EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6454
| 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. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
Warrant: https://www.scribd.com/document/334713809/Warrant-Clinton#from_embed The Department of Justice on Tuesday released portions of search warrant obtained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation after its agents found emails pertinent to the Hillary Clinton investigation during the Bureau’s Anthony Weiner probe. LawNewz.com obtained a copy of the warrant and we are currently going through the document. We have posted a copy below. We will update this article as we find more details out from the warrant. As LawNewz.com reported on Monday, a federal judge ordered the release of the materials after high-profile, Los Angeles attorney E. Randol Schoenberg filed a Freedom of Information Act the demanded the release of the materials. “I see nothing at all in the search warrant application that would give rise to probable cause, nothing that would make anyone suspect that there was anything on the laptop beyond what the FBI had already searched and determined not to be evidence of a crime, nothing to suggest that there would be anything other than routine correspondence between Secretary Clinton and her longtime aide Huma Abedin,” Schoenberg said in an email response to LawNewz.com after reviewing the warrant. At the heart of the case was whether Clinton has a privacy interest considering she was never charged with a crime. On that matter, the judge found, Clinton had “little remaining privacy interest in the release of documents identifying her as the subject of the investigation” because Director FBI Director James Comey held a public press conference this summer and Clinton herself spoke about the case. In light of all of that history, the judge ruled: The search warrant, the application for the search warrant, the affidavit in support of the application for the search warrant, and the search warrant return will be unsealed and posted on the Court’s electronic case filing system under the docket number listed above, subject to the redactions discussed above, at noon on December 20, 2016, unless an order is issued before then by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staying or modifying this Order. http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-search-warrant-unsealed-that-was-used-to-obtain-clinton-emails-during-weiner-probe/ No idea how much any of this matters though | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On December 20 2016 22:04 Nebuchad wrote: Ellison is a much better pick than Perez. Which means I have no doubt they'll get Perez. How so? From what I've read I'd probably be fine with Ellison as chair, but Tom Perez is a fantastic champion of workers, did a superb job in the civil rights division of the DoJ, and is widely described as incredibly intelligent and competent. How exactly would Ellison be a "much better pick" than him? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On December 21 2016 03:14 Nevuk wrote: The warrant used by the FBI about Clinton emails via the Weiner case has been unsealed. Warrant: https://www.scribd.com/document/334713809/Warrant-Clinton#from_embed http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-search-warrant-unsealed-that-was-used-to-obtain-clinton-emails-during-weiner-probe/ No idea how much any of this matters though Heard about it a few days ago and thought no one would care. As far as I am aware, no one does. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12389 Posts
On December 21 2016 03:23 kwizach wrote: How so? From what I've read I'd probably be fine with Ellison as chair, but Tom Perez is a fantastic champion of workers, did a superb job in the civil rights division of the DoJ, and is widely described as incredibly intelligent and competent. How exactly would Ellison be a "much better pick" than him? Because Ellison's got the right idea about what he needs to be doing as a DNC chair. Every critic of Ellison has been focused on who he is, or who he was, none on what he plans to do (particularly when it comes to organizing). Further Ellison would be an excellent pick to begin the shift to the left that the democratic party is absolutely going to want to do based on the opinions of the next generation of Americans, and he would completely silence the claims of bias from the DNC (founded or unfounded) that could drive away the leftists were the leftist candidate to lose a primary again. I haven't read anything bad on Perez. The fact that he's being presented as an alternative to the Ellison pick tells me that he's not going to be as good on all three of these points. Similarly to you, I don't necessarily think he'd be a bad pick, simply a clearly inferior one. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
On December 21 2016 03:23 kwizach wrote: How so? From what I've read I'd probably be fine with Ellison as chair, but Tom Perez is a fantastic champion of workers, did a superb job in the civil rights division of the DoJ, and is widely described as incredibly intelligent and competent. How exactly would Ellison be a "much better pick" than him? Because the DNC just got done being showed what happens when you don't listen to an increasingly important part of the party. Democrats will never lose Perez voters. But they lost a lot of Ellison voters. Your focus on credibility and resume and other shit is not productive or important. Ellison would show Berniecrats they are being taken seriously. That's all that matters. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
@Mohdoo: I disagree that selecting the nominee endorsed by Sanders is "all that matters". | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
On December 21 2016 04:55 kwizach wrote: @Nebuchad: How does Perez being an "alternative to Ellison" (as in, he's running as well?) mean that he's "not as good as Ellison on all three of those points"? @Mohdoo: I disagree that selecting the nominee endorsed by Sanders is "all that matters". Young democrats aren't even all that infatuated with Obama anymore. They see him as a war criminal without the fortitude to push for decriminalization of cannabis. They were already burned by the DNC by favoring Clinton (even if it was legal and not foul play etc). The democratic party can not afford to have people keep thinking they are a bunch of elite trying to suppress progressive agendas. You were so, so confident about Clinton winning and it feels like you are not properly digesting what happened. A huge swath of working whites flipped sides and young Berniecrats are growing more and more cynical. Sticking to the tried and true is a disaster waiting to happen. It ALREADY DID happen. Trump is president. Why are you so confident moving forward? | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
perez has great cred on both civil rights and labor rights. i like him better, though it's not a knock on ellison by any means. i'd say he's also a less controversial pick. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 21 2016 05:05 Mohdoo wrote: Young democrats aren't even all that infatuated with Obama anymore. They see him as a war criminal without the fortitude to push for decriminalization of cannabis. They were already burned by the DNC by favoring Clinton (even if it was legal and not foul play etc). The democratic party can not afford to have people keep thinking they are a bunch of elite trying to suppress progressive agendas. You were so, so confident about Clinton winning and it feels like you are not properly digesting what happened. A huge swath of working whites flipped sides and young Berniecrats are growing more and more cynical. Sticking to the tried and true is a disaster waiting to happen. It ALREADY DID happen. Trump is president. Why are you so confident moving forward? Getting the second most votes in the history of the united states does not really sound like a disliked person to me. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On December 21 2016 05:23 Thieving Magpie wrote: Getting the second most votes in the history of the united states does not really sound like a disliked person to me. that's a poor metric to use. it's better to use things like % of votes cast, or % of population. or you can just use the direct measurement of do you dislike person X. the problem with your metric is that it has more to do with population growth over time than anything else. On another note: I wonder how the market is these days for a very fact-based, low bias, news source. I do hear people complaining about the lack of such; but it's hard to say whether they'd actually like such a thing; especially like it enough to generate revenue. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
The problem is not that Hillary Clinton won and Bernie Sanders lost. You win some, you lose some. The problem is that he was conspired against and then the Sanders base was sidelined in favor of people who might actually vote Trump. If Clinton had made a genuine and significant effort to bring Sanders folk on board then she would be president. As it stands, the swing states where Sanders won were the states where Trump won in the general. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 21 2016 05:25 zlefin wrote: that's a poor metric to use. it's better to use things like % of votes cast, or % of population. or you can just use the direct measurement of do you dislike person X. the problem with your metric is that it has more to do with population growth over time than anything else. Fine then. Bernie Sanders getting less votes than Donald Trump when he was in a 2person race while trump was in a 10person race tells me that Bernie was just like Nader, a public perception monster without any actual supporters. But what the November showed us is that so long as you're old, white, and yell a lot then Americans will love you. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On December 21 2016 05:28 Thieving Magpie wrote: Fine then. Bernie Sanders getting less votes than Donald Trump when he was in a 2person race while trump was in a 10person race tells me that Bernie was just like Nader, a public perception monster without any actual supporters. But what the November showed us is that so long as you're old, white, and yell a lot then Americans will love you. again, you should'nt rely so much on total vote counts. you're looking at total vote counts. those can vary for other reasons, especially in a primary. and doing that causes your conclusion to not follow from the earlier points. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12389 Posts
On December 21 2016 04:55 kwizach wrote: @Nebuchad: How does Perez being an "alternative to Ellison" (as in, he's running as well?) mean that he's "not as good as Ellison on all three of those points"? Presumably if he was going to do and represent the same things there wouldn't be a need to run him against Ellison | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On December 21 2016 06:13 Nebuchad wrote: Presumably if he was going to do and represent the same things there wouldn't be a need to run him against Ellison If he decided to run, I'm guessing it's (among other reasons) because he thinks he can do a better job. I fail to see how him running indicates by default that he's a "clearly inferior" candidate compared to Ellison. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
On December 21 2016 05:08 ticklishmusic wrote: if by berniecrats you mean the millenials, i guess. ellison is being considered quite seriously - schumer has given support as well as many others. i think he has a good strategy. perez has great cred on both civil rights and labor rights. i like him better, though it's not a knock on ellison by any means. i'd say he's also a less controversial pick. Yeah, I mean milennials. All I'm saying is that this 'cred' you're talking about doesn't mean anything at all to an enormous amount of people I know. If Bernie wants one person and Obama wants someone else, the DNC choosing the Obama person is going to make them verrrrrrrrrrrry cynical. Obama is just so meaningless to these people. He's even negative to them. Times are changing and changing very fast. I am not among them, but it is easy to see that they matter very, very much. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12389 Posts
On December 21 2016 06:31 kwizach wrote: If he decided to run, I'm guessing it's (among other reasons) because he thinks he can do a better job. I fail to see how him running indicates by default that he's a "clearly inferior" candidate compared to Ellison. This is not an accurate depiction of what I've said. I've said he was inferior for three reasons, and I could make out he was going to be inferior on these reasons because they got him to run against Ellison. The first one is arguable, to be honest. Let's drop it. Let's say they're going to do just as good a job at grassroots. The second and third one are not. It's pretty obvious that someone picked by Bernie represents a clearer shift to the left than someone picked by Obama. And it's pretty obvious that it's going to be perceived that way. I think the facts are pretty clear, but let's posit that they aren't, he still ends up the superior pick on perception alone. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On December 21 2016 06:42 Mohdoo wrote: Yeah, I mean milennials. All I'm saying is that this 'cred' you're talking about doesn't mean anything at all to an enormous amount of people I know. If Bernie wants one person and Obama wants someone else, the DNC choosing the Obama person is going to make them verrrrrrrrrrrry cynical. Obama is just so meaningless to these people. He's even negative to them. Times are changing and changing very fast. I am not among them, but it is easy to see that they matter very, very much. i have nothing against ellison, but im not interested in picking him purely to pander to leftists. appealing to the various segments of the democratic party is a factor, but he needs to make a case for himself that's a lot more comprehensive than that. | ||
| ||
