Election 2016 Thread

[Forty Two]

Money is free speech!

Yep, and the Nazgûl have affirmed that it's so

Not correct. Money is not free speech, as the limits on campaign donations plainly show. However, things that cost money can be free speech, such as newspapers, movies and documentaries.

[Forty Two]

And, it just gets better and better - now the State Department and the DOJ are stonewalling production of emails under the freedom of information act -- http://dailysnotballer.com/2016/06/30/e ... 27-months/ They were ordered by a federal judge to produce them by July 21, 2016, but now they are asking for a 27 month extension of time within which to produce the documents (which, of course, have ballooned from 6,000 emails to 34,000 emails).

Shameless.

Played. Maybe now the Senate will have time to look at the President's nominee for SCOTUS?

None of that has anything to do with the Senate.

I like the idea of you slapping yourself in the face as I type. The obstructionists you put in the Senate are refusing to hold the SCOTUS nomination hearing for Merrick Garland. That's much more of a crime and dereliction of duty than 'holding the Rule'* during discovery or Requests For Information.

We're not discussing the relative merits of the Senate, or vote-blocking in the Senate, which both parties do. If you were at all balanced or knowledgeable, you would know that both sides "block votes" in the Senate, when they can. That's part of the rules of the Senate. Look up Harry Reid and the Democrats' history of vote-blocking.

You can try to change the subject, but as bad as the Senate is, or as bad as Senate Republicans are, it doesn't change the fact that Clinton is a royal scumbag lying piece of shit. And, she is part of the establishment - part of the problem. I'm not a fan of Republican. Part of the reason I like that Trump is running is that he is less Republican than Hillary Clinton. He's being accused of virtually destroying the Republican party and it's the establishment, conservative, right-wing Republicans that hate him the most. If it were any of the other 16 candidates that ran in the GOP primary, I'd not be voting for them.

Moreover, it's quite clear to everyone with an IQ over 80 that this email deal is a hypocritical political shitshow.

Were that true, then the Obama Justice Department would have closed it down already. Doesn't take much to decline to prosecute when there is no probable cause. If by "hypocritical" you mean that "everyone else did it" -- no, that wouldn't be correct -- others, like General Petraeus, were indicted for it. What's hypocritical about it?

Note - calling it a "hypocritical sideshow" is not the same thing as saying "she did not violate the law."

Some of us can even remember the 22,000,000 emails deleted by the Rove White House in 2007. So pretty much any legal means HRC and her staff of hotshit attorneys wants to employ to confound and embugger your little Republican monkeyfuck committee is just fine by us.

If indeed, there were 22,000,000 emails illegally deleted in 2007, then I would want those jackoffs prosecuted.

I bet now you wish you voted for someone competent, rather than "Anyone but a Democrat", don't ya? [/quote]

It's not "anyone but a Democrat." It's "not Hillary Clinton."

Further, in 2007, the email scandal was (a) branded by Democrats to be a crime and an end around recordkeeping requirements, so the hypocrisy would be on them, who want one standard for Republicans but look the other way when it comes to Democrats, (b) I am and would have been happy to see an indictment of republicans at the time, and (c) there are huge differences between the email controversy of 2007 and the one with Clinton - first Clinton EXCLUSIVELY used private email server for her official business - in 2007 ,there were some lower level officials who used the private server for SOME business, after they were instructed not to use the private server for official business. So, while that may not excuse the violation - when it's a chief policymaker - Secretary of State (a Cabinet level position - decision-maker -- top level official) who is now running for President, there is a difference.

Lastly, tu quoque is not a denial of guilt.

*The Rules of Court in various districts are set up to guarantee a speedy trial. The Prosecution has a set number of days (usually 60) to make its case. Any delays or recesses in the proceedings have to be charged to one side or another. When the Defense asks for time to gather information, it "Holds the (speedy trial) Rule", or temporarily waives its right to a speedy trial until the next court date, when the 60-day clock starts running again.

What in the world does this have to do with the price of tea in China? The delay was not in a criminal case, it was in a freedom of information act case. There is no "right to a speedy trial" in a civil FOIA case, and the "defense" motion to delay turning over documents for 27 months is not in any way related, legally, to "Clinton making her case." There hasn't been an indictment, yet, of Clinton, so there is no need for her to delay anything or waive a right to a speedy trial. That clock only starts ticking when she's arrested or indicted.

[Forty Two]

It was just a chance meeting at the airport where they discussed grandkids and travel. http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/01/r ... h-meeting/

...like old chums....

But, FBI directs no photos and no cell phones allowed to record anything there....

Hillary and Bill are both under investigation, but we are expected to believe this meeting had nothing to do with anything.

Maybe they talked about racism?

If they did, why would Loretta Lynch not mention that? Why would she mention that they talked about grandkids and vacations, but not "racism?" Of course, she said "primarily," so there are "secondary" topics they discussed. She wouldn't elaborate, though, and the media translated her comment into "they didn't talk about the emails or the prosecution at all..." which, of course, the literal language of Lynch's comment does not unequivocally establish. It's kind of like when Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." -- everyone said "there you have it, he didn't have sex with her..." which, of course, isn't what he said - these folks choose their words carefully - "sexual relations" primarily means penis-in-vagina sex, and not oral sex. So, Clinton technically told the the truth - she would just suck him off. So, when Loretta Lynch says "we didn't discuss 'the emails...'" -- she is not foreclosing the possibility that they discussed the status of the prosecutorial decision, and when she said the talk was "primarily" about grandkids and vacations, she does not foreclose the possibility that they discussed other topics.

The meeting has been described, even by major Democrat supporters, as completely inappropriate, and in a "what were they thinking?" kind of way.

[Svartalf]

Money is free speech!

Yep, and the Nazgûl have affirmed that it's so

Not correct. Money is not free speech, as the limits on campaign donations plainly show. However, things that cost money can be free speech, such as newspapers, movies and documentaries.

Far as I read that decision, anything you decide to spend money on IS free speech, even and especially when it's a politico

[Forty Two]

In an apparent effort to drum up support following the Brexit vote, Donald Trump‘s campaign made its dumbest legal move yet. And there have been some to pick from. Trump’s campaign reportedly sent out emails directly soliciting money from foreign politicians including at least 54 Scottish members of parliament, and to an unknown number of politicians in England, Iceland, Australia, Canada, and Denmark. This isn’t a political issue. I don’t care how you feel about Donald Trump. This is a legal issue, and there is no question that under federal law soliciting money from foreign nationals is illegal. The Federal Elections Campaign Act expressly prohibits this. The feds don’t even need a subpoena to prove the violations. They need only to turn to twitter.

Here’s the pretty damning evidence from the politicians themselves who received the email:

Has someone added me to the Trump email list as a prank, or has he bought a really dud spam email marketing list? pic.twitter.com/QnN6vaBFcI

— Tim Watts MP (@TimWattsMP) June 24, 2016

May be Donald Trump bought lists – bizarre for grassroots campaign – but how does he opt out of foreign donations? pic.twitter.com/jVwfdFnI6U

— Natalie McGarry MP (@NatalieMcgarry) June 27, 2016

@MDKanin @nytimes @realDonaldTrump – that’s exactly what I mean: even kindly offering to match our donations “dollar-for-dollar” up to $2.7k

— Stuart McDonald MP (@Stuart_McDonald) June 27, 2016

@jensschott @joshtpm yes pic.twitter.com/2CJ6MO8hMx

— Ida Auken (@IdaAuken) June 29, 2016

I’ve emailed Trump’s campaign several times to try to figure out who the heck let this happen, but haven’t heard back. On CNN Friday morning, former Trump campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, gave what could be the most convoluted and confusing excuse (though he wasn’t with the campaign when this happened). Lewandowski claims the politicians must have opted into the email listserv. That’s clearly not true—see Australian Member of Parliament Tim Watt’s tweet above where he asks, “has someone added me to the Trump email as a prank?”

On Wednesday, the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit and nonpartisan group, filed an official complaint with the Federal Election Committee. And, in case you were wondering, in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court emphatically upheld the prohibition against foreign contributions in U.S. elections.

...

The Federal Election Commission officials have said this was no big deal, and they aren't even opening an investigation.

Hillary has her own donations problems -- http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/largest ... donations/

And, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

So, let's see investigations opened up against both candidates, yes? Would you be in favor of that?

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

So, Hillary has gotten millions from foreign governments, and Trump is alleged to have blasted emails to, including but not limited to, foreigners (but there is no allegation that he actually received any money from them).

[Scot Dutchy]

Why hasn't Trump not made any remarks about Hillary's pussy yet? Guys with small hands do that stuff.

Just give him time. It is bound to happen.

[Scot Dutchy]

FBI recommends no charges against Hillary Clinton over emails

Now there is a surprise. Trump is really fucked now.

[Svartalf]

an activist, arch conservative judge cans still decide to indict, this is just a recommendation that the judiciary may follow or not.

[Forty Two]

FBI recommends no charges against Hillary Clinton over emails

Now there is a surprise. Trump is really fucked now.

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/43 ... llary-hook

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/43 ... llary-hook

[Forty Two]

FBI recommends no charges against Hillary Clinton over emails

Now there is a surprise. Trump is really fucked now.

This will actually help Trump, because it shows who the 'establishment' is - people aren't going to believe this was not a result of insider dealing.

[Forty Two]

http://nypost.com/2016/07/05/fbi-boss-o ... ary-skate/

Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey painted a devastating picture of Hillary Clinton’s reckless lawbreaking with her emails and the damage it likely caused — but then recommended no charges against her.

When it comes to the Clintons, say goodbye to the rule of law.

Comey said the bureau looked for evidence that “classified information was improperly stored or transmitted” on Clinton’s personal email servers, in violation of a “statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way.”

Sure enough, his agents found plenty: 110 emails “in 52 email chains” were considered classified “at the time they were sent or received.”

That included eight “Top Secret” chains, 36 with “Secret” information and eight more that were “Confidential.” Another 2,000 were classified “Confidential” later.

There may have been more, but Comey said his agents couldn’t examine all of Hillary’s emails because some that were deleted may never be found.

The evidence showed Clinton and her colleagues were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” — even if they may not have “intended” to break the law. And, as he said earlier, proving intent isn’t necessary to find her guilty of a felony.

Comey made one other point: Some emails “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information” — contrary to what Hillary repeatedly claims. But even with emails that didn’t contain such markings, Clinton still had an obligation “to protect it.”

All of which seems enough to convict (never mind indict) her — based on Comey’s own criteria.

Nor was all this just a case of harmless sloppiness, as Hillary claims. Comey said the bureau “assessed that hostile actors” (read: foreign enemies) “gained access” to email accounts of people she had contact with and possibly even to Clinton’s own personal email account itself.

So why on earth would Comey let her off the hook? Especially when the agency had recommended charges against others, like Gen. David Petraeus, who had similarly failed to protect classified information.

The answer: The Clintons enjoy a different standard. They are above the law.

Indeed, the sheer number of scandals for which Bill and Hillary Clinton have escaped punishment is simply astonishing. There’s always some “technicality” or “lack of evidence” or other pathetic excuse.

Here’s how Comey himself put it: “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statute . . . our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Huh? Why not?

Besides, shouldn’t the FBI let the prosecutor decide that without tainting their judgment?

Comey just dealt a powerful blow to the public’s faith in the concept of equal justice. Hillary will now claim falsely she’s been exonerated — even though the FBI found her in violation of the law.

Is there any wonder so many voters this year are outraged by the “rigged” system?

[Forty Two]

Judicial Watch on the decision not to prosecute, after Comey's devastating report showing actual violations of the law -- http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room ... y-clinton/

[Forty Two]

The FBI report blows Clinton's excuses out of the water -- http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/fbi-d ... ng-points/

[Forty Two]

Money is free speech!

Yep, and the Nazgûl have affirmed that it's so

Not correct. Money is not free speech, as the limits on campaign donations plainly show. However, things that cost money can be free speech, such as newspapers, movies and documentaries.

Far as I read that decision, anything you decide to spend money on IS free speech, even and especially when it's a politico

Well, if you decide to pay for an advertisement, sure - or a pamphlet, or a newspaper, or a documentary -- etc. Of course - media costs money. However, mere donations are not speech.

But, if you make some rule that the government can prohibit media (writing, audio, or video) regarding candidates within a period of time prior to the election, then you're limiting the free exchange of ideas. You're not regulating the money spent - you're regulating the media produced. Under the law struck down by Citizens United, if I created a documentary today that was negative to Trump, and I wanted to release it in September before the election, I would be prohibited from doing that. That goes for videos or material produced by unions and interest groups like PETA or People for the American Way or International ANSWER.

[Seth]

an activist, arch conservative judge cans still decide to indict, this is just a recommendation that the judiciary may follow or not.

Only in France. Here, if the Attorney General or her designee at the Justice Department refuses to indict that's pretty much it.