if they even want to go for it). Like Clinton's case, I think Comey's intent is key here. If he did this intentionally in order to influence the election, then there's an issue. If he's just ignorant of the investigative process, then he should be fine.

To answer Ibanez's question, I'm the type that believes in the law of common sense over the law of man. I don't really fault people too harshly for mistakes that weren't malice, whether they're former Secretary of States or a common citizen. If you steal food to feed your family, I'm not throwing you in jail. If you use a private server, I'm not throwing you in jail. Murderers, rapists, treasoners...they can go to jail.

Why not apply for food stamps? Why not go to one of many soup kitchens or food pantries? Why steal? Why not just ask for it?
If you exhausted all avenues, then, as a matter of survival, I have some sympathy as long as it is not combined with terrorizing anyone.

[CAA Flagship]

The Clinton investigation disclosure is not a Hatch Act violation. Not even close.

Now the one thing brought up that might fall under it would be if Comey suppressed news of any investigations of Trump for political reasons, but I have not heard or seen any evidence of that, and you can bet the liberal mainstream media would be all over it.

The left has surely been combing every inch of information on Trump to find dirt. I'm surprised that they have not found anything worse than what they have already stated. Maybe it is coming in the next few days. But, to date, he has proven to operate, at worst, within common practices. I would be shocked if no bombshells are dropped in the next 7 days.

[SDHornet]

Reid's Hatch Act assertion is beyond a stretch. Please cite anything in the Hatch Act that Comey violated.

I can't...that's why I said I'll let the Justice Department figure it out (if they even want to go for it). Like Clinton's case, I think Comey's intent is key here. If he did this intentionally in order to influence the election, then there's an issue. If he's just ignorant of the investigative process, then he should be fine.

To answer Ibanez's question, I'm the type that believes in the law of common sense over the law of man. I don't really fault people too harshly for mistakes that weren't malice, whether they're former Secretary of States or a common citizen. If you steal food to feed your family, I'm not throwing you in jail. If you use a private server, I'm not throwing you in jail. Murderers, rapists, treasoners...they can go to jail.

Common sense says any other person that pulls this shit hilldog did would be in jail...leftist logic.

[∞∞∞]

I can't...that's why I said I'll let the Justice Department figure it out (if they even want to go for it). Like Clinton's case, I think Comey's intent is key here. If he did this intentionally in order to influence the election, then there's an issue. If he's just ignorant of the investigative process, then he should be fine.

To answer Ibanez's question, I'm the type that believes in the law of common sense over the law of man. I don't really fault people too harshly for mistakes that weren't malice, whether they're former Secretary of States or a common citizen. If you steal food to feed your family, I'm not throwing you in jail. If you use a private server, I'm not throwing you in jail. Murderers, rapists, treasoners...they can go to jail.

Why not apply for food stamps? Why not go to one of many soup kitchens or food pantries? Why steal? Why not just ask for it?
If you exhausted all avenues, then, as a matter of survival, I have some sympathy as long as it is not combined with terrorizing anyone.

I don't disagree with that assertion; however, some people resort to wrong behaviors when desperate, especially if they're ignorant of any other avenues. But that doesn't mean I'm going to ruin their lives (as well as their family's) and lock them up if I had my way. I'll guide them to the correct avenues and if they continuously do the wrong thing (considering they don't have a mental issue), then a more restrictive punishment should be considered.

[CAA Flagship]

Why not apply for food stamps? Why not go to one of many soup kitchens or food pantries? Why steal? Why not just ask for it?
If you exhausted all avenues, then, as a matter of survival, I have some sympathy as long as it is not combined with terrorizing anyone.

I don't disagree with that assertion; however, some people resort to wrong behaviors when desperate, especially if they're ignorant of any other avenues. But that doesn't mean I'm going to ruin their lives (as well as their family's) and lock them up if I had my way. I'll guide them to the correct avenues and if they continuously do the wrong thing (considering they don't have a mental issue), then a more restrictive punishment should be considered.

Well, jail might be a bit extreme, but I would demand restitution. If the person has no job, then there is plenty of time to perform community service.

[93henfan]

Why not apply for food stamps? Why not go to one of many soup kitchens or food pantries? Why steal? Why not just ask for it?
If you exhausted all avenues, then, as a matter of survival, I have some sympathy as long as it is not combined with terrorizing anyone.

I don't disagree with that assertion; however, some people resort to wrong behaviors when desperate, especially if they're ignorant of any other avenues. But that doesn't mean I'm going to ruin their lives (as well as their family's) and lock them up if I had my way. I'll guide them to the correct avenues and if they continuously do the wrong thing (considering they don't have a mental issue), then a more restrictive punishment should be considered.

That is so inefficient compared to the way they handle things back in the old country.

[Ibanez]

Reid's Hatch Act assertion is beyond a stretch. Please cite anything in the Hatch Act that Comey violated.

I can't...that's why I said I'll let the Justice Department figure it out (if they even want to go for it). Like Clinton's case, I think Comey's intent is key here. If he did this intentionally in order to influence the election, then there's an issue. If he's just ignorant of the investigative process, then he should be fine.

To answer Ibanez's question, I'm the type that believes in the law of common sense over the law of man. I don't really fault people too harshly for mistakes that weren't malice, whether they're former Secretary of States or a common citizen. If you steal food to feed your family, I'm not throwing you in jail. If you use a private server, I'm not throwing you in jail. Murderers, rapists, treasoners...they can go to jail.

I wouldn't jail you for puling a Jean Val Jean.

But using an unsecured, private email address while you are engaging in diplomacy, working with sensitive information and could be the constant target of bad actors is different.

Comey, I believe, is trying to cover his ass. He wants to remove all doubt that the FBI is trying to cover up anything. And I believe he should've done more than issue a letter. The letter alone doesn't give us any evidence, and from that POV, I can see why the left isn't happy. However, if HRC wins and then he announces it, the evidence he has now will come out and we'll have another aspect of the Clinton email scandal. He was in a Catch-22, but I think he did the right thing.

However, the hypocrisy from the left is incredible. If this were against Trump, they'd be praising the FBI for doing a good job. (Good job, Brownie?) Clinton and Gore welcomed the one-count indictment of former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger prior to the 1992 election, which tried to link Bush to the Iran-Contra affair.

[CID1990]

You didn't answer the question.

Wouldn't expect anything else from someone who whimpers, whines, and snivels constantly, but doesn't vote.

Whatever you say, Willie Nelson!

I call him Broken Record

He should just save a copy of "Republicans are dumb because they can't catch the Clintons" and paste it randomly in every thread

It would still be a flack talking point but at least he'd be entertaining like Spanny


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk