|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 11:41:56 GMT
The FBI are not morons. They're not going to open an investigation into duplicates. "Officials familiar with the inquiry said it was too early to assess the significance of the newly discovered emails. It is possible, they said, that some or all of the correspondence is duplicative of the emails that were already turned over and examined by the FBI. Comey made a similar point in his letter, sent to congressional committee chairmen, saying that the FBI “cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant.” They are obligated to report this but they don't know what is in them themselves, as they haven't studied them. If you think that they are investigating because of what is in them then you have been misled. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-to-conduct-new-investigation-of-emails-from-clintons-private-server/2016/10/28/0b1e9468-9d31-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.htmlYes, some of it may be duplicates. But I find it hard to believe they'd reopen the investigation if there wasn't any new material. It may not be significant, but why would they reopen an investigation without there being any new material?
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 29, 2016 11:48:15 GMT
Yes, some of it may be duplicates. But I find it hard to believe they'd reopen the investigation if there wasn't any new material. It may not be significant, but why would they reopen an investigation without there being any new material? Because he is obligated to report to congress, the problem has come in that he said 'we don't know what they are', now eleven days before an election then he sure as hell has to make clear 'what they are' and it's naive to think they can just put that out there with no detail. There is a suggestion that they are from an email account already investigated, in which case it would be a quick answer but otherwise it's a lot of work for someone (it's suggested there about a thousand emails to check through).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 11:52:18 GMT
Yes, some of it may be duplicates. But I find it hard to believe they'd reopen the investigation if there wasn't any new material. It may not be significant, but why would they reopen an investigation without there being any new material? Because he is obligated to report to congress, the problem has come in that he said 'we don't know what they are', now eleven days before an election then he sure as hell has to make clear 'what they are' and it's naive to think they can just put that out there with no detail. There is a suggestion that they are from an email account already investigated, in which case it would be a quick answer but otherwise it's a lot of work for someone (it's suggested there about a thousand emails to check through). On the Young Turks they said Comey would clarify on Monday or Tuesday. As you said, he's obligated to report it to Congress and he probably wanted to do that asap to prevent perjury charges or whatever because he said under oath that the investigation had been closed. If they somehow found out the case had been reopened and he hadn't reported it to Congress, he could be in trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 29, 2016 13:01:05 GMT
Fine as long as firms making such donations aren't prioritised. That's normal politics (for the US especially), I don't like lobbying myself but it's the whole system that is an issue not any individual. On the other hand you have Trump whose business dealings are so murky that we are onto something very different and very dark indeed. There is no equivalence. There is no equivalence because Trump has never held public office. While Clinton was Secretary of State her employees were soliciting personal payments of millions to her husband co-mingled with donations to her charity. You think that's fine, to me it looks corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 13:05:03 GMT
The democrats should have picked Bernie.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 29, 2016 13:05:28 GMT
None of the emails are to or from Clinton, they weren't on her private server and they may just be duplicates of one's they've already seen. None of the WiliLeaked Podesta emails are to or from Clinton either. Assange is releasing those next week. You Hillary fans must be quite worried by that.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 29, 2016 13:07:37 GMT
The democrats should have picked Bernie. "That doofus" according Hillary's campaign manager Podesta. Two really terrible candidates, both side should have chosen more wisely.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 29, 2016 13:31:25 GMT
All should be treated the same under the eyes of the law, no different for someone cowering in a foreign embassy or another whose business practices look likely to warrant much closer investigation.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 13:33:20 GMT
The democrats should have picked Bernie. "That doofus" according Hillary's campaign manager Podesta. Two really terrible candidates, both side should have chosen more wisely. Bernie would have destroyed Trump. A "reasonable" Republican, if any exist, would have destroyed Clinton. These are the two worst candidates they could have picked. If Hillary wins, it's only because her opponent is a complete idiot. I wish they'd have given Bernie a fair shot. He would have won the nomination, and Trump wouldn't stand a chance.
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Oct 29, 2016 14:45:49 GMT
"Should" "Should" "Should" ?
The USA has picked its candidates in accordance with its culture and who're we to say they "should"'ve done otherwise?
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Oct 29, 2016 15:05:54 GMT
The democrats should have picked Bernie. They'd have lost with Bernie. I wish they'd have given Bernie a fair shot. He would have won the nomination, and Trump wouldn't stand a chance. Bernie is unelectable for many Americans. I doubt he'd have a chance. Just keep in mind that the political spectrum is shifted to the right in the US. While for us Europeans, Bernie's ideas are pretty much centre and, well, normal, they seem socialistic in the US. Don't get me wrong, I don't think anything's wrong with Bernie as president and he'd be highly preferred over Trump (to be fair, anyone would), I just doubt he'd have much of a chance.
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Oct 29, 2016 15:07:53 GMT
While Clinton was Secretary of State her employees were soliciting personal payments of millions to her husband co-mingled with donations to her charity. You think that's fine, to me it looks corrupt. Surely you can proof these accusations?
|
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Oct 29, 2016 15:23:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 16:05:10 GMT
"Should" "Should" "Should" ? The USA has picked its candidates in accordance with its culture and who're we to say they "should"'ve done otherwise? Well, the DNC clearly did everything to torpedo Bernie's campaign. Wikileaks clearly shows that. They also did everything they could to brand him as a sexist, which he definitely is not. Clinton had I think 110 super delegates before anyone else was even in the race. And to top it off Clinton clearly broke the law. So yeah, I think it's fair to say they SHOULD have nominated Bernie.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 16:07:38 GMT
The democrats should have picked Bernie. They'd have lost with Bernie. I wish they'd have given Bernie a fair shot. He would have won the nomination, and Trump wouldn't stand a chance. Bernie is unelectable for many Americans. I doubt he'd have a chance. Just keep in mind that the political spectrum is shifted to the right in the US. While for us Europeans, Bernie's ideas are pretty much centre and, well, normal, they seem socialistic in the US. Don't get me wrong, I don't think anything's wrong with Bernie as president and he'd be highly preferred over Trump (to be fair, anyone would), I just doubt he'd have much of a chance. To be fair the "electability" argument the mainstream media always use is kind of bullsh*t. How can a racist sexist bigot and a corrupt manipulator be more electable than an honest man who has been fighting for equal rights for over 40 years? Polls showed that Bernie would have obliterated Trump in a general election.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 29, 2016 16:53:38 GMT
While Clinton was Secretary of State her employees were soliciting personal payments of millions to her husband co-mingled with donations to her charity. You think that's fine, to me it looks corrupt. Surely you can proof these accusations? So out of this whole torrent of wild claims about Trump (which I'm not saying aren't true) the only proof you ask for is on a comment about Hillary ? Why would that be ? The key proof is the Doug Band email (confirmed as genuine by Doug Band himself) from the latest WikiLeaks dump. It is documented all over the place - here it is on Bloomberg which is a fairly balanced (though woefully anti-Brexit) news organisation: www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-26/clinton-aide-band-boasted-about-how-he-helped-foundation-prosperNow you know it's true what do you think ?
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Oct 29, 2016 17:34:00 GMT
Where excatly does it say that it were "her employees" when she was Secretary of State (i.e. federal employees)? This article only says that Doug Band and Justin Cooper - both (former) aides/advisors to Bill Clinton - were collecting money for the Clinton Foundation and arranging paid speeches for Bill Clinton. Nothing wrong with that. So out of this whole torrent of wild claims about Trump (which I'm not saying aren't true) the only proof you ask for is on a comment about Hillary ? Why would that be ? I'm not aware about any "wild claims about Trump". He said all these abominable things himself or posted them on Twitter. No further proof needed, listening to him for a bit is more than sufficient to realise that he's the least suitable person to be president of the US.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 17:36:57 GMT
Even taking out the superdelegates, Hillary had over 3million more votes in the popular vote than Bernie. It wasn't close and if he couldn't beat Hillary then there's nothing to suggest he could have beat Trump any easier than she can.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 22:18:28 GMT
Even taking out the superdelegates, Hillary had over 3million more votes in the popular vote than Bernie. It wasn't close and if he couldn't beat Hillary then there's nothing to suggest he could have beat Trump any easier than she can. The fact that she had a gigantic lead before the first person even voted makes a tremendous difference. It gives people a false impression that that candidate is going to win no matter what, which is also the narrative the mainstream media kept spinning. "Who's gonna vote for this guy? Just look at him" And polls showed that he'd do a lot better against Trump than Hillary would. Don't forget that to vote in the primaries you have to be a registered democrat. Many people who do vote in the general election don't bother to vote during the primaries, mainly because it's too much of an effort to get registered to vote for the primaries for a particular party. So the primary voters are not the same as general election voters by a long shot.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 22:23:25 GMT
Even taking out the superdelegates, Hillary had over 3million more votes in the popular vote than Bernie. It wasn't close and if he couldn't beat Hillary then there's nothing to suggest he could have beat Trump any easier than she can. The fact that she had a gigantic lead before the first person even voted makes a tremendous difference. It gives people a false impression that that candidate is going to win no matter what, which is also the narrative the mainstream media kept spinning. "Who's gonna vote for this guy? Just look at him" And polls showed that he'd do a lot better against Trump than Hillary would. Don't forget that to vote in the primaries you have to be a registered democrat. Many people who do vote in the general election don't bother to vote during the primaries, mainly because it's too much of an effort to get registered to vote for the primaries for a particular party. So the primary voters are not the same as general election voters by a long shot. A small difference maybe, but tremendous? 3 million votes worth? I don't think so. Hillary had the superdelegates in 2008 too and started out with a lead then Obama started winning the popular vote and they switched to him. Bernie isn't anywhere near as effective as Obama so that was never going to happen. Besides that, Bernie supporters were overwhelmingly young people who consistently don't vote to the extent that older generations do. There are plenty of middle-aged and older Americans who are terrified of socialism and wouldn't dream of voting someone like Bernie in. Polls also have shown that Hillary is likely to beat Trump by a lot. Polls are never completely reliable but if we're going to take their word that Bernie would beat Trump, then it makes just as much sense to come to the conclusion that Hillary will too.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2016 10:43:39 GMT
The fact that she had a gigantic lead before the first person even voted makes a tremendous difference. It gives people a false impression that that candidate is going to win no matter what, which is also the narrative the mainstream media kept spinning. "Who's gonna vote for this guy? Just look at him" And polls showed that he'd do a lot better against Trump than Hillary would. Don't forget that to vote in the primaries you have to be a registered democrat. Many people who do vote in the general election don't bother to vote during the primaries, mainly because it's too much of an effort to get registered to vote for the primaries for a particular party. So the primary voters are not the same as general election voters by a long shot. A small difference maybe, but tremendous? 3 million votes worth? I don't think so. Hillary had the superdelegates in 2008 too and started out with a lead then Obama started winning the popular vote and they switched to him. Bernie isn't anywhere near as effective as Obama so that was never going to happen. Besides that, Bernie supporters were overwhelmingly young people who consistently don't vote to the extent that older generations do. There are plenty of middle-aged and older Americans who are terrified of socialism and wouldn't dream of voting someone like Bernie in. Polls also have shown that Hillary is likely to beat Trump by a lot. Polls are never completely reliable but if we're going to take their word that Bernie would beat Trump, then it makes just as much sense to come to the conclusion that Hillary will too. Maybe so. But the polls still showed that Bernie would beat Trump by a much wider margin than Hillary would. I'm not making that up. I don't know which demographics would have voted for him, but that's just what the polls said. Anyway, if Bernie were 10 or 20 years younger he'd definitely be elected next time around, because the vast majority of young people were completely behing him and his ideas. I would hardly be surprised if in 8 years they elect a progressive as president.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Oct 30, 2016 11:13:45 GMT
A small difference maybe, but tremendous? 3 million votes worth? I don't think so. Hillary had the superdelegates in 2008 too and started out with a lead then Obama started winning the popular vote and they switched to him. Bernie isn't anywhere near as effective as Obama so that was never going to happen. Besides that, Bernie supporters were overwhelmingly young people who consistently don't vote to the extent that older generations do. There are plenty of middle-aged and older Americans who are terrified of socialism and wouldn't dream of voting someone like Bernie in. Polls also have shown that Hillary is likely to beat Trump by a lot. Polls are never completely reliable but if we're going to take their word that Bernie would beat Trump, then it makes just as much sense to come to the conclusion that Hillary will too. Maybe so. But the polls still showed that Bernie would beat Trump by a much wider margin than Hillary would. I'm not making that up. I don't know which demographics would have voted for him, but that's just what the polls said. Anyway, if Bernie were 10 or 20 years younger he'd definitely be elected next time around, because the vast majority of young people were completely behing him and his ideas. I would hardly be surprised if in 8 years they elect a progressive as president. If Trump gets in there may not even be an America to lead in eight years time. For the first time in well over a century there is an existential threat to the union and the splitting up of the USA is as possible as the splitting up of the EU. There are foreign entities agitating for it, Putin most openly, as there is great benefit in having a weakened and divided USA. China are meanwhile just sitting back in the knowledge that global leadership is coming their way.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2016 11:45:24 GMT
A small difference maybe, but tremendous? 3 million votes worth? I don't think so. Hillary had the superdelegates in 2008 too and started out with a lead then Obama started winning the popular vote and they switched to him. Bernie isn't anywhere near as effective as Obama so that was never going to happen. Besides that, Bernie supporters were overwhelmingly young people who consistently don't vote to the extent that older generations do. There are plenty of middle-aged and older Americans who are terrified of socialism and wouldn't dream of voting someone like Bernie in. Polls also have shown that Hillary is likely to beat Trump by a lot. Polls are never completely reliable but if we're going to take their word that Bernie would beat Trump, then it makes just as much sense to come to the conclusion that Hillary will too. Maybe so. But the polls still showed that Bernie would beat Trump by a much wider margin than Hillary would. I'm not making that up. I don't know which demographics would have voted for him, but that's just what the polls said. Anyway, if Bernie were 10 or 20 years younger he'd definitely be elected next time around, because the vast majority of young people were completely behing him and his ideas. I would hardly be surprised if in 8 years they elect a progressive as president. I understand what you're saying and I'm not anti-Bernie by any means. But just because he may or may not be more likely to beat Trump doesn't mean he should be the Democratic nominee. The Democratic nominee should be whoever the American people vote for it to be and that was undoubtedly Hillary. If she had only won due to superdelegates then I'd agree with you but as I've said, she won overwhelmingly in the popular vote too and it's not like superdelegates have never switched before. Bernie had more than a fair chance but it just wasn't going to happen. We also have to remember that Trump was not attacking Bernie during the primaries to the extent that he was Hillary, because he knew that Bernie wasn't going to get the nomination so he wasn't threatened by him. There is no doubt in my mind that Trump would have completely upped the ante on attacking Bernie if he had won the nomination and there IS stuff that he could have worked with that would have ultimately left Bernie less popular than he is now. Let's not forget there's a 'satirical' essay that Bernie wrote some decades ago talking about how people fantasise about being raped/raping: "A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused. A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously. Have you ever looked at the Stag, Man, Hero, Tough magazines on the shelf of your local bookstore? Do you know why the newspaper with the articles like 'Girl 12 raped by 14 men' sell so well? To what in us are they appealing?" How would that have looked in the face of the accusations against Trump if Bernie was his competitor? Trump would have been able to turn around and say 'well Bernie thinks that everyone fantasises about rape and are fascinated by child rape.' Even if I don't believe that Bernie's intention wasn't satire (although I think he did a very poor job of it), other people would. Stuff like that along with the socialism would have made Bernie's path to the White House just as tough as Hillary's in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2016 12:39:22 GMT
Maybe so. But the polls still showed that Bernie would beat Trump by a much wider margin than Hillary would. I'm not making that up. I don't know which demographics would have voted for him, but that's just what the polls said. Anyway, if Bernie were 10 or 20 years younger he'd definitely be elected next time around, because the vast majority of young people were completely behing him and his ideas. I would hardly be surprised if in 8 years they elect a progressive as president. I understand what you're saying and I'm not anti-Bernie by any means. But just because he may or may not be more likely to beat Trump doesn't mean he should be the Democratic nominee. The Democratic nominee should be whoever the American people vote for it to be and that was undoubtedly Hillary. If she had only won due to superdelegates then I'd agree with you but as I've said, she won overwhelmingly in the popular vote too and it's not like superdelegates have never switched before. Bernie had more than a fair chance but it just wasn't going to happen. We also have to remember that Trump was not attacking Bernie during the primaries to the extent that he was Hillary, because he knew that Bernie wasn't going to get the nomination so he wasn't threatened by him. There is no doubt in my mind that Trump would have completely upped the ante on attacking Bernie if he had won the nomination and there IS stuff that he could have worked with that would have ultimately left Bernie less popular than he is now. Let's not forget there's a 'satirical' essay that Bernie wrote some decades ago talking about how people fantasise about being raped/raping: "A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused. A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously. Have you ever looked at the Stag, Man, Hero, Tough magazines on the shelf of your local bookstore? Do you know why the newspaper with the articles like 'Girl 12 raped by 14 men' sell so well? To what in us are they appealing?" How would that have looked in the face of the accusations against Trump if Bernie was his competitor? Trump would have been able to turn around and say 'well Bernie thinks that everyone fantasises about rape and are fascinated by child rape.' Even if I don't believe that Bernie's intention wasn't satire (although I think he did a very poor job of it), other people would. Stuff like that along with the socialism would have made Bernie's path to the White House just as tough as Hillary's in my opinion. Good point. If Trump had viciously attacked him it would have been different. It's kind of sad though that elections in the US are always decided by whose scandal is worse. It's never about proving that you're the best, but about proving that the other one is the worst.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 31, 2016 7:53:26 GMT
Where excatly does it say that it were "her employees" when she was Secretary of State (i.e. federal employees)? This article only says that Doug Band and Justin Cooper - both (former) aides/advisors to Bill Clinton - were collecting money for the Clinton Foundation and arranging paid speeches for Bill Clinton. Nothing wrong with that. I didn't say they were federal employees. They were working for her Clinton Foundation. So, while Hillary is Secretary of State they simultaneously ask companies to "donate" both to Hillary's charity AND to her husband as a private individual and you say "nothing wrong with that". You see no conflict of interest, or any hint of impropriety ? You are a bigger fan of her than even her daughter is who called this "hustling" and said it had to stop. And in my first example if it was Boris Johnson and his wife involved you'd say that's fine, nothing to see here ?
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Oct 31, 2016 8:23:00 GMT
You said "her employees while she was Secretary of State": While Clinton was Secretary of State her employees were soliciting personal payments of millions to her husband co-mingled with donations to her charity. You think that's fine, to me it looks corrupt. I'm no native speaker, but to me, that implies that they were federal employees of the Department of State, as you didn't say "employees of the Clinton Foundation". But, according to the Wikipedia article, Hillary Clinton wasn't even working for the Clinton Foundation when she was Secretary of State: from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_FoundationIn short, your accusations are baseless and your "her employees" and "Hillary's charity" are incorrect. And, again, why should I have a problem with people donating money to a charitable organisation founded by Bill Clinton?
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 31, 2016 9:18:02 GMT
You said "her employees while she was Secretary of State": While Clinton was Secretary of State her employees were soliciting personal payments of millions to her husband co-mingled with donations to her charity. You think that's fine, to me it looks corrupt. I'm no native speaker, but to me, that implies that they were federal employees of the Department of State, as you didn't say "employees of the Clinton Foundation". But, according to the Wikipedia article, Hillary Clinton wasn't even working for the Clinton Foundation when she was Secretary of State: from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_FoundationIn short, your accusations are baseless and your "her employees" and "Hillary's charity" are incorrect. And, again, why should I have a problem with people donating money to a charitable organisation founded by Bill Clinton? You should have a problem because at the same time they were being asked to donate to Hillary's charity (which she set up jointly with Bill) they were also being told to pay Bill Clinton personally equivalent amounts, which they did. It is corrupt. In UK it would mean the end of her political career. The employee I was referring to was Huma Abedin, her Chief of Staff, who was employed by her, and paid, directly by the State Department and at the same time was employed, and paid, by Doug Band's company which was soliciting these payments,and was also at the same time, employed and paid directly by the Clinton Foundation Charity - she was employed and paid simultaneously by all three. . I get that you hate Trump, but overlooking banana republic corrupt practices like this is surprising.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 17:17:36 GMT
Anyone staying up for this?
I'm doing a sleepin at work and as I have nothing to do tomorrow other then get drunk and go see Boys in the Band I'm gonna stay up and have the tv on and have the odd snooze. Cud be over quite early if it goes Monica's way so says the men in the screen....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 17:38:54 GMT
Okay, so this is the big day. Any predictions? I think Clinton will win by a narrow margin. And I don't think she'll win re-election in 4 years. Paul Ryan will be president in 2021.
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Nov 8, 2016 17:46:37 GMT
Anyone staying up for this? I'm doing a sleepin at work and as I have nothing to do tomorrow other then get drunk and go see Boys in the Band I'm gonna stay up and have the tv on and have the odd snooze. Cud be over quite early if it goes Monica's way so says the men in the screen.... Merged into the Clinton vs Trump Thread
|
|