(10-31-2016 04:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 12:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 10:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  True. But, I think the proximity of the election made it more imperative that he come out with this than if he had been told, say, two months ago.

You daughter is getting married in three days. You have been told her fiancee is actually a con man, escaped from prison, who has pulled the marriage scam before. Your church does not believe in divorce. It will take three weeks to gather the evidence. Do you wait to finish the investigation?

Yes, because in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Since the election cannot be moved, and there is no chance to have due process take its course, the only thing that coming out with this information, which may be nothing in the end, does is to appear to make one of the candidates look guilty.

Somehow, Jeanine Pirro (a Trump supporter) actually does a good job explaining this, probably because something similar happened to her: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/tr...nton-email

funny, in the country you can be arrested, indicted, jailed, perp walked, tried in the press, and so forth long before you are proven guilty in a court of law. Where is the protection of absolute knowledge for those people?

he had a choice: the choice was, do I tell now that I might have incriminating emails on a candidate, or wait and maybe later announce I am advocating criminal prosecution of the President-elect, having found the proof on intent that I said was lacking in July?

Quick, what was the outcome for Tom Delay?

Not an easy choice, not is it IMO a black and white one.

Two things about the statement in bold.

One, none of those things have happened with Clinton in regards to this email scandal, except tried in the press, so not a great example, especially since she hasn't been jailed, and even better yet, formally indicted even after a lengthy investigation. So that's not a very good example.

Second, even if it was a good example, just because some people have to deal with the unfair and unjust consequences of being accused (especially if they are found innocent), that the logic extends that EVERYONE should? I'm not buying that either.

If this was an indictment I think I could maybe start to understand your logic, because at that point there is at least enough evidence available that suggests that there was a crime committed. But so far, by the words of the man who wrote this letter, there has not been enough evidence to bring charges against Clinton. So I do think the more appropriate response to digging into some more of these emails without any official charges, was to keep it underwraps until more details were known. And based on what I've seen in the news, the majority of people who know this system better than me, on the left and right, share that sentiment.

And that's because, let's say that this was the nail in the coffin that pushes Trump over the edge. And then results of the investigation come back and prove that again, there is not enough evidence to prosecute. Was it a good thing that the head of the FBI came out and said something that influenced the election?

I agree that it isn't a black and white issue, but I think one decision is more correct than the other.

Just responding to the inference that Comey should have waited until he had all the evidence needed for a conviction, which is how I interpret your innocent until proven guilty mantra. As you can see from my list, law enforcement doesn't wait for a slam dunk ghuilty verdict to move.

I wonder how people would feel after voting for her, to learn that she had in fact lied to them and hoodwinked them. Probably wouldn't change a lot.

I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption. Trump U, the Trump Foundation, stiffing contractors (he's even currently refusing to pay his pollster), and then the sexual assault charges, bragging about sexual assault, the history of misogyny, the history of racial discrimination, the bigoted demagogy that's typified his campaign, the ties to Putin, the shocking ignorance of our constitution and how our government works, the equally shocking ignorance of foreign policy, and on and on.

It's actually hard for me to process that someone can think Hilary needs to be "locked up" but Trump should be president. Republicans who refuse to vote for either - fair enough.

(11-01-2016 09:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 04:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 12:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 10:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, because in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Since the election cannot be moved, and there is no chance to have due process take its course, the only thing that coming out with this information, which may be nothing in the end, does is to appear to make one of the candidates look guilty.

Somehow, Jeanine Pirro (a Trump supporter) actually does a good job explaining this, probably because something similar happened to her: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/tr...nton-email

funny, in the country you can be arrested, indicted, jailed, perp walked, tried in the press, and so forth long before you are proven guilty in a court of law. Where is the protection of absolute knowledge for those people?

he had a choice: the choice was, do I tell now that I might have incriminating emails on a candidate, or wait and maybe later announce I am advocating criminal prosecution of the President-elect, having found the proof on intent that I said was lacking in July?

Quick, what was the outcome for Tom Delay?

Not an easy choice, not is it IMO a black and white one.

Two things about the statement in bold.

One, none of those things have happened with Clinton in regards to this email scandal, except tried in the press, so not a great example, especially since she hasn't been jailed, and even better yet, formally indicted even after a lengthy investigation. So that's not a very good example.

Second, even if it was a good example, just because some people have to deal with the unfair and unjust consequences of being accused (especially if they are found innocent), that the logic extends that EVERYONE should? I'm not buying that either.

If this was an indictment I think I could maybe start to understand your logic, because at that point there is at least enough evidence available that suggests that there was a crime committed. But so far, by the words of the man who wrote this letter, there has not been enough evidence to bring charges against Clinton. So I do think the more appropriate response to digging into some more of these emails without any official charges, was to keep it underwraps until more details were known. And based on what I've seen in the news, the majority of people who know this system better than me, on the left and right, share that sentiment.

And that's because, let's say that this was the nail in the coffin that pushes Trump over the edge. And then results of the investigation come back and prove that again, there is not enough evidence to prosecute. Was it a good thing that the head of the FBI came out and said something that influenced the election?

I agree that it isn't a black and white issue, but I think one decision is more correct than the other.

Just responding to the inference that Comey should have waited until he had all the evidence needed for a conviction, which is how I interpret your innocent until proven guilty mantra. As you can see from my list, law enforcement doesn't wait for a slam dunk ghuilty verdict to move.

I wonder how people would feel after voting for her, to learn that she had in fact lied to them and hoodwinked them. Probably wouldn't change a lot.

I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption. Trump U, the Trump Foundation, stiffing contractors (he's even currently refusing to pay his pollster), and then the sexual assault charges, bragging about sexual assault, the history of misogyny, the history of racial discrimination, the bigoted demagogy that's typified his campaign, the ties to Putin, the shocking ignorance of our constitution and how our government works, the equally shocking ignorance of foreign policy, and on and on.

It's actually hard for me to process that someone can think Hilary needs to be "locked up" but Trump should be president. Republicans who refuse to vote for either - fair enough.

Oh, and the antisemitism. Almost forgot the antisemitism.

Edit: And not releasing his tax returns. Why has that not been a bigger deal? Especially as it becomes obvious he's a tax cheat.

(11-01-2016 10:00 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 09:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 04:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 12:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  funny, in the country you can be arrested, indicted, jailed, perp walked, tried in the press, and so forth long before you are proven guilty in a court of law. Where is the protection of absolute knowledge for those people?

he had a choice: the choice was, do I tell now that I might have incriminating emails on a candidate, or wait and maybe later announce I am advocating criminal prosecution of the President-elect, having found the proof on intent that I said was lacking in July?

Quick, what was the outcome for Tom Delay?

Not an easy choice, not is it IMO a black and white one.

Two things about the statement in bold.

One, none of those things have happened with Clinton in regards to this email scandal, except tried in the press, so not a great example, especially since she hasn't been jailed, and even better yet, formally indicted even after a lengthy investigation. So that's not a very good example.

Second, even if it was a good example, just because some people have to deal with the unfair and unjust consequences of being accused (especially if they are found innocent), that the logic extends that EVERYONE should? I'm not buying that either.

If this was an indictment I think I could maybe start to understand your logic, because at that point there is at least enough evidence available that suggests that there was a crime committed. But so far, by the words of the man who wrote this letter, there has not been enough evidence to bring charges against Clinton. So I do think the more appropriate response to digging into some more of these emails without any official charges, was to keep it underwraps until more details were known. And based on what I've seen in the news, the majority of people who know this system better than me, on the left and right, share that sentiment.

And that's because, let's say that this was the nail in the coffin that pushes Trump over the edge. And then results of the investigation come back and prove that again, there is not enough evidence to prosecute. Was it a good thing that the head of the FBI came out and said something that influenced the election?

I agree that it isn't a black and white issue, but I think one decision is more correct than the other.

Just responding to the inference that Comey should have waited until he had all the evidence needed for a conviction, which is how I interpret your innocent until proven guilty mantra. As you can see from my list, law enforcement doesn't wait for a slam dunk ghuilty verdict to move.

I wonder how people would feel after voting for her, to learn that she had in fact lied to them and hoodwinked them. Probably wouldn't change a lot.

I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption. Trump U, the Trump Foundation, stiffing contractors (he's even currently refusing to pay his pollster), and then the sexual assault charges, bragging about sexual assault, the history of misogyny, the history of racial discrimination, the bigoted demagogy that's typified his campaign, the ties to Putin, the shocking ignorance of our constitution and how our government works, the equally shocking ignorance of foreign policy, and on and on.

It's actually hard for me to process that someone can think Hilary needs to be "locked up" but Trump should be president. Republicans who refuse to vote for either - fair enough.

Oh, and the antisemitism. Almost forgot the antisemitism.

Edit: And not releasing his tax returns. Why has that not been a bigger deal? Especially as it becomes obvious he's a tax cheat.

I don't think it's obvious he's a tax cheat. I suspect he "pays" accountants a lot of money to file those taxes, and that they push the envelope on taking advantage of the tax codes. He's far from the only person who is gaming the system. The tax codes were set up specifically to allow gaming of the system.

Not trying to defend him on this, but both sides tend to see the other side in the worst possible light.

(11-01-2016 10:20 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 10:00 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 09:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 04:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Two things about the statement in bold.

One, none of those things have happened with Clinton in regards to this email scandal, except tried in the press, so not a great example, especially since she hasn't been jailed, and even better yet, formally indicted even after a lengthy investigation. So that's not a very good example.

Second, even if it was a good example, just because some people have to deal with the unfair and unjust consequences of being accused (especially if they are found innocent), that the logic extends that EVERYONE should? I'm not buying that either.

If this was an indictment I think I could maybe start to understand your logic, because at that point there is at least enough evidence available that suggests that there was a crime committed. But so far, by the words of the man who wrote this letter, there has not been enough evidence to bring charges against Clinton. So I do think the more appropriate response to digging into some more of these emails without any official charges, was to keep it underwraps until more details were known. And based on what I've seen in the news, the majority of people who know this system better than me, on the left and right, share that sentiment.

And that's because, let's say that this was the nail in the coffin that pushes Trump over the edge. And then results of the investigation come back and prove that again, there is not enough evidence to prosecute. Was it a good thing that the head of the FBI came out and said something that influenced the election?

I agree that it isn't a black and white issue, but I think one decision is more correct than the other.

Just responding to the inference that Comey should have waited until he had all the evidence needed for a conviction, which is how I interpret your innocent until proven guilty mantra. As you can see from my list, law enforcement doesn't wait for a slam dunk ghuilty verdict to move.

I wonder how people would feel after voting for her, to learn that she had in fact lied to them and hoodwinked them. Probably wouldn't change a lot.

I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption. Trump U, the Trump Foundation, stiffing contractors (he's even currently refusing to pay his pollster), and then the sexual assault charges, bragging about sexual assault, the history of misogyny, the history of racial discrimination, the bigoted demagogy that's typified his campaign, the ties to Putin, the shocking ignorance of our constitution and how our government works, the equally shocking ignorance of foreign policy, and on and on.

It's actually hard for me to process that someone can think Hilary needs to be "locked up" but Trump should be president. Republicans who refuse to vote for either - fair enough.

Oh, and the antisemitism. Almost forgot the antisemitism.

Edit: And not releasing his tax returns. Why has that not been a bigger deal? Especially as it becomes obvious he's a tax cheat.

I don't think it's obvious he's a tax cheat. I suspect he "pays" accountants a lot of money to file those taxes, and that they push the envelope on taking advantage of the tax codes. He's far from the only person who is gaming the system. The tax codes were set up specifically to allow gaming of the system.

Not trying to defend him on this, but both sides tend to see the other side in the worst possible light.

There are some new reports out today that suggest he at best pushed the envelope to the breaking point against advice of his lawyers - but, fair enough, I'll retract the "tax cheat" claim. Point is, I can't even keep track of the number of things which individually are at least as bad, if not much worse, than Hilary's email server. IMHO.

(11-01-2016 09:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 04:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 12:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 10:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, because in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Since the election cannot be moved, and there is no chance to have due process take its course, the only thing that coming out with this information, which may be nothing in the end, does is to appear to make one of the candidates look guilty.

Somehow, Jeanine Pirro (a Trump supporter) actually does a good job explaining this, probably because something similar happened to her: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/tr...nton-email

funny, in the country you can be arrested, indicted, jailed, perp walked, tried in the press, and so forth long before you are proven guilty in a court of law. Where is the protection of absolute knowledge for those people?

he had a choice: the choice was, do I tell now that I might have incriminating emails on a candidate, or wait and maybe later announce I am advocating criminal prosecution of the President-elect, having found the proof on intent that I said was lacking in July?

Quick, what was the outcome for Tom Delay?

Not an easy choice, not is it IMO a black and white one.

Two things about the statement in bold.

One, none of those things have happened with Clinton in regards to this email scandal, except tried in the press, so not a great example, especially since she hasn't been jailed, and even better yet, formally indicted even after a lengthy investigation. So that's not a very good example.

Second, even if it was a good example, just because some people have to deal with the unfair and unjust consequences of being accused (especially if they are found innocent), that the logic extends that EVERYONE should? I'm not buying that either.

If this was an indictment I think I could maybe start to understand your logic, because at that point there is at least enough evidence available that suggests that there was a crime committed. But so far, by the words of the man who wrote this letter, there has not been enough evidence to bring charges against Clinton. So I do think the more appropriate response to digging into some more of these emails without any official charges, was to keep it underwraps until more details were known. And based on what I've seen in the news, the majority of people who know this system better than me, on the left and right, share that sentiment.

And that's because, let's say that this was the nail in the coffin that pushes Trump over the edge. And then results of the investigation come back and prove that again, there is not enough evidence to prosecute. Was it a good thing that the head of the FBI came out and said something that influenced the election?

I agree that it isn't a black and white issue, but I think one decision is more correct than the other.

Just responding to the inference that Comey should have waited until he had all the evidence needed for a conviction, which is how I interpret your innocent until proven guilty mantra. As you can see from my list, law enforcement doesn't wait for a slam dunk ghuilty verdict to move.

I wonder how people would feel after voting for her, to learn that she had in fact lied to them and hoodwinked them. Probably wouldn't change a lot.

I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption. Trump U, the Trump Foundation, stiffing contractors (he's even currently refusing to pay his pollster), and then the sexual assault charges, bragging about sexual assault, the history of misogyny, the history of racial discrimination, the bigoted demagogy that's typified his campaign, the ties to Putin, the shocking ignorance of our constitution and how our government works, the equally shocking ignorance of foreign policy, and on and on.

It's actually hard for me to process that someone can think Hilary needs to be "locked up" but Trump should be president. Republicans who refuse to vote for either - fair enough.

I tend to vote Republican, at least on the national level, but will vote for neither.

What's upsetting as a citizen, is that it's clear that neither of them is a principled candidate. Hillary and the DNC have clearly not played fair with Sanders and his followers. She clearly is bankrolled by special interests. She clearly broke rules with regard to her State Department communications and has lied about it, prosecutable or not.

And despite the protestations about this 11th hour discovery of emails, it should be clear to everyone that SOMEONE, whether Clinton, Huma, or others, SHOULD have known about the existence of additional email records that could be produced and knowingly kept silent on the matter.

I get that we are constitutionally given the right to not incriminate ourselves . . . . .

But if this is all as innocent as the Clinton team claims, why did they stonewall for so long, why were so many records deleted, and why didn't someone say "Hey, you know, Hillary may have deleted her records, but I've got 100,000's of thousands of emails that probably contain some of the missing emails that prove she didn't mishandle information."

Given that Clinton or her aides probably had knowledge of this treasure trove and didn't 'help out' earlier, I'm not sure why they feel so aggrieved that the FBI or anyone else feels justified in making this an issue now. I have a tough time feeling sorry for them one bit.

And to the original point, as to what's upsetting to me - - - Democrats seem to expect Republicans to not vote for Trump on "principle". I get that, and I won't.

What about the Democrats? Why are they 'not voting for Hillary' on principle?

Both parties have let down the American people with their nominees. And I extend that to the Libertarian Party, and the Democratic nominee for vice-president. It's absolutely disgusting.

(10-31-2016 12:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  he had a choice: the choice was, do I tell now that I might have incriminating emails on a candidate, or wait and maybe later announce I am advocating criminal prosecution of the President-elect,

His announcement should have been the full truth as he saw it at the time: "We have found a possible link to some more emails that might tie into the Clinton email investigation. We don't have the emails. In fact, we don't have a search warrant yet to retrieve the emails. And if we do recover them, we won't have time to analyze them before the election to see if they're even relevant, much less exculpatory or incriminating. But I'm just letting you know, knowing that you'll leak this letter to the press just 11 days before the election. You know, just saying...."

(11-01-2016 10:40 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I tend to vote Republican, at least on the national level, but will vote for neither.

What's upsetting as a citizen, is that it's clear that neither of them is a principled candidate. Hillary and the DNC have clearly not played fair with Sanders and his followers. She clearly is bankrolled by special interests. She clearly broke rules with regard to her State Department communications and has lied about it, prosecutable or not.

And despite the protestations about this 11th hour discovery of emails, it should be clear to everyone that SOMEONE, whether Clinton, Huma, or others, SHOULD have known about the existence of additional email records that could be produced and knowingly kept silent on the matter.

I get that we are constitutionally given the right to not incriminate ourselves . . . . .

But if this is all as innocent as the Clinton team claims, why did they stonewall for so long, why were so many records deleted, and why didn't someone say "Hey, you know, Hillary may have deleted her records, but I've got 100,000's of thousands of emails that probably contain some of the missing emails that prove she didn't mishandle information."

Given that Clinton or her aides probably had knowledge of this treasure trove and didn't 'help out' earlier, I'm not sure why they feel so aggrieved that the FBI or anyone else feels justified in making this an issue now. I have a tough time feeling sorry for them one bit.

And to the original point, as to what's upsetting to me - - - Democrats seem to expect Republicans to not vote for Trump on "principle". I get that, and I won't.

What about the Democrats? Why are they 'not voting for Hillary' on principle?

Both parties have let down the American people with their nominees. And I extend that to the Libertarian Party, and the Democratic nominee for vice-president. It's absolutely disgusting.

I can actually agree on a lot of what you wrote here, Rick.

While Trump is far from ideal in many ways, hope we can see if he'll shake things up and fix the business side of America. The rest, I'll have to hold my nose for four years...but I'll hold it now and vote for him this time because the alternative is still so much worse than him.

"Both parties have let down the American people with their nominees."

It wasn't American people voting in the primaries?

(11-01-2016 11:10 AM)JSA Wrote:  "Both parties have let down the American people with their nominees."

It wasn't American people voting in the primaries?

Yes, but not necessarily just Republicans in Republican primaries or Democrats in Democratic primaries.

Let's be honest, in most of the early primaries, where Trump developed momentum, he wasn't winning majorities, he was winning pluralities, helped by the fact that the large number of more traditional Republican candidates split the vote allowing an outsider to consistently win 33% of the vote while the remaining candidates cannibalized each other regionally.

The same phenomena could not have occurred in 2004 for example, and probably not in 2008, when there was an early front-runner and less competition.

And with regard to the Democrats, it's clear that the big money interests and the DNC did everything in their power to favor a candidate who was clearly flawed and unpopular with a huge segment of the population, including independents, primarily because she was part of the machine and it was 'her turn'. The significant number of Super Delegates provided an early obstacle in addition to the favoritism, which could be publicized throughout the campaign as part of the overwhelming hurdle that Sanders would need to overcome.

At some point the favoritism becomes self-fulfilling prophecy. Sanders was marginalized at every turn, but still mounted a tremendous challenge to Clinton.

So yeah, blame the American voters, but it was a specific condition to 2016 that allowed a candidate with a plurality constituency independent of traditional Republican to emerge, and it is DNC/big money influenced support of the 'preordained' historical nominee (who was so unpopular she couldn't win the nomination against another unknown in 2008) that makes their process less 'Democratic' than the Republicans they despise.

(11-01-2016 10:00 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption. \

where have you been the last 35 years? The email is just the cherry on the sundae. She has been covering up stuff and stonewalling since her days as Arkansas' First Lady, and perhaps before. she has gotten very good at it, which is one point in her favor, but to say this is the Alpha and Omega of her misdeeds is to say that Al Capone led an exemplary life prior to messing up on his taxes.

Let us be clear - this is not Mother Theresa vs. Vlad the Impaler. More Lucretzia Borgia vs. John D. Rockefeller.

(11-01-2016 10:40 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 09:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 04:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 12:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  funny, in the country you can be arrested, indicted, jailed, perp walked, tried in the press, and so forth long before you are proven guilty in a court of law. Where is the protection of absolute knowledge for those people?

he had a choice: the choice was, do I tell now that I might have incriminating emails on a candidate, or wait and maybe later announce I am advocating criminal prosecution of the President-elect, having found the proof on intent that I said was lacking in July?

Quick, what was the outcome for Tom Delay?

Not an easy choice, not is it IMO a black and white one.

Two things about the statement in bold.

One, none of those things have happened with Clinton in regards to this email scandal, except tried in the press, so not a great example, especially since she hasn't been jailed, and even better yet, formally indicted even after a lengthy investigation. So that's not a very good example.

Second, even if it was a good example, just because some people have to deal with the unfair and unjust consequences of being accused (especially if they are found innocent), that the logic extends that EVERYONE should? I'm not buying that either.

If this was an indictment I think I could maybe start to understand your logic, because at that point there is at least enough evidence available that suggests that there was a crime committed. But so far, by the words of the man who wrote this letter, there has not been enough evidence to bring charges against Clinton. So I do think the more appropriate response to digging into some more of these emails without any official charges, was to keep it underwraps until more details were known. And based on what I've seen in the news, the majority of people who know this system better than me, on the left and right, share that sentiment.

And that's because, let's say that this was the nail in the coffin that pushes Trump over the edge. And then results of the investigation come back and prove that again, there is not enough evidence to prosecute. Was it a good thing that the head of the FBI came out and said something that influenced the election?

I agree that it isn't a black and white issue, but I think one decision is more correct than the other.

Just responding to the inference that Comey should have waited until he had all the evidence needed for a conviction, which is how I interpret your innocent until proven guilty mantra. As you can see from my list, law enforcement doesn't wait for a slam dunk ghuilty verdict to move.

I wonder how people would feel after voting for her, to learn that she had in fact lied to them and hoodwinked them. Probably wouldn't change a lot.

I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption. Trump U, the Trump Foundation, stiffing contractors (he's even currently refusing to pay his pollster), and then the sexual assault charges, bragging about sexual assault, the history of misogyny, the history of racial discrimination, the bigoted demagogy that's typified his campaign, the ties to Putin, the shocking ignorance of our constitution and how our government works, the equally shocking ignorance of foreign policy, and on and on.

It's actually hard for me to process that someone can think Hilary needs to be "locked up" but Trump should be president. Republicans who refuse to vote for either - fair enough.

I tend to vote Republican, at least on the national level, but will vote for neither.

What's upsetting as a citizen, is that it's clear that neither of them is a principled candidate. Hillary and the DNC have clearly not played fair with Sanders and his followers. She clearly is bankrolled by special interests. She clearly broke rules with regard to her State Department communications and has lied about it, prosecutable or not.

And despite the protestations about this 11th hour discovery of emails, it should be clear to everyone that SOMEONE, whether Clinton, Huma, or others, SHOULD have known about the existence of additional email records that could be produced and knowingly kept silent on the matter.

I get that we are constitutionally given the right to not incriminate ourselves . . . . .

But if this is all as innocent as the Clinton team claims, why did they stonewall for so long, why were so many records deleted, and why didn't someone say "Hey, you know, Hillary may have deleted her records, but I've got 100,000's of thousands of emails that probably contain some of the missing emails that prove she didn't mishandle information."

Given that Clinton or her aides probably had knowledge of this treasure trove and didn't 'help out' earlier, I'm not sure why they feel so aggrieved that the FBI or anyone else feels justified in making this an issue now. I have a tough time feeling sorry for them one bit.

And to the original point, as to what's upsetting to me - - - Democrats seem to expect Republicans to not vote for Trump on "principle". I get that, and I won't.

What about the Democrats? Why are they 'not voting for Hillary' on principle?

Both parties have let down the American people with their nominees. And I extend that to the Libertarian Party, and the Democratic nominee for vice-president. It's absolutely disgusting.

Sorry, ridiculous false equivalency. "Broke state department rules on emails" is not equal to encouraging racism, misogyny, xenophobia, islamophobia, committing sexual assault, being cavalier about the use of nuclear weapons, and promising to order the US military to commit war crimes.

(11-01-2016 11:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 10:00 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption. \

where have you been the last 35 years? The email is just the cherry on the sundae. She has been covering up stuff and stonewalling since her days as Arkansas' First Lady, and perhaps before. she has gotten very good at it, which is one point in her favor, but to say this is the Alpha and Omega of her misdeeds is to say that Al Capone led an exemplary life prior to messing up on his taxes.

Let us be clear - this is not Mother Theresa vs. Vlad the Impaler. More Lucretzia Borgia vs. John D. Rockefeller.

I used to live in Arkansas when Bill was governor, so I'm aware that many on the right have been obsessed with her and obsessively investigating her for decades. I'm also aware that with all the millions of tax payer dollars wasted on these investigations, nothing ever sticks. If you are convinced she is corrupt, this is just further proof of he villainy. But others might conclude that maybe there's no there there....

(10-31-2016 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 01:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information..." In other words, the evidence is there. What I said. And the details he recited at length, fulfill the elements of several different crimes.
"Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges." In other words, prosecutorial discretion. What I said.

No, the evidence was not there to bring charges, as he stated in the second paragraph:
"we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."
You're right that they saw evidence of mishandling classified info, but just mishandling classified information is not enough to break a law. They needed to find evidence of intent, which they couldn't.
I guess both of us see what we want to see.

Actually, no, they don't need to find evidence of intent. There are 4 applicable statutes--18 USC Sections 793, 794, 798, and 2071.

Section 793 is a felony (10 years). It has six separate parts, a) through f), plus g) which is a conspiracy section. Parts a) through c) require "intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." Hillary probably did not possess that level of intent, but note that it is intent or reason to believe, and she almost certainly met the reason to believe standard. Parts d) and e) require "reason to believe." Part f) has two subparts requiring either "gross negligence" or " 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." I think Comey's "extreme carelessness" fulfills the "gross negligence" standard, and regardless, she clearly would have had knowledge that the information had been illegally removed and she failed to report it.

Section 794 is the big felony (up to life). It does require intent to deliver to the enemy. Hillary is probably not guilty of any part of this section.

Section 798 is a felony (10 years). It requires " knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information." It is limited in scope generally to cryptosecurity and communications intel information. I don't know whether Hillary had access to anything that would constitute communications intel, or any of the other listed types of information to which this statute applies, but I would put the odds of her having communications intel information somewhere well north of 50/50. If so, then placing the information on an non-secure server or communicating it over a non-secure link would clearly fit "knowingly and willingly...transmits or otherwise makes available."

2071 is a felony (up to 3 years). It applies to anyone who "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office" or "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same." Here the intent required is simply the intent to remove or destroy the materials. Hillary clearly meets the required elements here. Note also that this is not in the espionage section, and does not require that the information be related to national security, so pretty much everything on the server, classified or not, would be covered here. Note also that the destruction part (part 2) includes a prohibition against holding future US office.

I can see a reason for prosecutorial discretion. Juries don't like to convict or hold liable defendants (other than large corporations) where no showing of intent is made or required. To get a conviction under any of the above sections would require a considerable jury education process. That could provide a legitimate basis for prosecutorial discretion. That doesn't mean she is not guilty, that doesn't mean that the elements required to establish the violation have not all been brought forward. It means it would be hard to win a case with a jury that doesn't understand the statutes. This is not a problem in court martials, because the panel would all clearly understand the applicable statutes and regulations. But I can see it being a big problem with a civilian jury.

Bottom line: RTFS.

(11-01-2016 10:00 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption.

The private server is not the problem. The problem is handling of classified information. And felony offenses do not pale in comparison to alleged but unproved corruption.

(11-01-2016 12:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 10:00 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption.

The private server is not the problem. The problem is handling of classified information. And felony offenses do not pale in comparison to alleged but unproved corruption.

She has not been indicted, let alone convicted of a felony. Sorry.

Of my friends who've worked in intelligence and at state that I've talked to, none of them were terribly shocked by what she did and seemed to think that higher ups do that sort of stuff a lot. This indicates a problem in the culture to me. (They've also pointed out the official state emails were not secure either...)

Even if Trump is cleared in the fraud trial that starts in November, as well as the other fraud trials relating to Trump university, and the civil suit related to the alleged rape of a 13 year old girl, the content of his campaign alone is still enough to make Clinton's email scandal pale in comparison.

Maybe it's just a matter of how I was raised. My (Republican) parents taught me that racism is wrong. Bigotry is wrong. Antisemitism is wrong. White supremacism is wrong. Yet these are core of the Trump campaign and have been from the beginning.

His sexism and misogyny disqualify him. This is the first presidential campaign my 12 year old daughter has followed closely. She doesn't understand why a guy who goes around saying he can use his fame and wealth to "grab women by the *$*$*" or to walk into dressing rooms so he "gets to see" girls as young as 15 naked isn't in jail.

I think many Trump supporters and anti-Hillary people don't get how devastating this campaign has been to many women, non-whites, and non-Christians, that one of our major parties is essentially running a campaign saying they are second class citizens at best, if not the outright enemy. And that so many of their fellow citizens think that America needs to marginalize them to be "great again"...

I love the "not been indicted, let alone convicted" defense. Worked for Al Capone for years. Worked for Bernie Madoff for years.

Let me be clear. I am against Hillary. That does not mean I am for Trump. So trying to counter her bad acts with his does not move me.

(11-01-2016 01:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I love the "not been indicted, let alone convicted" defense. Worked for Al Capone for years. Worked for Bernie Madoff for years.

That is just silly.

(11-01-2016 01:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Let me be clear. I am against Hillary. That does not mean I am for Trump. So trying to counter her bad acts with his does not move me.

Speaking generally, not about you specifically: IMHO, equating the email stuff with propagating a campaign of hate and bigotry, as many do, indicates a lack of appreciation for just how wrong and destructive the racism and bigotry is.

Noted Leftist Mitt Romney:

"I don't want to see trickle-down racism, I don't want to see a president of the United States saying things which change the character of the generations of Americans that are following. Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and trickle-down racism, trickle-down bigotry, trickle-down misogyny, all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/m...mp-racism/

EDIT: I'll leave it there with this particular branch of the thread. Not sure I'm accomplishing anything constructive.

(11-01-2016 12:01 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 10:40 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 09:52 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 04:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 01:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Two things about the statement in bold.

One, none of those things have happened with Clinton in regards to this email scandal, except tried in the press, so not a great example, especially since she hasn't been jailed, and even better yet, formally indicted even after a lengthy investigation. So that's not a very good example.

Second, even if it was a good example, just because some people have to deal with the unfair and unjust consequences of being accused (especially if they are found innocent), that the logic extends that EVERYONE should? I'm not buying that either.

If this was an indictment I think I could maybe start to understand your logic, because at that point there is at least enough evidence available that suggests that there was a crime committed. But so far, by the words of the man who wrote this letter, there has not been enough evidence to bring charges against Clinton. So I do think the more appropriate response to digging into some more of these emails without any official charges, was to keep it underwraps until more details were known. And based on what I've seen in the news, the majority of people who know this system better than me, on the left and right, share that sentiment.

And that's because, let's say that this was the nail in the coffin that pushes Trump over the edge. And then results of the investigation come back and prove that again, there is not enough evidence to prosecute. Was it a good thing that the head of the FBI came out and said something that influenced the election?

I agree that it isn't a black and white issue, but I think one decision is more correct than the other.

Just responding to the inference that Comey should have waited until he had all the evidence needed for a conviction, which is how I interpret your innocent until proven guilty mantra. As you can see from my list, law enforcement doesn't wait for a slam dunk ghuilty verdict to move.

I wonder how people would feel after voting for her, to learn that she had in fact lied to them and hoodwinked them. Probably wouldn't change a lot.

I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption. Trump U, the Trump Foundation, stiffing contractors (he's even currently refusing to pay his pollster), and then the sexual assault charges, bragging about sexual assault, the history of misogyny, the history of racial discrimination, the bigoted demagogy that's typified his campaign, the ties to Putin, the shocking ignorance of our constitution and how our government works, the equally shocking ignorance of foreign policy, and on and on.

It's actually hard for me to process that someone can think Hilary needs to be "locked up" but Trump should be president. Republicans who refuse to vote for either - fair enough.

I tend to vote Republican, at least on the national level, but will vote for neither.

What's upsetting as a citizen, is that it's clear that neither of them is a principled candidate. Hillary and the DNC have clearly not played fair with Sanders and his followers. She clearly is bankrolled by special interests. She clearly broke rules with regard to her State Department communications and has lied about it, prosecutable or not.

And despite the protestations about this 11th hour discovery of emails, it should be clear to everyone that SOMEONE, whether Clinton, Huma, or others, SHOULD have known about the existence of additional email records that could be produced and knowingly kept silent on the matter.

I get that we are constitutionally given the right to not incriminate ourselves . . . . .

But if this is all as innocent as the Clinton team claims, why did they stonewall for so long, why were so many records deleted, and why didn't someone say "Hey, you know, Hillary may have deleted her records, but I've got 100,000's of thousands of emails that probably contain some of the missing emails that prove she didn't mishandle information."

Given that Clinton or her aides probably had knowledge of this treasure trove and didn't 'help out' earlier, I'm not sure why they feel so aggrieved that the FBI or anyone else feels justified in making this an issue now. I have a tough time feeling sorry for them one bit.

And to the original point, as to what's upsetting to me - - - Democrats seem to expect Republicans to not vote for Trump on "principle". I get that, and I won't.

What about the Democrats? Why are they 'not voting for Hillary' on principle?

Both parties have let down the American people with their nominees. And I extend that to the Libertarian Party, and the Democratic nominee for vice-president. It's absolutely disgusting.

Sorry, ridiculous false equivalency. "Broke state department rules on emails" is not equal to encouraging racism, misogyny, xenophobia, islamophobia, committing sexual assault, being cavalier about the use of nuclear weapons, and promising to order the US military to commit war crimes.

No one's trying to equate their flaws. I am not a Trump supporter and my criticisms of Hillary are independent of any of the claims you are making. Trump is hugely unqualified, by experience and temperament, for the office. That does not equate to any justification for Hillary to be president.

My point is that Hillary is mistrusted by more than 50% of the American public. She and her husband have gotten rich off of public service. They have accepted funding from foreign governments and others seeking favor. The DNC worked to insure her nomination, and she has been given advantages every step of the way. She has lied to the American public on numerous occasions.

She is not the best candidate the Democratic Party could've offered. She is the nominee not because the American people believe she is the best choice to lead us, but because she has accumulated enough campaign money, power within the DNC, and has demonstrated the willingness to use both to overwhelm what was initially perceived to be a non-existent field of challengers.

Yes she broke State Department rules. She has stonewalled the investigation, she's deleted emails. The fact that emails have been found that, realistically should've been known to exist by key members of here staff, and COULD have been turned over sooner (and conceivably WOULD have if there was absolutely no fear that they potentially posed a problem for the campaign). It is part and parcel of an entitlement mentality that she and the DNC have exhibited throughout the nomination process.

The 'equivalency' here is that there are large groups of both parties who are justifying their support of their candidate (Trump or Clinton) not based on character or belief in the candidate, but to avoid the character of the other candidate.

I don't fit in either of those groups. And yes, I am disgusted.

Well, my new favorite storyline to emerge is a potential secret communication line between Trump and a Russian bank that was found by academics were trying to identify malicious malware that may have been deployed to attack each campaign.

My favorite part is how the line went dead as soon as Trump's campaign was first asked to comment.

Tinfoil hat - ENGAGED.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...ussia.html

There's a lot of other articles that support/deny the primary question posed. I just find it fascinating that this could even be a question.

(11-01-2016 01:51 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 01:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I love the "not been indicted, let alone convicted" defense. Worked for Al Capone for years. Worked for Bernie Madoff for years.

That is just silly.

(11-01-2016 01:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Let me be clear. I am against Hillary. That does not mean I am for Trump. So trying to counter her bad acts with his does not move me.

Speaking generally, not about you specifically: IMHO, equating the email stuff with propagating a campaign of hate and bigotry, as many do, indicates a lack of appreciation for just how wrong and destructive the racism and bigotry is.

Noted Leftist Mitt Romney:

"I don't want to see trickle-down racism, I don't want to see a president of the United States saying things which change the character of the generations of Americans that are following. Presidents have an impact on the nature of our nation, and trickle-down racism, trickle-down bigotry, trickle-down misogyny, all these things are extraordinarily dangerous to the heart and character of America."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/m...mp-racism/

EDIT: I'll leave it there with this particular branch of the thread. Not sure I'm accomplishing anything constructive.

Is it trickle down or trickle up?

As Edward R. Murrow said of Joseph McCarthy, "he didn't create this situation... he merely exploited it."