The New American Politics thread

[Drak]

My inlaws are voting Trump. Too bad I have to put up with their yapping for 5 days next week during their yearly summer visit.

[ernie]

Trump's reaction and hysterics is exactly why he will not gain any more support than he has and will likely lose some when things stabilize in a few weeks. I don't think today is anything but a loss in the end for the GOP but he can't even momentarily capitalize on this because in the end he is the incompetent one.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

The amazing thing is that Trump has managed to turn what should have been a good news cycle for him into a victory for the democrats. He would be getting destroyed by Biden right now.

Conversely, Kasich would very likely be leading in the polls if he were the GOP candidate. It's amazing more republicans can't see this. They hate Hillary, yet they have insisted for months on nominating a candidate who may literally be the only person in America that can't beat her in a general election.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Drak

My inlaws are voting Trump. Too bad I have to put up with their yapping for 5 days next week during their yearly summer visit.

you have 5 days to talk them out of it

[calgarygeologist]

I can't wait for the Republican Convention. It should be really interesting and I'm still expecting some fireworks and weird twist in the selection of their nominee. Two more weeks.

[Mr.Coffee]

Another example of how poorly Trump is playing this. His childish reactionary tone and unyielding impulsiveness only further to erode what could have been a great political powerplay.

More evidence that this person might be among the worst possible candidates America has literally ever tabled to run their country.

All Trump needs to do here is either stay silent. Guaranteed win and solidifying the Trump agenda that Washington is a bubble of corruption that he is going to burst.

I have a 2 year old son and Trump seems like he acts like him. Actually in many ways my son displays more maturity.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

How is it that in Hillary's case ignorance of the law is in fact a defense? They've said several times that what she did was illegal if she had meant to do it. But she just f'ed it up so no charges required. I would be the king of that defense.

So intent is irrelevant in law?

[Drak]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

you have 5 days to talk them out of it

Wouldn't work. My father in law loves to argue from pure ignorance and my mother in law can't handle debate - she throws temper tantrums and screams like a child - there's no point. FIL is a complete Trump supporter stereotype to the extreme. Hopefully politics doesn't come up but I doubt it.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

So intent is irrelevant in law?

Depends what sort of charge. Sometime it is and sometimes it isn't. But generally not knowing the law isn't a defence. The quote on CNN was literally "she didn't know what she was doing had legal repercussions". I was talking specifically about ignorance of, not intent to break, the law. But I actually don't know the specific reason why some idiots are allowed to break some laws.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Depends what sort of charge. Sometime it is and sometimes it isn't. But generally not knowing the law isn't a defence. The quote on CNN was literally "she didn't know what she was doing had legal repercussions". I was talking specifically about ignorance of, not intent to break, the law. But I actually don't know the specific reason why some idiots are allowed to break some laws.

Intent would suppose treason, so I feel like the difference is gigantic. Not that she should go Scott free, but there's quite a difference between what she did and treason

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Intent would suppose treason, so I feel like the difference is gigantic. Not that she should go Scott free, but there's quite a difference between what she did and treason

No not at all. There are charges for negligently spilling top secret beans...and other charges for intending to cause harm by willfully spilling the beans. She for sure did A. Everyone admits that. She may or may not have done B but that doesn't preclude her from being guilty for A. In reality, there is no way they were ever going to prosecute the democratic nominee.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

No not at all. There are charges for negligently spilling top secret beans...and other charges for intending to cause harm by willfully spilling the beans. She for sure did A. Everyone admits that. She may or may not have done B but that doesn't preclude her from being guilty for A. In reality, there is no way they were ever going to prosecute the democratic nominee.

yup but really it isn't the FBI's call to make. They are just supposed to present the facts and let the prosecutors prosecute.

This further feeds the establishment that some people hate so much. An inside job, a fix as Trump is saying. The problem is, it's Trump saying it.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Depends what sort of charge. Sometime it is and sometimes it isn't. But generally not knowing the law isn't a defence. The quote on CNN was literally "she didn't know what she was doing had legal repercussions". I was talking specifically about ignorance of, not intent to break, the law. But I actually don't know the specific reason why some idiots are allowed to break some laws.

Was that a Democratic talking head saying that, or someone speaking on behalf of the FBI? Because in the FBI release, I don't see anything that remotely addresses the point of whether she knew if there was any illegality to what she was doing. Comey didn't offer any sort of defense of Clinton's action other than 'there wasn't clearly intentional and willful mishandling'. He certainly didn't indicate that Clinton not knowing the law was reason why they weren't recommending charges.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Was that a Democratic talking head saying that, or someone speaking on behalf of the FBI? Because in the FBI release, I don't see anything that remotely addresses the point of whether she knew if there was any illegality to what she was doing. Comey didn't offer any sort of defense of Clinton's action other than 'there wasn't clearly intentional and willful mishandling'. He certainly didn't indicate that Clinton not knowing the law was reason why they weren't recommending charges.

No I'm just putting two and two together. The FBI clearly said she was negligent in handling emails and should have known better...

But a person in her position, he said, “should have known that an unclassified system was no place” for the emails she was sending

And there is a law under the espionage act that pretty clearly states anyone mishandling classified material is guilty of a crime.

So I'm just curious how on one had the FBI says in so uncertain terms you've been negligent in your handling of emails. But on the other, it's ok because you didn't know you were doing it and or didn't mean to do it.

I guess they're not in the mood to hand over an election.

[Dion]

Fmr Supervisory Federal Prosecutor: Clinton’s FBI Interview Was ‘Quick,’ ‘No Question’ Comey Had Evidence To Prosecute, Intent and Precedent Aren’t Needed

On Tuesday’s broadcast of “CNN Tonight,” Marc Mukasey, who served as a federal supervisory federal prosecutor under FBI Director James Comey, strongly praised the integrity of Comey, but expressed surprise that charges were not brought against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton given that “there’s no question he had the evidence to prosecute” and argued, “Jim’s words, the fact that she exercised extreme carelessness, squares exactly with the gross negligence standard,” and the lack of precedent, or intent would not prevent bringing charges against Clinton. Mukasey explained that the interview of Clinton was “a quick interview.” And that he believes “Jim probably had a sense that this case was not winnable at trial. I don’t really understand why.”

In the second segment, Mukasey stated that “charges could have been brought.” And that he was surprised that they weren’t. He continued, “I think based on Jim’s words, the fact that she exercised extreme carelessness, squares exactly with the gross negligence standard, and the fact that there’s no precedent for this, this is not like a judge who needs to follow precedent of his appellate courts. If you have the proof, if you have the law, and you have the facts, you can bring a case, even though no one’s ever done the exact same thing before.”

He added, “This is not an intent crime according to the gross intelligence standard.”

Mukasey also said that he doesn’t think Comey’s decision was political, and agrees with RNC Chairman Reince Priebus “that the case Jim made out today in his statement could have been prosecuted as a gross negligence violation. Sometimes, the hardest decisions for prosecutors are the cases not to bring, and only Jim knows. He’s not a scared guy, and he’s not a kowtowing guy. He must have some reason why he thinks that it wasn’t a winnable case.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/...-arent-needed/

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Dion

Fmr Supervisory Federal Prosecutor: Clinton’s FBI Interview Was ‘Quick,’ ‘No Question’ Comey Had Evidence To Prosecute, Intent and Precedent Aren’t Needed





http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/...-arent-needed/

Well, if everything this guy's saying is true it makes the Bill Clinton visit two days earlier possibly even fishier. Something seems scandalous and weird here, and it is only getting weirder.

[Senator Clay Davis]

If you're someone (like a Cruz supporter) who is of the opinion Trump is working for Hillary to try and get her elected and crush conservative values, today was a pretty good day towards that theory. In addition to all the things MissTeeks posted, he also decided to say Saddam Hussein, while a bad guy, was good at killing terrorists (but those civilians well...). I would think it's probably better than even money he throws some praise at Hitler during this campaign. He did keep a copy of a book of Hitler speeches after all. Still 3 weeks till the convention so I imagine the GOP is now working 24/7 to find a way to undercut Trump. Ted Cruz probably still can't beat Hillary, but almost any other GOPer they could nominate would at least be a slight favorite over her.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The amazing thing is that Trump has managed to turn what should have been a good news cycle for him into a victory for the democrats. He would be getting destroyed by Biden right now.

Conversely, Kasich would very likely be leading in the polls if he were the GOP candidate. It's amazing more republicans can't see this. They hate Hillary, yet they have insisted for months on nominating a candidate who may literally be the only person in America that can't beat her in a general election.

Yeah this was a very winnable election.

Rubio, Kasich, maybe even Lyin Ted would be ahead of HRC right now.

Talk about a lost opportunity.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

If you're someone (like a Cruz supporter) who is of the opinion Trump is working for Hillary to try and get her elected and crush conservative values, today was a pretty good day towards that theory. In addition to all the things MissTeeks posted, he also decided to say Saddam Hussein, while a bad guy, was good at killing terrorists (but those civilians well...). I would think it's probably better than even money he throws some praise at Hitler during this campaign. He did keep a copy of a book of Hitler speeches after all. Still 3 weeks till the convention so I imagine the GOP is now working 24/7 to find a way to undercut Trump. Ted Cruz probably still can't beat Hillary, but almost any other GOPer they could nominate would at least be a slight favorite over her.

Funny though, but this was what a lot of the anti-war in Iraq supporters said when the American's won the war and f'd the end game. That Saddam should have been left running Iraq because we wouldn't have seen the rise of the extremist groups because he was good at keeping them in check.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Well, if everything this guy's saying is true it makes the Bill Clinton visit two days earlier possibly even fishier. Something seems scandalous and weird here, and it is only getting weirder.

Not if it's a Breitbart article