What happens if everyone's worst case scenario happens?

Hillary and Trump locked up?

I don't think many of us would consider that the "worst case".

As one of the "us," I wouldn't want Trump in any position of governance.

I've never seen anyone posit a scenario with Trump locked up. Only endless "lock her up" fantasizing about Hillary.

I posit a scenario with Trump locked up. I wouldn't necessarily say prison... but rather a mental facility of some kind.

Well, Trump did use the speechwriter services of Meredith McIver, who was employed at his business to do campaign work, which is a violation of Federal election law. Maybe I should say "speech stealing" services instead of speechwriting services, since parts of McIver's speech for Melania Trump were lifted from one of Michelle Obama's speeches.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-analysis-fec-melania-trump--20160720-story.html

Come on Guy. Bernie is dead as a presidential candidate. the republicans tried that on Bill and have been suffering indigestion ever since. The FBI has already admitted that she broke no laws. What are they going to try to convict her of? Being a Clinton.

Can you please provide a link to this?

I believe your claim that the FBI said anything even remotely like "Hillary broke no laws" is completely false.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7177/fbi-yes-queen-hillary-broke-law-no-she-wont-be-ben-shapiro

Hillary broke the law, but will not be prosecuted. They're all above the laws of this country. We now have a queendom.

Careless does not mean criminal. Comey said there was no evidence Hillary Clinton or anyone associated with her emails intended to break any laws which is why it was in his judgment no prosecutor would indict. He didn't say she broke any laws, but then he didn't say she didn't. He said when deciding whether to bring such a case, they look at what did they know and did they know when they were doing it they were breaking the law? He decided after looking at way more evidence than any of us have, that she didn't.

Colin Powell, Condi Rice both used a separate server, if they were not prosecuted, it is really not treating Hillary any different that she was not prosecuted. The difference would have been if she had been indicted.

In any event, she won't be locked up and neither will Trump unless he has done something we don't know about. Hopefully, Hillary will be the next President of the United States.

I guess whoever down thumbed me knows the laws better than the FBI who said she broke the laws.

Did he come out say she broke the law? I never read it or heard it. He said she was careless, as far as I know, careless is not criminal. Comey said they have to look at intent, if she intended to break the law, say as just an example: hide emails on purpose, then, she would have broken the law. But she didn't, he said there was no evidence Hillary intended to break the law.

Comey recommends no charges against Hillary Clinton

it seems she had to have intent, and Comey made the decision she didn't.

Comey said the Justice Department shouldn’t prosecute Clinton because there isn’t enough evidence that she intentionally mishandled classified information. FBI investigators didn’t find vast quantities of exposed classified material, and they also did not turn up evidence that Clinton intended to be disloyal to the United States or that she intended to obstruct justice.

When I worked with nuclear weapons in the late 1950s, the first thing we were told was "never discuss your work outside of the work place. If caught, the fine was ten years in prison and $10,000. $10k in the 50s was more money than most people had.

I'm sure any secretary of state was given similar instruction. That's where I'm having difficulty. Even if she didn't have intent, she should have known that exposing confidential information to hackers should not require the brains of a computer genius. News about hacking of government departments have been common knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_security_hacker_history

You too would be incarcerated. Why? Because you still haven't mastered the spelling of either candidate's name.

For your future reference, Kaine and Pence.


You and others might see this as a minor infraction, however, it exemplifies what is wrong with our electorate. Who would you cast a vote for if there happened to be a candidate with the name of Pense or Kane along with Pence and Kaine?

Give the guy a break. He's an avid poster on a2k, and a few mistakes in spelling doesn't bother many people. The best contributors also make spelling and grammatical errors. As long as we understand what the poster is saying, I view that as the valuable part of participation. I'm one of those who enjoy bobtail's posts. Many who participate are ESL.

No, I will not give them a break on this matter. Knowing the correct spelling of a candidate's name is crucial. As I said, if another candidate has a similar name, then what?

But I suppose you'd be fine as well with errors in chemical equations for medications or mathematical calculations for construction of a building or bridge. There are times when spelling errors do not cause a problem as the idea is fully conveyed. In this instance though, it is important.

We're not talking chemical equations here. There's no similar names here.
He's talking about this election with two candidates where most people are already familiar with.

Also, if I remember, he is dyslexic, no easy thing. You go, Bobsal.

I'm a picky speller, and I often mess up, typing too fast or using the occasional homophone. Live with it.

I understand what you are saying and can get where your coming from. Interesting experience.

However, you got consider Hillary was emailing other people who would be allowed to have information she was either sending or receiving on her emails the same as if she was using a state department server. Turns out, it was safer on Hillary's server as they didn't find any evidence she was hacked. On the other hand, the State Department was hacked.

I said worst case scenario.