Presidential Race 2016

Telefrog · 2016-01-26T13:36:53.000Z

Timex:

But the thing where she specifically told aides to commit an illegal act is serious business. There’s really no subjectivity involved. And that’s what I think it’s gonna ultimately burn her on.

I think she violated the law on classified handling.

I don’t think it will go anywhere significant. Not because it’s not important. Because she’s Hillary Clinton and most people (outside of legal sticklers or partisan agents) give a damn.

magnet · 2016-01-26T13:50:01.000Z

Telefrog:

Easy examples: war crimes, conspiracy to commit X, and RICO. You don’t have to actually be the person committing the act, you can be the person giving the order and get in trouble.

In each of these cases, you need to do something more than just talk.

In other words, if Bugsy Malone says to Al Capone, “Hey, let’s kill that guy” and Al Capone replies, “Ok”, and neither one takes any further action towards the crime, then there is no conspiracy.

Fishbreath:

In that case, I think you’re right—no law has been broken. I don’t see the odds of that case being very good, though.

Why not? Jake Sullivan, who received that email request by Clinton, has stated that he didn’t actually do what she asked. Instead, he managed to get the secure fax working properly.

Timex:

However, intentionally circumventing the classification process, as seems to be the case with that email from Clinton, is absolutely illegal and you would definitely be prosecuted for it.

You might, if someone actually obeys your illegal request. But otherwise, no.

Telefrog · 2016-01-26T13:51:45.000Z

magnet:

In each of these cases, you need to do something more than just talk.

In other words, if Bugsy Malone says to Al Capone, “Hey, let’s kill that guy” and Al Capone replies, “Ok”, and neither one takes any further action towards the crime, then there is no conspiracy.

Yes, I was explaining that you don’t necessarily need to be the trigger man to be convicted of a crime. I was not commenting on this particular Clinton scenario.

wahoo · 2016-01-26T14:05:04.000Z

Pyperkub:

Haven’t been following closely, but can you post a link indicating the evidence of her motivation for having her own email server?

Could Her emails be found in a normal FOIA request? Did reporters who Filed a FOIA get access to the proper emails? If not, why?

Telefrog · 2016-01-26T14:40:49.000Z

This is an attack ad against Bernie Sanders made by ESAfund.

Again, to be clear, this is supposed to make you not want to vote for Sanders.

https://youtu.be/6XsWkwakVlA

Edit: Apparently, it’s meant to push Sanders ahead of Clinton in the primary because ESAfund thinks he’ll be easier to beat in the general election against…Trump or Cruz? I don’t know. It was too funny to not share.

Timex · 2016-01-26T15:14:09.000Z

Telefrog:

I think she violated the law on classified handling.

I don’t think it will go anywhere significant. Not because it’s not important. Because she’s Hillary Clinton and most people (outside of legal sticklers or partisan agents) give a damn.

I guess we’ll see, but I think given how overt it seems to have been, they are almost obligated to actually indict her. And then folks start to lose the ability to just handwave it away.

You might, if someone actually obeys your illegal request. But otherwise, no.

No, if my boss told me to intentionally violate the law for handling classified data, I’d report him, and he’d be indicted for a felony because he would have demonstrated a clear intent to illegally distribute classified information.

Telefrog · 2016-01-26T15:25:40.000Z

Oh shit. That’s the sound of the GOP screaming.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-01-26/clinton-open-to-idea-of-appointing-obama-to-supreme-court

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is open to the idea of nominating President Barack Obama for a seat on the Supreme Court, she said Tuesday, responding to a question at an Iowa town hall.

“I will certainly take that under advisement,” she said in Decorah, responding to a man’s recommendation. “I mean, he’s brilliant, he can set forth an argument and he was a law professor, so he’s got lots of credentials.”

Probably wouldn’t happen since A) Obama would have to agree and b) he’d have to get confirmed, but can you imagine the salty tears from some people?

Keep in mind that Taft first served as President and then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Timex · 2016-01-26T15:26:29.000Z

Just when you thought that Donald Trump didn’t stand for overt racial prejudice, he gets endorsed by sheriff Joe Arpaio.

(Just kidding, we all know he stands for overt racial prejudice)

Miramon · 2016-01-26T15:41:31.000Z

Telefrog:

Oh shit. That’s the sound of the GOP screaming.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-01-26/clinton-open-to-idea-of-appointing-obama-to-supreme-court

Probably wouldn’t happen since A) Obama would have to agree and b) he’d have to get confirmed, but can you imagine the salty tears from some people?

Keep in mind that Taft first served as President and then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

It would be glorious.

Quaro · 2016-01-26T16:03:08.000Z

From Nate Silver twitter:

Still not sure if Trump is the most brilliant political tactician of his era or just a guy randomly mashing buttons.

Tin_Wisdom · 2016-01-26T16:05:24.000Z

Allrighty then. Fox News has announced who will get to be at the Adult Table for the next GOP debate next Thursday:

Billionaire businessman Trump; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; Ohio Gov. John Kasich; and Kentucky Sen. Paul.

So Paul is back up on the big-boy stage.

However, there is a wrinkle: Megyn Kelly is one of the debate moderators and Trump has been making noises about boycotting the debate unless she is removed because she is “biased against him”. Trump tweeted today a poll to his Twitter followers, asking if he ought to boycott or not. He also confidently tweeted that Fox News would drop Kelly long before they would dare to air a debate without The Donald.

It will never happen. Fox will drop Kelly if it means no Trump. Nobody will watch w/o Trump.

I’m no fan of Roger Ailes, but his responses were great:

"Ailes":

Megyn Kelly is an excellent journalist, and the entire network stands behind her. She will absolutely be on the debate stage on Thursday night.

"Fox News":

We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president. A nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.

Pyperkub · 2016-01-26T16:06:41.000Z

wahoo:

Could Her emails be found in a normal FOIA request? Did reporters who Filed a FOIA get access to the proper emails? If not, why?

Not an indication of motivation.

Did she get work done faster with better communication? If so, why?

RichVR · 2016-01-26T16:09:39.000Z

Telefrog:

Oh shit. That’s the sound of the GOP screaming.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-01-26/clinton-open-to-idea-of-appointing-obama-to-supreme-court

Probably wouldn’t happen since A) Obama would have to agree and b) he’d have to get confirmed, but can you imagine the salty tears from some people?

Keep in mind that Taft first served as President and then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

This is the one thing that could get me to pray again. In a positive way, if it wasn’t clear.

Incendiary_Lemon · 2016-01-26T17:21:32.000Z

Timex:

I guess we’ll see, but I think given how overt it seems to have been, they are almost obligated to actually indict her. And then folks start to lose the ability to just handwave it away.

Best case scenario, she’s pleading down from a felony.

I don’t see how she could survive that.

wahoo · 2016-01-26T17:24:47.000Z

Pyperkub:

Not an indication of motivation.

Did she get work done faster with better communication? If so, why?

Touting efficiency argument for why a govt employee can violate civil rules? That argument has a solid track record of success!

Nightgaunt · 2016-01-26T18:16:34.000Z

Universal Leader:

I can easily see Santorum or Huckabee starting WWIII because they’re trying to bring about the Rapture. “The missiles are flying. Hallelujah, Hallelujah!”

Dude, Santorum is Catholic and doesn’t believe in the Rapture or the kind of dispensationalism that looks for signs of the end times in what’s going on in the Middle East. There are a lot of different kinds of Christians; if you just want to insult them, fine, but if you want to make a real point, you should learn the differences.

Nesrie · 2016-01-26T18:52:56.000Z

Trump drops out the debate because someone disagrees with him and asks him questions he doesn’t like. I get the feeling he’d run the country and communicate with world leaders in about the same childish way he treated this debate.

Pyperkub · 2016-01-26T18:58:40.000Z

wahoo:

Touting efficiency argument for why a govt employee can violate civil rules? That argument has a solid track record of success!

Nah, I was just saying it’s just as relevant if not more so to motivation.

RichVR · 2016-01-26T18:58:48.000Z

I’ll gladly take Hillary full of shit and fucking with secrets over any republican. Because Cruz and Trump.

Tin_Wisdom · 2016-01-26T19:03:06.000Z

Nesrie:

Trump drops out the debate because someone disagrees with him and asks him questions he doesn’t like.

Eh. I’d offer a more cynical interpretation: Trump opted out of a debate that wasn’t going to do anything positive for his campaign and at the same time managed to put himself even MORE in the public eye with less than a week to go before Iowa. He gets to show that he doesn’t give a rat’s ass what the GOP establishment or the media think of him (the two being one in the same in Fox News).