Election 2016: Trump vs Clinton

[Chizzang]

How is Eric Holder not in prison..?
at least Comey gives a passing nod to honesty



and then...

[CID1990]

How is Eric Holder not in prison..?
at least Comey gives a passing nod to honesty



and then...

I love how Holder came out and played the scold

Alternate title: "Former AG Under Contempt of Congress Tut Tuts About FBI Ethics"


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

CNN fires Brazille for sending debate questions to Clinton campaign.

[89Hen]

sending debate questions to Clinton campaign.

Dems won't care. Half will say that shows the Clinton ingenuity to prepare, the other half will say there are no surprise questions at a debate so it's not a big deal.

[Baldy]

CNN fires Brazille for sending debate questions to Clinton campaign.

Trump stated to a crowd in Michigan that if he had cheated in the debates like The Hildabeast did, he would have been given the electric chair.

Politifact will "fact check" the statement and give Trump a "Pants on Fire" grade for lying by saying that nobody has ever been sentenced to death by electrocution, much less electrocuted, for cheating in a debate.

Expect to see a new JSO thread...soon.

[Bronco]

Hillary accepted the heads up on questions...what difference doe it make that she knew she was cheating.
Add Cheater to liar,crook, et al

Also

Via Daily Caller:
Senior-level Justice Department officials pushed back heavily on an ongoing FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation, according to a bombshell report from The Wall Street Journal.

The newspaper laid out numerous examples, based on law enforcement sources, of senior DOJ officials intervening to quash the probe.

[UNI88]

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...

So if I was speeding down a residential street and hit someone's dog I would be innocent if I had missed seeing the speed limit sign and thus didn't know that I was speeding?* I wouldn't think that knowledge and intent are relevant for determining guilt or innocence for most crimes. They could be a mitigating factor in sentencing though.

* did I go to far with that analogy?

[CID1990]

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...

So if I was speeding down a residential street and hit someone's dog I would be innocent if I had missed seeing the speed limit sign and thus didn't know that I was speeding?* I wouldn't think that knowledge and intent are relevant for determining guilt or innocence for most crimes. They could be a mitigating factor in sentencing though.

* did I go to far with that analogy?

Triple infinity, like JSO, is satisfied to take the Clinton campaign at their words about what the statute actually says, rather than reading it himself

I'll say it again for the fiftieth time

INTENT IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE STATUTE.

HERE IT IS, AGAIN

INTENT IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE STATUTE


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

So if I was speeding down a residential street and hit someone's dog I would be innocent if I had missed seeing the speed limit sign and thus didn't know that I was speeding?* I wouldn't think that knowledge and intent are relevant for determining guilt or innocence for most crimes. They could be a mitigating factor in sentencing though.

* did I go to far with that analogy?

Triple infinity, like JSO, is satisfied to take the Clinton campaign at their words about what the statute actually says, rather than reading it himself

I'll say it again for the fiftieth time

INTENT IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE STATUTE.

HERE IT IS, AGAIN

INTENT IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE STATUTE


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Read what I wrote earlier; nowhere do I pretend intent is an element of the statute. To be clear, I don't think Clinton is innocent; she's obviously guilty of breaking the law. That's a big deal to some of you, but it's really not to me. The law can say whatever it wants, but I personally care about intent (I'm sure there are many laws/sentences you don't care for). That's where our logic differs.

And to answer UNI88's question, you'd be guilty of hitting the dog but I don't think a harsh penalty is in order. Maybe some sort of financial retribution but that's about it.

I'd run a very forgiving nation if ever given the chance.

[CAA Flagship]

Triple infinity, like JSO, is satisfied to take the Clinton campaign at their words about what the statute actually says, rather than reading it himself

I'll say it again for the fiftieth time

INTENT IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE STATUTE.

HERE IT IS, AGAIN

INTENT IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE STATUTE


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Read what I wrote earlier; nowhere do I pretend intent is an element of the statute. To be clear, I don't think Clinton is innocent; she's obviously guilty of breaking the law. That's a big deal to some of you, but it's really not to me. The law can say whatever it wants, but I personally care about intent (I'm sure there are many laws/sentences you don't care for). That's where our logic differs.

And to answer UNI88's question, you'd be guilty of hitting the dog but I don't think a harsh penalty is in order. Maybe some sort of financial retribution but that's about it.

I'd run a very forgiving nation if ever given the chance.

By now, you must have come across some really strange rules in your place of work. I say strange because to you it is probably common sense and not worthy of putting in writing. The problem is, when dealing with people, any people, you will have those who want to circumvent common practices. It happens on every team, in every stadium, in every sport. Because of this, rules must be put in writing and must be enforced. If they are not enforced, the problem will continue. It's just human nature, sadly.

[93henfan]

I was going to make a point about muslins and how strict Saudi Arabia is, but then I keep thinking about videos like this and I get confused. Wtf is their deal there, really? You get your hand cut off for sneaking a grape in the produce section, and then a slap on the wrist for this shit :

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch2o4U9doa8[/youtube]

[∞∞∞]

Read what I wrote earlier; nowhere do I pretend intent is an element of the statute. To be clear, I don't think Clinton is innocent; she's obviously guilty of breaking the law. That's a big deal to some of you, but it's really not to me. The law can say whatever it wants, but I personally care about intent (I'm sure there are many laws/sentences you don't care for). That's where our logic differs.

And to answer UNI88's question, you'd be guilty of hitting the dog but I don't think a harsh penalty is in order. Maybe some sort of financial retribution but that's about it.

I'd run a very forgiving nation if ever given the chance.

By now, you must have come across some really strange rules in your place of work. I say strange because to you it is probably common sense and not worthy of putting in writing. The problem is, when dealing with people, any people, you will have those who want to circumvent common practices. It happens on every team, in every stadium, in every sport. Because of this, rules must be put in writing and must be enforced. If they are not enforced, the problem will continue. It's just human nature, sadly.

I agree that rules must be enforced, but I wouldn't fire anyone until they're given a chance to change their behavior(s) or understand why the rule is in place. Obviously if it's something egregious like sexually harassment or getting into a physical altercation, there'd be no chances, but everyone here would be fired if their bosses weren't elastic concerning rules.

For example, I notice a ton of people here posting here during their work hours, I mean over months (let alone years), those unproductive hours add up quickly. Are you not cheating your employer by posting on the internet instead of working? Do you deserve to get fired if you get the job done anyways? And if you're doing your job, couldn't even more get done (I mean you're getting paid, right)?

Rules are subjective. From people like me to Supreme Court judges, everyone interprets them differently.

[CAA Flagship]

I was going to make a point about muslins and how strict Saudi Arabia is, but then I keep thinking about videos like this and I get confused. Wtf is their deal there, really? You get your hand cut off for sneaking a grape in the produce section, and then a slap on the wrist for this shit :

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch2o4U9doa8[/youtube]

That's easy to answer. Have you seen any ground in that entire country suitable to grow grapes?
It's like gold.

[93henfan]

For example, I notice a ton of people here posting here during their work hours, I mean over months (let alone years), those unproductive hours add up quickly. Are you not cheating your employer by posting on the internet instead of working? Do you deserve to get fired if you get the job done anyways? And if you're doing your job, couldn't even more get done (I mean you're getting paid, right)?

I'm a procurement analyst. I look at contracts to make sure the people writing them didn't fuck up and then I make a little cross sign over the contract like the Pope and let them sign the contract.

When there are no contracts to look at, what am I supposed to do? Sweep the fucking floor? That's what the Mexican ladies and the retards are for.

[BDKJMU]

22 million votes cast as of today:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... .html?_r=0

You can change you're vote in some states if you wish:

[CID1990]

Triple infinity, like JSO, is satisfied to take the Clinton campaign at their words about what the statute actually says, rather than reading it himself

I'll say it again for the fiftieth time

INTENT IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE STATUTE.

HERE IT IS, AGAIN

INTENT IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE STATUTE


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Read what I wrote earlier; nowhere do I pretend intent is an element of the statute.

"I doubt they'll find anything with malicious intent to harm the United States to incriminate her."


^^^^ You mean I misunderstood this? That looks like you said exactly what you said.

You don't care because the damage doesn't affect you in any way you can discern. Anyone with the kind of stupid and flippant disregard for national security has no business being in charge of... national security.

The mental gymnastics on display from some people over this is frankly alarming


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[93henfan]

Read what I wrote earlier; nowhere do I pretend intent is an element of the statute.

"I doubt they'll find anything with malicious intent to harm the United States to incriminate her."


^^^^ You mean I misunderstood this? That looks like you said exactly what you said.

You don't care because the damage doesn't affect you in any way you can discern. Anyone with the kind of stupid and flippant disregard for national security has no business being in charge of... national security.

The mental gymnastics on display from some people over this is frankly alarming


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The liberals here have really shown their true colors while justifying their support of Hillary. Ethics, rules, integrity - psshaw!

[BDKJMU]

Clinton hits highest unfavorability ever, now tops Trump..
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/clinto ... 2016-10-31

[HI54UNI]

Reports out that Sheldon Adelson is dumping $25 million into a superpac for anti-Hilldog ads.

[YoUDeeMan]

Clinton hits highest unfavorability ever, now tops Trump..
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/clinto ... 2016-10-31

Does the dispatcher know where JSO lives?

JSO could probably use a defibrillator right about now.

[Ibanez]

For example, I notice a ton of people here posting here during their work hours, I mean over months (let alone years), those unproductive hours add up quickly. Are you not cheating your employer by posting on the internet instead of working? Do you deserve to get fired if you get the job done anyways? And if you're doing your job, couldn't even more get done (I mean you're getting paid, right)?

Rules are subjective. From people like me to Supreme Court judges, everyone interprets them differently.

You're the guy that asked for pop quizzes in school, aren't you?

[OL FU]

Triple infinity, like JSO, is satisfied to take the Clinton campaign at their words about what the statute actually says, rather than reading it himself

I'll say it again for the fiftieth time

INTENT IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE STATUTE.

HERE IT IS, AGAIN

INTENT IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE STATUTE


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Read what I wrote earlier; nowhere do I pretend intent is an element of the statute. To be clear, I don't think Clinton is innocent; she's obviously guilty of breaking the law. That's a big deal to some of you, but it's really not to me. The law can say whatever it wants, but I personally care about intent (I'm sure there are many laws/sentences you don't care for). That's where our logic differs.

And to answer UNI88's question, you'd be guilty of hitting the dog but I don't think a harsh penalty is in order. Maybe some sort of financial retribution but that's about it.

I'd run a very forgiving nation if ever given the chance.

Her intent was to avoid FOIA laws. Is that breaking the law?

[CID1990]

Read what I wrote earlier; nowhere do I pretend intent is an element of the statute. To be clear, I don't think Clinton is innocent; she's obviously guilty of breaking the law. That's a big deal to some of you, but it's really not to me. The law can say whatever it wants, but I personally care about intent (I'm sure there are many laws/sentences you don't care for). That's where our logic differs.

And to answer UNI88's question, you'd be guilty of hitting the dog but I don't think a harsh penalty is in order. Maybe some sort of financial retribution but that's about it.

I'd run a very forgiving nation if ever given the chance.

Her intent was to avoid FOIA laws. Is that breaking the law?

THAT law does involve intent if you work for the Federal government.

I have a feeling that TI wouldn't be quite so "meh" about the harshness of our terrible laws if it was a Republican breaking them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[OL FU]

Her intent was to avoid FOIA laws. Is that breaking the law?

THAT law does involve intent if you work for the Federal government.

I have a feeling that TI wouldn't be quite so "meh" about the harshness of our terrible laws if it was a Republican breaking them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That was what I assumed. One would have to be incredibly naïve, partisan or dumb not to realize that is exactly why she set up the personal server.

[CAA Flagship]

CNN fires Brazille for sending debate questions to Clinton campaign.

When I first saw this post, I was wondering what took them so long. But now I see that she was caught for a second time. So, CNN clearly gave her a pass on the first one.

Brazille: Your information is false.
Kelly: I'm getting it from Podesta's emails.
Brazille: Podesta's emails were stolen.

LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01X3I9trF9k[/youtube]