EPTI'm looking forward when this all turns out to be nothing and then the cries being asking why nothing was found. And then the claims of the "clear cover up."
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5825
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I'm looking forward when this all turns out to be nothing and then the cries being asking why nothing was found. And then the claims of the "clear cover up." | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
We don't ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don't know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don't want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it. -ComeySo this basically sounds like Comey 1) knew this would affect the election, and 2) thought this "supplement" to the record was important for the American people to have. In short, he told Congress because it would influence the election. ...is that legal? | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On October 31 2016 10:24 biology]major wrote: Constantly under investigation and some type of scandal. She has at least 2 investigations on her right now, FBI is looking into CF. Washington is going to spend time and money going on crazy goose chases instead of working on real issues. She is detrimental to the presidency even if she is completely innocent at this point. That's where your point fails Plansix, even if this is all "nothing" it is still damaging the country. And the alternative is ??? | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On October 31 2016 09:15 biology]major wrote: Either way this is the end of HRC, I refuse to believe that the American people will elect someone under criminal investigation by the FBI. Obama and HRC should both be asked about future pardons as well. boy oh boy are you in for a surprise | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
"Make up a couple of wild goose chases about your opponent to make them unelectable" is not a message I want to send to anybody who makes any decisions. I can't be assed looking up the details, is Trump or his businesses under criminal investigation and if so by whom? (I've certainly never seen any reason to believe that the Clinton Foundation was a tenth as shady as Trump's charity.) | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 31 2016 10:24 biology]major wrote: Washington is going to spend time and money going on crazy goose chases instead of working on real issues. To be fair, the Republican party is so dysfunctional that this is what they'd do anyway, regardless of who gets elected. I'd expect congress would still find different things to waste their time on even if Trump was elected, rather than doing anything remotely productive. The problems in Washington run deep enough that we're still fucked regardless of who we elect for President. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 31 2016 10:23 ChristianS wrote: -Comey So this basically sounds like Comey 1) knew this would affect the election, and 2) thought this "supplement" to the record was important for the American people to have. In short, he told Congress because it would influence the election. ...is that legal? it could theoretically be a violation of the Hatch Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939#Permitted_and_prohibited_activities_for_employees_who_may_participate_in_partisan_political_activity however I don't think it is; and I'm pretty sure the director of the FBI has a very clear idea of whether it is or not. slaughter -> he was sexting a 15-yr old, allegedly. and since that probably crossed state lines it becomes a federal matter. improper sexual conduct with a minor, not sure what charge that would be specifically in federal law. | ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On October 31 2016 10:39 Slaughter wrote: How did the fbi get these emails anyway? Besides Weiner being a scumbag husband etc I didn't think he did anything illegal to have his emails seized? Did you really not hear about what he did? He was messaging pictures of his dick to a 15 year old. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On October 31 2016 10:30 Aquanim wrote: Not electing somebody because you're afraid of the messiness of the scandals which might follow them, when at least a significant fraction of that scandal is confected by their opposition, sets a pretty bad precedent. "Make up a couple of wild goose chases about your opponent to make them unelectable" is not a message I want to send to anybody who makes any decisions. I can't be assed looking up the details, is Trump or his businesses under criminal investigation and if so by whom? (I've certainly never seen any reason to believe that the Clinton Foundation was a tenth as shady as Trump's charity.) Trump's foundation is a complete mess. It's currently under investigation in New York for self-dealing, which is using the foundation's charity funds for personal interests. The largest donation they ever made was $260k to refurbish a fountain outside of one of Trump's hotels. They also spent foundation money to settle lawsuits related to Trump's for-profit businesses. The best though is when they donated $7 to the boy scouts cause Trump didn't want to pay the $7 registration fee himself for his son. The foundation was recently served a cease-and-desist letter from the new york attorney general for not registering themselves as a fundraising entity. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 31 2016 10:23 ChristianS wrote: -Comey So this basically sounds like Comey 1) knew this would affect the election, and 2) thought this "supplement" to the record was important for the American people to have. In short, he told Congress because it would influence the election. ...is that legal? In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony. James B Comey, Director Don't play word games with "supplement." His address to Congress intentionally mentioned updating the Committee about our efforts in light of my previous testimony. He just got done telling Congress that the investigation was completed, now it's re-opened. It is misleading to let that testimony stand. Congress is made up of the direct representatives of the American people. Can we at least get bipartisan agreement that there is a big pickle here between intentionally misleading America's representatives about a closed investigation and not waiting until after the election to reveal it? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On October 31 2016 02:12 KwarK wrote: Name the other Democrat? Biden didn't want the job and he couldn't be made to run. Bernie? O'Malley? Biden would be killing it right now. But he knew a primary against her would be really rough with a low chance of beating her due to her locking up establishment support. So he opted out, despite the fact that he would have demolished any Republican (but particularly Trump) in the general. But in answer to your main question: literally any of the VP contenders. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
| ||
