The Clinton-Trump Debate II (October 9th 2016) took place just two days after:
- WikiLeaks made public parts of speeches Clinton gave in secret to Wall Street banks and others in 2013 and 2014.
- An Access Hollywood video from 2005 was made public in which Trump did not know he was being recorded. He is heard saying that when you are a star women let you “grab them by the pussy.”
In the debate Trump said he was sorry for his “locker room banter”, said Bill Clinton has done far worse and said ISIS was a bigger issue – even though sexual assault affects way more Americans.
When a Muslim woman asked him about Islamophobia, he said Islamopobhia was wrong and then started saying Islamophobic stuff!
When a Black man asked Trump a question, he started on his “Black outreach” talking points, full of stereotypes about Black people!
But the worst part came when Trump said he would throw Hillary Clinton in jail if he becomes president! Locking up political opponents is like what Russia does!
Fact check: Statements that PolitiFact rated as Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire:
By Clinton (still lying about her email scandal):
- I take classified materials very seriously and always have. When I was on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was privy to a lot of classified material.
By Trump:
- ISIS happened a number of years ago in a vacuum that was left because of bad judgment. (False if he mean’s Clinton’s judgement.)
- Hillary Clinton attacked those same women [who accused her husband of sexual assault or harassment] and attacked them viciously.
- One of the women, who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years old, was raped at 12. [Clinton’s] client she represented got him off, and she’s seen laughing on two separate occasions, laughing at the girl who was raped.
- Well, you owe the president an apology, because as you know very well, your campaign, Sidney Blumenthal – he’s another real winner that you have – and he’s the one that got [Birtherism] started
- [Obamacare] gives the insurance companies essentially monopolies.
- She wants to go to a single-payer [universal health insurance] plan
- in San Bernardino, many people saw the bombs all over the apartment [before the terrorist attack]
- hundreds of thousands of people coming in from Syria when we know nothing about them.
- I was against – I was against the war in Iraq.
- our taxes are so high, just about the highest in the world.
- NAFTA, signed by her husband, is perhaps the greatest disaster trade deal in the history of the world.
- No, there wasn’t [a tweet about] check out a sex tape.
- She said who is going to answer the call at 3 o’clock in the morning? Guess what? She didn’t answer it, because when Ambassador Stevens [during the Benghazi attack] …
- the Second Amendment, which is totally under siege by people like Hillary Clinton.
I may have missed some, but way more were from Trump.
Fox News thought Trump won. They were all but doing high fives – in their Republican Bubble.
– Abagond, 2016.
Sources: PolitiFact, BuzzFeed.
See also:
- earlier debates
- 2016 election for US president
- ISIS
- Birtherism
- Republican Bubble
536
“[Obamacare] gives the insurance companies essentially monopolies”. That’s true.
And they were given to big to fail status the same as Wall Street banks.
LikeLike
It was a circus I found it entertaining if nothing else. I didn’t even get mad at Trump’s black stereotypes about the horrible “inner city ” nonsense. We are going to end up with a pu**y grabbing Commander In Chief but haven’t we had one of those before?
LikeLiked by 1 person
He was doing a lot of sniffing is he doing blow? And to think there will be another one October 19th, I will not be tuning in for that one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump threatened to throw Clinton in jail if he is elected President
LikeLike
When asked about his lewd locker room banter he did a deflection and started rambling gibberish about ISIS and when a man from the audience asked what positive thing could either of the candidates say that they respected about each other? All Hilary could say was she respects his children and that he did a good job with them or some nonsense. And Trump said he admired her because she was a go getter, both of them were lame but I guess that was the best they could do after the nasty mud slinging and they shook hands at the end. Because at the beginning they didn’t shake hands they just looked like they wanted to kill each other.
LikeLike
If I force my self to be objective, I think Trump did what he needed to do. He spoke about his molesty nature 1st but made it clear he would go on and on about Bill if she pushed the issue. So, she didn’t. She took a short time to make a few points but then changed the subject which pretty much signaled the end of that topic. He didn’t come off any more idiotic or crazy than normal. In other words, he presented himself as confident and unaffected.
People are making a big deal out of the fact he’d call for a special prosecutor and try to have her locked up. The thing is, his ENTIRE BASE believes she should be and is not shy about posting memes and comments calling for it. They don’t believe she should be above the law just because she’s a presidential candidate. In fact, it’s exactly that sort of elitism they’re railing against. Don’t go arguing that she’s never been charged with anything or that the FBI found no wrongdoing.. those things are facts. No self-respecting Trump supporter is going to let facts get in the way of their support and it’s just plain stupid of Clinton supporters to keep trying to argue the facts as if they’d have some impact. So, spinning it like locking her up is what Russians do is just silly. It’s what his base wants for Clinton. Had Bernie won the nomination, “corrupt lying criminal” probably wouldn’t be their go to argument and Trump never would have said that.
I thought Clinton did what she needed to do as well. She stayed on message, didn’t offend anyone, and played it safe. It sounded like a politician phoning in a bunch of talking points. But, given the polls and the strength of her campaign at that moment, that’s exactly what was needed.
If you’re a Trump supporter, he didn’t clearly lose and therefore, he won. Same goes for Clinton supporters. I’d call it a draw. The moderators were pretty clearly biased at some points which was funny. I kept waiting for Trump to lose it on them. Surprisingly, he just threw in a few jabs and let it go. He appeared to be on a pretty short leash.
LikeLike
Remember that theory about Clinton and Trump scheming to toss the election to Hillary? Well Hillary, at least, was conniving to have Trump scare voters her way.
Clinton wanted Trump to be Republican nominee: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/…
(https://youtu.be/3TWmbYRwfZ8?t=2m49s)
I’m not good at verifying these things, so someone here, no doubt will let me know if this isn’t true.
LikeLike
Maybe we should have a thread devoted to Wikileaks email drops since they include Hillary, the DNC, donors ect.
This is from the Turks. It seems Donna Brazil from CNN may have forwarded the Clinton team debate questions for the CNN town hall. CNN vigorously denies this but the coincidence of the Town hall question and the matching question in the email does look like collusion.
(https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Izl0e4xvgGA)
LikeLike
Did either of them say that they would prevent Syria from spilling over into WWIII? Isn’t that the most important issue facing humanity today?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joe said: “Did either of them say that they would prevent Syria from spilling over into WWIII? Isn’t that the most important issue facing humanity today?”
Sorry “bout that Joe, Amerikan politicians refuse to contend with real issues. Instead, they’d much rather speak of server emails, toupees and how a man could easily grab a woman’s p#ssy without her screaming to the local authorities that she was sexually assaulted by a random pervert.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shlt, I don’t think they’re allowed to talk about issues. Don’t want audience to get board or informed.
LikeLike
“There was never any real doubt that Hillary Clinton would defeat Donald Trump. Indeed, from the Democrats’ standpoint, Trump was the ideal candidate. Wikileaks documents show that the Democratic National Committee wanted the Republicans to put forward as right-wing a candidate as possible, so that Clinton, who represents the right wing of the Democratic Party, would look good by comparison. ”
http://www.blackagendareport.com/soft_porn_trumps_wikileaks
LikeLike
that backfired on her ass
LikeLike
Nothing backfired on her. Anybody that seriously thinks Trump is gonna win this thing, I got that proverbial bridge for ya.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@davidly
It would be a mistake to underestimate the depth and breadth of anti-Black, anti-Immigrant, anti-woman and anti-Muslim sentiment that the Republicans nurtured among White voters for decades and Trump “unshackled” with his candidacy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi, Afrofem. I don’t underestimate them in the least. I just don’t believe the people are what decide elections. For the record, I am one of those people who likewise believe that Trump is in the bag for Clinton. Pretty convinced, actually. Still, even on the face of it, the guy has no plausible chance, in my opinion.
LikeLike
You can imagine if Trump get’s in
“We have trouble in the middle east”
Trump “You know what to do”
“”We have trouble in the African nations”
Trump “You know what to do”
“”We have trouble, blacks are rioting on the streets, because another cop killed another unarmed black person”
Trump “You know what to do”
https://media3.giphy.com/media/ofczqbffgQX9C/200.gif#218
https://media3.giphy.com/media/8s4hCpUgbDy6c/200w.gif#33
“”High black unemployment. Mass incarceration of black people and whole host of other problem”
Trump “You know what to do”
“Some whites are suffering to”
Trump “You know what to do”
LikeLike
davidly
“Nothing backfired on her.”
I respectably disagree. she had no idea trump was going to be so successful. whether he wins or not is not the measure of the backfire. what backfired was the extent of trumps appeal. she thought trump would be totally rejected by the electorate. he wasn’t. that was the miscalculation.
LikeLike
I get that. And to an extent it doesn’t conflict with my belief he’s a shill (that he appeals in spite of being the buffoon). But I think that he was chosen as preferred rival for his broad television appeal, as well as his ability to implode on command. They needed someone who would ultimately be less popular than she is (which is a tall order), and hence someone who could plausibly generate a massive response against him — enough that they’d vote for her.
LikeLike
@davidly
You make some good points. Other commenters have touched on your central point; how the Clinton campaign engineered a run against someone even more distasteful than HRClinton. Trump certainly fills that bill. Yet, even his antics and the threat his supporters pose may not be enough to stop migration to the Green party or the Libertarians by Millennials and other fed up voters.
LikeLike
“Hi, Afrofem. I don’t underestimate them in the least. I just don’t believe the people are what decide elections. ”
and then this …
“They needed someone who would ultimately be less popular than she is (which is a tall order), and hence someone who could plausibly generate a massive response against him — enough that they’d vote for her.”
Howdy Davidly, which is it? Your premise about voting is confusing.
LikeLike
I think both party establishments saw Trump in the primaries as a needed distraction away from a better canidate like a Rand Paul. The neo cons didn’t like Rand being soft of foreign intervention among other things.
Imagine how different the election cycle would be including the debates if Rand Paul had been nominated. I’m not a supporter of Rand Paul but do believe he is better then any of the other Republicans who ran.
Fox news helped create the ugly atmosphere that Trump plays into. But I wouldn’t put the blame entirely on Fox. CNN and MSNBC also went about building Trump up for ratings. I don’t think Fox created this racist, xenophobic undertow rather it already existed so they fed into it.
LikeLike
Hi Fan. I should have phrased that “enough to make it plausible that the plurality would vote for her.” That’s all this charade is about. Plausibility.
It is getting more difficult to come by, for sure. But we still got people lambasting those who voted for Nader in 2000 as having in effect sent George W. Bush to the White House and established the Patriot Act and sent Americans into an illegal war with Iraq. It is said to be a lesson to never vote for a third party lest it lead to a Republican president. Yet this time there is no dearth of folks telling us that we got to vote for the candidate who voted for the very same Patriot Act & illegal war and who’s help start a couple others and why? Because people believe Trump could win.
LikeLike
davidly
“”I get that.” then you’ve no reason to say it didn’t backfire on her. Trump turned out to be way more popular than she calculated. Had she known how popular he would be she would have been pushing Cruz or Carson or Rubio or Jeb…
LikeLike
@nomad: I mean I understand where the logic is coming from, not that I believe she is unduly surprised. She didn’t push the other candidates because they’d have beaten her. Trump was a tried & trusted commodity who would even take a dive.
All this said: I am interested to find out the details of how the campaign or the DNC or whoever managed this “pied piper” thing from the other side. My guess is the press had a lot to do with it.
LikeLike
@abagond
“But the worst part came when Trump said he would throw Hillary Clinton in jail if he becomes president! Locking up political opponents is like what Russia does!”
Really, abagond? It has nothing to do with her being a political opponent and everything to do with he breaking the law.
That’s why he said “So we’re going to get a special prosecutor, and we’re going to look into it” and he was absolutely right to say:
“People have been — their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you’ve done.”
LikeLike
You may be right. That’s what all the left pundits are saying now. I just why they were doing all of the fear mongering to begin with if they knew from the start that Trump would fail? It was a curious episode to me. I don’t know what they were getting so worked up about in the first place. Fear Trump? Meh.
But I’m not counting him out just yet. Not that it matters one way or another. Energy is much better exerted in getting off of the duopoly highway to hell. As I have said before, if Clinton wins, we lose. If Trump wins, we lose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ resw
Trump’s thin-skinned vindictiveness and his admiration for tyrants is well-known. His touching concern for justice and fair play, much less constitutional norms, is much harder to discern.
It will not lead to justice because it will look too partisan. It will get you no closer to justice than was achieved under James Comey. Instead it will set a terrible precedent in the abuse of power.
LikeLike
@abagond
“Trump’s thin-skinned vindictiveness and his admiration for tyrants is well-known. ”
Great opinion. Not sure what it has to do with appointing a special prosecutor to look into Hillary Clinton’s crimes.
“It will get you no closer to justice than was achieved under James Comey.”
P-lease. James Comey admitted that Hillary Clinton may have committed crimes when he said ““although THERE IS EVIDENCE of potential VIOLATIONS of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information…”
But he’s a fellow Obama administration appointee and Democrat, as is Loretta Lynch. So this is nothing but friends helping friends, which is clear to the unbiased.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And Trump referred to late Justice Antoine Scalia as “a good man”. That and many other reasons why this disgusting cretin is not fit for the Presidency.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@resw
Comey is not a Democrat.
LikeLike
I am certainly not in a Republican bubble and Fox news and their audience are not my cup of tea at all (polite understatement), but having said that, I believe Trump won* the second debate. This time Hillary was on the defensive and was sometimes without words (campaign finance/Clinton sex scandals).
I’m not happy about perceiving Trump as the winner of the debate, based on the rental practices of he and his father he seems to be a clear cut racist. I’ve never pursued his comments on The Central Park Five because I’ve no need to unnecessarily upset myself, but on that issue he appears to be a brutal racist again.
Most awkward moment of the debate:
That ridiculous black man who asked if Trump would be a President to all Americans. (Doesn’t the stupid man know the answer to that already!)
——–
* though it should be said Trump doesn’t know a damn thing about foreign policy, but that doesn’t matter to “his base”.
LikeLike
@abagond
Excuse me, he’s an Obama appointee like Loretta Lynch, who chose to accept whatever his recommendation was despite the crimes Comey said Hillary committed.
During Lynch’s fake investigation of Hillary, she even had a meeting with slick Willie: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video-appears-show-day-bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/story?id=41482393
And don’t forget that the DOJ granted immunity to the guy who destroyed emails against Congress’ order. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-investigation.html?_r=0
LikeLiked by 1 person
FBI director Comy started out as deputy Attorney general appointed under Bush. He is “respected” by the establishment and is seen as non partisan.
The only senator to oppose his nomination was Rand Paul. Apparently Rand is skeptical.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/29/sen-rand-paul-is-lone-dissenter-as-james-comey-con/
LikeLike
I have no problem with Hillary Clinton being investigated … without her husband meeting with the Attorney General first. Anyway, I think the debates are largely academic, like most aspects of this election. IMO, most people just watch them to confirm the decisions they’ve already made so there will often be conflicting views of which candidate did better depending on who you ask.
LikeLike
@Everyone
I hope you guys at least realize that overall Clinton’s ‘predators’ campaign/scandal was probably an ignorance endeavor. Think about the folk that live in these communities who call for the heads off of ‘sometimes’ their own family that fall into the life style or in some cases ‘perceived’ lifestyle without the understanding the factors involved in creating the situation. And remember the media is a vicious biased beast. It might report on the killing of black men by law enforcement while excluding all others in an attempt to maintain stereo-types but at the same time inflecting mental health damage upon certain factions of a community by creating anger, fear, and anxiety. Don’t ever doubt that motivational factor of a dishonest media in some cases because it is.
LikeLike
@michaeljonbarker
Obama still appointed him to his current position.
LikeLike
‘Instead it will set a terrible precedent in the abuse of power.’
What a topsy turvy Orwellian world we live in when its an abuse of power to indict a felon.
LikeLike
once again, as clintonites struggle to resolve their cognitive dissonance, let me remind you of what you are advocating.
(https://youtu.be/y0U0wGAlpgM?t=5m49s)
LikeLike
oops (https://youtu.be/y0U0wGAlpgM?t=5m49s)
LikeLike
“Obama still appointed him to his current position.”
The vote was 93 to 1 with Rand Paul voting against Comy. Obama nominated him and the Senate approved the position.
Why would both parties approve Comy ? Because he won’t convict.
LikeLike
@michaeljonbarker
“The vote was 93 to 1 with Rand Paul voting against Comy. Obama nominated him and the Senate approved the position.”
That doesn’t make him any less of an Obama appointee.
“Why would both parties approve Comy ? ”
Probably the same reason not a single Democrat opposed Robert Mueller’s nomination by Bush.
“Because he won’t convict.”
Comey is the Director of the FBI not a judge.
LikeLike
I believe the women who have come out against Trump, at least those in People magazine and the New York Times (since they would be careful about getting sued for libel). It is he-said-she-said, but the he in this case has told lie after lie even before this arose. His credibility is shot. There is also his use of the thief-thief technique, which is a huge red flag that the women are most likely telling the truth:
LikeLike
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kypl1MYuKDY)
“Hillary Clinton: A Career Criminal”
LikeLike
@resw
As pointed out, Comey was a Bush appointee and only one Republican voted against him becoming director. He had broad bipartisan support. So, you may not like his decision, but it is as close to bipartisan as you are likely to get in this case. Under Trump it would be utterly partisan. Sending her to jail under those circumstances would create a huge amount of bad blood and set a terrible precedent.
I do not often agree with Charles Krauthammer, but in this case I do:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441054/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up-threat-democracy
LikeLiked by 1 person
@abagond
“As pointed out, Comey was a Bush appointee”
Only Obama appointed him to his current position of Director of the FBI, not Bush.
“So, you may not like his decision, but it is as close to bipartisan as you are likely to get in this case.”
LOL. Apples and oranges. His confirmation by the Senate has nothing to do with his decision not to recommend Hillary be prosecuted for the crimes he said she committed.
LikeLike
“But he’s a fellow Obama administration appointee and Democrat, as is Loretta Lynch. So this is nothing but friends helping friends, which is clear to the unbiased.”
You won’t admit you made a mistake in calling Comy a Democrat so now you want.to change it too “Only Obama appointed him to his current position of Director of the FBI, not Bush.”
The broader point is that Comy’s main job is to protect the Corporatacracy and go after perceived State threats when directed.
I’m going to speculate that’s why there was broad bipartisan support in his confirmation hearings. If Clinton had been a Republican he would have ruled the same way. Comy is there to protect both parties.
Remember the threshold was to prove “criminal intent” meaning that you had to prove the Clinton “knowingly” violated the law. There was no smoking gun because I’ll speculate it got deleted.
The higher up the Corporatacracy you go the greater the threshold of tolerance towards misdeeds and the greater the State protections and privileges are.
If an aid of a Senator had done what Clinton had then that person would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
LikeLike
@michaeljonbarker
Like.
Great points!
LikeLike
@michaeljonbarker
“You won’t admit you made a mistake in calling Comy a Democrat so now you want.”
Actually, I recall specifically saying “Excuse me” when abagond pointed that out already. I guess you’re just looking to start an unnecessary dispute.
“Remember the threshold was to prove “criminal intent” meaning that you had to prove the Clinton “knowingly” violated the law. ”
No I don’t remember, nor do you or Comey since there is no threshold to prove “criminal intent.”
I’d suggest you read Section 793(f) of the federal penal code:
“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
So please tell us what part of that says anything about “criminal intent”.
LikeLike
You can read about it here. The only thing the artical does is support my contention that those in the higher echelons of government are held to a different standard then the citizens they claim to represent.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
LikeLike
@michaeljonbarker
No, the article also refutes your contention about the standard of “criminal intent” under Section 793(f).
LikeLike
Re: Comey
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/breaking-fbi-in-revolt-top-fbi-official-exposes-massive-corruption-which-let-clintons-crimes-slide_102016
Even the rank and file FBI sees the deliberate corruption!
LikeLike
“standard of “criminal intent”
That’s my point. It doesn’t apply to those at the top. Their standards are not the same as the standard of criminal intent we would be tried under.
Comy called it “gross negligence” and conveniently there were no statutes penalizing that. So at best he gave a verbal chastisement.
I’m done playing. I’ve made my points. You are like the energizer bunny that goes and goes but isn’t cognitive of its surroundings.
LikeLike
@michaeljonbarker
“That’s my point. It doesn’t apply to those at the top.”
My point is there is no standard of criminal intent in this subsection. So application is irrelevant.
And yes, the Attorney General’s office prosecutes many powerful people, including governors, senators, mayors, etc., many of whom in just the last 1-2 years alone.
“Comy called it “gross negligence” and conveniently there were no statutes penalizing that.”
Wrong again. “Gross negligence” is specified as a crime under Section 793(f), which I quoted above. The penalties are clear: “fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both”. It’s up to the Attorney General’s office to actually bring charges, and she
LikeLike
won’t do it because she’s helping her girl Hillary.
LikeLike
If you read the artical I posted you would see the FBI added an “intent” clause meaning Hillary would have to “knowingly” harm the United States for it to be a “gross negligence” violation in not securing classified information. That’s what I mean when i said there were no statutes in place to prosecute. Comy created a legal strawman.
I said earlier up thread there is no smoking gun email talking about her knowing that what she was doing was against the law.
Her intent on moving the server to her private residence was to skirt around the freedom of information act that would have applied if she had kept her server at state.
You can keep throwing arguments out their how Hillary “ought” to have been prosecuted. Nobody is disagreeing with that. For you it’s a conspiracy amongst Democrats and I’m pointimg out that it’s larger then that. It’s how the system is structured. Unless there is hard evidence the privileged will get a pass.
LikeLike
If Hillary Clinton becomes president, her administration, just like her husband’s, will be plagued by scandal, imagined ones if necessary. The Republican Bubble has built her into such a hate figure that they will not let go. Also, the Republicans in Congress have got into the practice of obstruction with Obama.
I doubt there is any smoking gun email on Benghazi since Sputnik News already tried to misquote a Sidney Blumenthal email to that effect. But there might be one on the email scandal – among those 33,000 emails that Trump “sarcastically” urged the Russians to hack. Or an email about a scandal we do not know yet.
LikeLike
“If Hillary Clinton becomes president, her administration, just like her husband’s, will be plagued by scandal, imagined ones if necessary.”
Same is true if Trump is president. Both are polarizing canidates. I think Trump is more likely to do something to get himself impeached.
Traditional political theater entailed politicians giving speeches about their ideas in public. Today’s politicale theater isn’t about content but has devolved into public specticals devoid of anything meaningful. Just ugly.
LikeLike
@Abagond
“…Also, the Republicans in Congress have got into the practice of obstruction with Obama.”
Hah! Maybe that’s why Speaker Ryan and the other Republican brass have tossed Trump overboard. They are struggling to hang onto the House and Senate. Without a Republican majority, there will be less obstruction.
Of course, the Democrats in 2009-2010 had solid majorities in both houses and did absolutely nothing for their base.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@michaeljonbarker
“If you read the artical I posted you would see the FBI added an “intent” clause meaning Hillary would have to “knowingly” harm the United States for it to be a “gross negligence” violation in not securing classified information. ”
And if you read Section 793(f), which I quoted above, you’d see that there’s nothing about “intent”. So I don’t know why you keep dwelling on it. Furthermore you should learn that the FBI does not have the authority to amend law. Therefore you have completely misunderstood the article you have referenced.
“Unless there is hard evidence the privileged will get a pass.”
There is nothing in the statute that says anything about “hard”, whatever that’s supposed to mean. And Comey explicitly said “THERE IS EVIDENCE of potential VIOLATIONS of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information…” They have enough evidence to prosecute Hillary. They’ve prosecuted governors, senators and mayors with less.
@abagond
“The Republican Bubble has built her into such a hate figure that they will not let go. ”
LOL. People don’t hate Hillary because of Republicans. They hate her either because she’s a liar or because she’s a corrupt criminal or both.
LikeLike
@resw said,
“Therefore you have completely misunderstood the article you have referenced.”
From the artical:
“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”
“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 author goes on to argue that Comy had no basis to do that.
Comy chose not to recommend criminal charges to Lorreta Lynch at justice. That’s his prerogative, you can post all the statues you want, it doesn’t change that these people have special privilages.
We are talking past each other at this point.
The points you are trying to make are for the sake of argumemt. This whole discussion is about you winning your perceived points as opposed to having a conversation. It has become a deposition about how I word my observations rather then about what my ideas imply.
LikeLike
@“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”
And those grounds were not based in law, as the article states. That was the point.
“That’s his prerogative, you can post all the statues you want, it doesn’t change that these people have special privilages.”
No, this is about Hillary Clinton not “these people”. Again, the DOJ prosecutes plenty of people in top positions. Senator Ted Stevens, Congresswoman Corrine Brown, Governor Bob McDonnell to name a few.
“The points you are trying to make are for the sake of argumemt. ”
No, they’ve corrected inaccurate statements you keep making.
LikeLike
LikeLike
“The entire team was stunned when FBI Director Comey announced on July 5 that he would not be recommending a criminal indictment to the Attorney General’s office, according to the source.
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and actual role in the case were vetted and verified by Fox News.
The year-long Clinton investigation involved over 100 FBI agents and analysts, as well as six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division – Counter Espionage Section. Per their usual course of action, the FBI declined to comment directly on the damning allegations, referring people to their official public statements on the matter by Comey – which essentially say that politics didn’t play into the decision – a blatant and utter lie.
Comey’s statements seem at odds with the sentiments of a number of veteran FBI agents, who this week came forward in the New York Post to claim that FBI Director James Comey “has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his cowardly whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private email server.”
“[…] That claim also is backed up by a number of veteran FBI agents who have come forward to rebuke Comey’s politicization of a once respected law enforcement organization.
“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time. I hold Director Comey responsible,” Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit, told the NY Post.
Retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello also noted in the Post’s report that, “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.”
LikeLike
@Fan…
Precisely. This is not par for the course.
@nomad
That is too funny! About as funny as this one:
LikeLiked by 1 person
@resw
Jimmy Dore extends the hilarity. Check it out.
(https://youtu.be/vEPM83c1VEg)
‘he’s called for war crimes, said he wanted to kill families of terrorists, wants to do worse torture than waterboarding,.. yet what’s beyond the pale of decency is talking about grabbing p—-y.’
murder , torture okay
but grabbing p—-y, that’s where americans draw the line. ain’t we moral upstanding folks?
LikeLike
@ resw
That might be true for some people, but for others it goes beyond that. Your model would not account for why Benghazi has been beaten to death, both in Congress and on Fox News.
I voted against Bill Clinton in 1996. I remember telling people that his second term would be sunk in scandal. I based that on watching the Republicans who went after him relentlessly, trying to dig up something that would stick. Two years after that election they did, with Monica Lewinsky.
Just like what we are seeing now with Trump, it is the Clintons’s sleazoid vibe that makes people dig up their past looking for scandal, not the other way round.
Whether Trump or Hillary Clinton win, either way the next four years are going to be sunk in scandal if not outright disaster.
LikeLike
@abagond
Unbelieveable. So it’s someone else’s fault Hillary committed crimes, is embroiled in scandal and continues to lie about almost everything. Sorry, I blame the culprit, not the ones who investigated and called a spade a spade.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@resw
That is not what I said or implied.
LikeLike
@abagond
It’s perfectly reasonable for anyone to think you’re blaming Republicans for why people hate Hillary based on your comments:
“If Hillary Clinton becomes president, her administration, just like her husband’s, will be plagued by scandal, imagined ones if necessary”
“The Republican Bubble has built her into such a hate figure that they will not let go”
“Your model would not account for why Benghazi has been beaten to death, both in Congress and on Fox News.”
LikeLike
Well, one good thing would come out of electing Hillary. Matt Lauer will be fired.
(https://youtu.be/_NfFAaPZqs8)
LikeLike
actually, I have to give matt credit for asking an unscripted question. almost like a real journalist.
LikeLike
@ resw
My point is not to “blame” Republicans but to point out that anti-Clintonism is not completely rational. The scandals are largely dug up by the haters, not the other way round. They are more effect than cause. Besides, if scandal or rumour of scandal alone were reason enough, then the same anti-Clintonistas would be against Trump too – and yet many of them are not! People like Anne Coulter, William Bennett and James Dobson got on their high horse against Bill Clinton back in 1998, but now in 2016 they are making awkward excuses for Trump. “It’s the scandals, stupid” does not account for what is going on.
LikeLike
@abagond
“My point is not to “blame” Republicans but to point out that anti-Clintonism is not completely rational.”
What is not rational about calling out Hillary’s lies and crimes? Whether someone who loves her does it or hates her does it, the lies and crimes are what matter. As the old saying goes, don’t shoot the messenger.
“The scandals are largely dug up by the haters, not the other way round. ”
They don’t need to dig anything up half the time because Hillary does it for them. Here’s an example of a scandal she fomented by publicly lying, which any real journalist would have called her on: (https://youtu.be/ur4EZSVazdk)
There are many other examples.
“People like Anne Coulter, William Bennett and James Dobson got on their high horse against Bill Clinton back in 1998, but now in 2016 they are making awkward excuses for Trump.”
And people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders got on their high horse against Hillary prior to her nomination but now are making awkward excuses for Hillary.
LikeLike
“In yet another coincidentally-timed “technical glitch” at CNN, Republican Congressman Chris Collins was cut off within seconds of mentioning “WikiLeaks.” Per InfoWars, Collins joined a conversation with CNN’s Chris Cuomo and immediately went on the attack against Hillary. But as soon as he utters the word “WikiLeaks” his feed is suddenly “lost.”
Hmmm…
coincidence/accident or collaboration??
LikeLiked by 1 person
“My point is not to “blame” Republicans but to point out that anti-Clintonism is not completely rational”
that’s what I mean by minimalizing
‘what hill did was not so bad not so bad not so bad
” largely dug up by the haters…more effect than cause.”
” making awkward excuses for Trump”
because Trumps crimes are minor compared to Clintons. I know this flies in the face of his demonization by the establishment and msm, but its a fact.
LikeLike
Here is part of this debate performed with the genders reversed – Donald Trump as a woman and Hillary Clinton as a man:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yC7-JsR2Fk)
LikeLike
Reminds me to eat crow. My prediction (insistence) was good for nothing. Not that I think it matters, but I was most definitely wrong about the election’s outcome and whether or not the pied piper policy backfired.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@davidly
I’m not the kind to say I told you so.
But I told you so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
abagond
the guy playing Hillary sounds really misogynistic
LikeLike
@ nomad
I thought Donald Trump came across better as a woman – she seemed confident and concerned rather than a loudmouth bully. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, seemed worse, ingratiating and suspiciously defensive, rather than measured and trying not to lose her cool.
LikeLike
“You know, right, that it has been a month now since Hillary Clinton lost? Why do you keep keep bringing her up?” – abagond
LikeLike
abagond
“I thought Donald Trump came across better as a woman – she seemed confident and concerned rather than a loudmouth bully.”
its like seeing him without the msm bias.
LikeLike
“Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, seemed worse, ingratiating and suspiciously defensive, rather than measured and trying not to lose her cool.”
there you go. the real Hillary.
LikeLike
a great way of revealing the double standard that was in play throughout the campaign,
LikeLike
@abagond
hahaha. it was an experiment that backfired. they got the opposite result than they were expecting. just as i said ‘ great way of revealing the double standard that was in play throughout the campaign,’
(https://youtu.be/ro6vUkit3m8)
LikeLike