80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
giujohn
 
  1  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 09:15 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

In the normal course of events you are right, but if everyone's real worst nightmare comes true and Trump is president, who knows how it will end up. Trump demoted his main guy in his campaign, but he didn't get rid of him. He has lots of ties to Putin/Russia and took money in bribes in Ukraine. As for Stein, she went to some celebratory dinner in Russia in 2015 really trashing the US while saying nothing about Russia abuses of the press and gays.

Hopefully Hillary will be president, I am little worried because apparently the documents FBI had are going to be released so then we will have rehash a lot of information and it might bring her numbers down.


WE CAN ONLY HOPE.
maporsche
 
  4  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 09:16 am
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

WE CAN ONLY HOPE.


....that Hillary will be president. Glad you're on board guijohn
revelette2
 
  1  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 09:21 am
Documents from Clinton email investigation may be made public
[excerpt]
Quote:
The FBI declined to comment for this story.

The bureau has come under fire for its decision to turn anything over to Congress — a highly unusual step that the agency said is “consistent with our commitment to transparency with respect to the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary of State Clinton’s use of a personal email server.”

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said in a statement, “This will neither serve the interests of justice nor aid Congress in its responsibilities and will merely set a precedent for the FBI to turn over closed case files whenever one party in Congress does not like a prosecutorial decision.

This has been done in the name of transparency, but as this precedent chills the cooperation of other witnesses in the future, I suspect the Department of Justice will later come to refer to it by a different name – mistake.”

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Clinton’s campaign, said the handing over of documents was “an extraordinarily rare step that was sought solely by Republicans for the purposes of further second-guessing the career professionals at the FBI.” But he added that “if these materials are going to be shared outside the Justice Department, they should be released widely so that the public can see them for themselves, rather than allow Republicans to mischaracterize them through selective, partisan leaks.”

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who has been among the legislators aggressively pushing for more information on the Clinton case, said Wednesday, “Clearly, there are things that could and should be made public. Even [Clinton is] asking for that.” But he added that his staff would look at the materials inside the secure facility to prevent leaks.
giujohn
 
  0  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 09:22 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

giujohn wrote:

WE CAN ONLY HOPE.


....that Hillary will be president. Glad you're on board guijohn



LOL... not even if you held a gun to my head.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 09:26 am
@Blickers,
I don't think it's an either/or matter. They are both very serious threats.

Obviously, terrorism is a greater immediate threat to the lives of Americans (Russian agents, to my knowledge, aren't killing any of us), but as I have been reminded countless times in this forum, the odds of an American being killed by a terrorist are pretty low. The greater threat from terrorism is a big 9/11 type attack that can cripple the economy. I would put that threat, currently, as greater than the threat of getting into a war with Russia.

Nukes actually represent an existential threat and any nation that is likely to have competing interests with the US is therefore a serious threat.

If Romney could foresee the danger represented by Putin's Russia then surely Obama could have as well so the argument that Crimea hadn't happened yet doesn't wash. Surely Obama had access to better intelligence than Romney.

PS Perhaps you might simply be willing to admit that Obama and the Democrats were quite wrong to mock Romney.
maporsche
 
  1  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 09:26 am
@revelette2,
Don't worry about this Rev. If the FBI after 18 months of investigation couldn't find anything then neither will Congress.

This was going to stay in the news all election cycle no matter what. Nothing new here.

What it will do, is cause the public to be sick and tired of rehashing the same old tripe and it'll increase the resolve of Clinton supporters, independents, and probably a few republicans who are sick and tired of this game as well (and who can't stomach voting for Trump). Or it will boost the campaign of Gary Johnson which will also result in a Hillary victory.

Nothing new. Nothing to worry about.
giujohn
 
  0  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 09:27 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Don't worry about this Rev. If the FBI after 18 months of investigation couldn't find anything then neither will Congress.

This was going to stay in the news all election cycle no matter what. Nothing new here.

What it will do, is cause the public to be sick and tired of rehashing the same old tripe and it'll increase the resolve of Clinton supporters, independents, and probably a few republicans who are sick and tired of this game as well (and who can't stomach voting for Trump). Or it will boost the campaign of Gary Johnson which will also result in a Hillary victory.

Nothing new. Nothing to worry about.


Famous last words...
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 09:33 am
@maporsche,
That's where you are wrong. The FBI did find something: That Clinton and her aides were extremely careless (aka grossly negligent) in their handling of sensitive and even top secret documents. That is all that is required by the applicable statute to result in prosecution. Comey for reasons we'll probably have to wait for his memoirs to learn chose to hinge his recommendation on intent. Now I would argue there was plenty of intent. She intended to keep her e-mail as secret as she thought she could, but the intent Comey looked for was to make the secrets available to enemies and even I agree that wasn't the case. Still, the statute doesn't require intent.

You assertion that the FBI didn't find anything is simply false.
revelette2
 
  2  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 09:34 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
On Russia, yes, Obama mocked Romney, Russia is not our biggest threat, but neither do we need to make them our biggest threat by helping them get more power.

On what he said regarding ISIS, I will let Steve Benen answer what the President meant, he never meant ISIS wasn't a threat, he meant they can't threaten our way of life as he clearly went on to say.

Quote:
As part of his trip to Argentina, President Obama co-hosted a press conference yesterday with President Mauricio Macri, and a reporter asked about the “optics” of Obama continuing with his schedule in the wake of the terrorist attack in Brussels. The American leader’s response raised some eyebrows.

“Groups like ISIL can’t destroy us, they can’t defeat us. They don’t produce anything. They’re not an existential threat to us. They are vicious killers and murderers who perverted one of the world’s great religions.

“And their primary power, in addition to killing innocent lives, is to strike fear in our societies, to disrupt our societies, so that the effect cascades from an explosion or an attack by a semi-automatic rifle.”

The president went on to explain that he believes in reminding terrorists about the weakness by rejecting their efforts to change how we live.

But for some on the right, there was an important problem. What does Obama mean ISIS isn’t “an existential threat”? How could he possibly say that?

I get the sense that there’s some confusion about the meaning of the word “existential,” so let’s take a moment to clarify. It refers to our existence – an existential threat is a threat that puts our existence in jeopardy. If, for example, a killer points a loaded gun at someone, the person at the other end of the barrel is facing an existential threat because the gunman might kill them.

ISIS is obviously dangerous and capable of deadly acts of terrorism, but to see these terrorists as an existential threat to our entire country is ridiculous. Not to put too fine a point on this, but the United States is a profoundly strong country, with the largest economy and largest military on the planet. ISIS, meanwhile, is a death cult with guns, suicide vests, and delusions of grandeur packaged in an effective online media operation.

As we’ve seen too often, ISIS militants kill innocents indiscriminately, and efforts to destroy the network must obviously continue. But to believe ISIS is an existential threat is to believe that the terrorists may succeed in eliminating the United States altogether. Our whole country will simply be wiped from the map.

And that’s bonkers. You can agree or disagree with the president’s decision to stick to his schedule, and attend diplomatic and social events abroad, but Obama’s assessment of the kind of threat ISIS poses to the United States was clearly correct.



source
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 09:38 am
@revelette2,
I never said he doesn't believe ISIS is a threat, and I tend to agree with him that they don't represent an existential threat, but for reasons good or bad he has downplayed the threat of terrorism.
maporsche
 
  2  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 09:40 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I hope they investigate her 117 times between now and the election. Please spend millions of dollars which will result in nothing but her getting elected in November and the increased likelihood that many other democrats do as well.
revelette2
 
  2  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 09:42 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
No he hasn't, in fact he is called out on the left for being worse than Bush with killing by drones, he just doesn't give them more credit than they deserve and he doesn't paint all Muslims with the same brush and doesn't think all Muslim countries are our enemies simply because they have different way of life than us.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 09:43 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
Please spend millions of dollars


I'd love to see the folks who pushed for the previous investigations that went nowhere have to personally pay for them . It might smarten them up, much as holding members of boards of directors personally responsible for results has changed their behaviours.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 09:55 am
@revelette2,
You're right, he's infallible. How could I be so wrong about him?
glitterbag
 
  2  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 10:04 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You're right, he's infallible. How could I be so wrong about him?


Relax, you're wrong about so many things, why start worrying now?
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 10:09 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You assertion that the FBI didn't find anything is simply false.


They didn't find anything prosecute-able. Remember that you not only have to be personally convinced of someone's guilt, you also have to be able to overcome both simple legal challenges and the much greater challenge of convincing a jury of guilt, including, yes, intent. Comey rightly realized that there was a next to zero chance of this happening, thanks to both the law and the specifics of the situation in question.

You are, of course, allowed to carry whatever personal opinion of her and the situation that you like. I'm sure you'll have plenty of opportunity to bring it up for the next 4 to 8 years.

Cycloptichorn
woiyo
 
  0  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 10:30 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
They didn't find anything prosecute-able.

In the opinion of the FBI, but not the opinion of the public. Yet, one could argue they certainly found she lied to Congress.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 10:31 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Not quite.

Comey decided that a recommendation for prosecution was not the way to go. There have been numerous former federal attorneys who have said they would have been willing to prosecute on the basis of what the FBI found.

It may be that prosecution would ultimately fail due to the absence of intent, and I'm sure Comey weighed the impact of recommending prosecution that he thought would ultimately fail, not on the law, but on the sentiment of jurors, in his decision, however it remains absolutely false to assert the FBI found nothing. A different FBI Director could have recommended prosecution and have remained entirely within the boundaries of the applicable statute.

Comey didn't fail to recommend prosecution because there was not statutory foundation to do so. That he did, for whatever reasons he had, may or may not have been the right call, but it is intellectually dishonest to say the FBI found nothing.

It's funny, but after Comey shocked me by following his detailed indictment of Clinton with "I won't recommend prosecution" I turned to my wife and said, "Watch. Clinton supporters are going to say the FBI exonerated her." Nothing could be further from the truth but if you or anyone else wants to thinks so, have at it.

maporsche
 
  1  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 10:39 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I meant nothing prosecutable. Of course the found something. Something can always be found. Keep focusing on the vagueness of my word choice though.

Edited to add "nothing worthy of prosecution"
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Thu 18 Aug, 2016 10:39 am
@woiyo,
That wasn't even Comey's opinion

His, presumably, was based on the likelihood of a successful prosecution. Prosecutorial discretion is a valid concept however Comey was the investigator, not the prosecutor. He exceeded his brief.

Comey, in essence, argued that without intent a jury would not likely find her guilty. This suggests that he doesn't believe a jury could understand the actual specifics of the statute. He may be right, but that doesn't mean he didn't find anything prosecut-able.

When prosecutors won't take a case and exercise their discretion it is far, far more often the case that they think the evidence isn't there, not because they worry about a jury ignoring the law.

In any case, Comey isn't entitled to prosecutorial discretion, and I think he was overly concerned about his place in history.
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 05:47:15