(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.