2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Sweetemotion

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Exactly it all depends on what's on the laptop. A laptop that has been in law enforcements hands for soon time the FBI had a belief that there may be Clinton emails on it weeks ago yet they tell congress they are investigating even before the sought a warrant!

Wrong. the emails have just been found on her aids laptop not weeks ago.

RobertKK

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Exactly it all depends on what's on the laptop. A laptop that has been in law enforcements hands for soon time the FBI had a belief that there may be Clinton emails on it weeks ago yet they tell congress they are investigating even before the sought a warrant!

They should have said about it weeks ago, but maybe initially they didn't know it involved 650,000 emails, and wanted to have all the emails they want to view separated from emails associated with the probe into Anthony Weiner's underage sexting scandal, before seeking the warrant.
I don't know, as I don't know how these things work, but I don't think Comey could sit on this information till after the election as it would have been seen as covering up before the eelction, this after he said there would be no prosecution which was the job of the Justice department to decide, so we can agree he has been doing a terrible job, but I don't think he was in a position to sit on this till after the election.
So it would be nice to know the procedures for disclosing information, irrespective of an election.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Wrong. the emails have just been found on her aids laptop not weeks ago.

And in early October, agents told FBI heads they'd found emails from Abedin on the laptop that may have been deleted from Clinton's private server. But their warrant did not allow them to read emails that were not linked to the Weiner investigation.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3887790/Hillary-s-nightmare-scenario-Weiner-s-laptop-holds-650-000-emails-thousands-Clinton-s-private-server-search-WEEKS-Democrat-faces-ongoing-FBI-probe-s-elected.html

Why was Warrant only sought today when congress told before hand and as they say themselves we don't know what is there.

Sweetemotion

RobertKK wrote: »

They should have said about it weeks ago, but maybe initially they didn't know it involved 650,000 emails, and wanted to have all the emails they want to view separated from emails associated with the probe into Anthony Weiner's underage sexting scandal, before seeking the warrant.
I don't know, as I don't know how these things work, but I don't think Comey could sit on this information till after the election as it would have been seen as covering up before the eelction, this after he said there would be no prosecution which was the job of the Justice department to decide, so we can agree he has been doing a terrible job, but I don't think he was in a position to sit on this till after the election.
So it would be nice to know the procedures for disclosing information, irrespective of an election.

He knows, the **** is going to hit the fan so saving his his own ass.

It's that simple.

You don't come out with a statement like that otherwise.

Pro Hoc Vice

RobertKK wrote: »

They should have said about it weeks ago, but maybe initially they didn't know it involved 650,000 emails, and wanted to have all the emails they want to view separated from emails associated with the probe into Anthony Weiner's underage sexting scandal, before seeking the warrant.
I don't know, as I don't know how these things work, but I don't think Comey could sit on this information till after the election as it would have been seen as covering up before the eelction, this after he said there would be no prosecution which was the job of the Justice department to decide, so we can agree he has been doing a terrible job, but I don't think he was in a position to sit on this till after the election.
So it would be nice to know the procedures for disclosing information, irrespective of an election.

The Weiner investigation told the Clinton investigation early October there may be some E-mails from Clinton server on a laptop used by Clintons aid and her then husband weiner. Why was a Warrant not sought straight away why was congress only told recently why did Trump surporters know in September there would be something in October. It stinks and what if this changes the election and it is proved nothing new on laptop is the FBI guilty of treason?

RobertKK

Wikileaks are saying that the Clinton campaign were involved in sending people to Trump rallies to cause trouble.
That top Clinton aide Robby Mook is close to Robert Creamer and that Creamer was involved with the DNC and the trouble at the Trump rallies was caused by Creamer and the Democrats.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sweetemotion wrote: »

He knows, the **** is going to hit the fan so saving his his own ass.

It's that simple.

You don't come out with a statement like that otherwise.

Or he as a state employee is trying to influence a federal election knowing that there may not be enough time to show nothing on the hard drive

FISMA.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Someone correct me if I am wrong here but if classified emails are found in those emails, then surely, even if Clinton becomes president, she could be impeached as that would technically be treason, no?

Nixon was elected by a large majority, then impeached.

She could be elected, pardoned by Obama, or pardon herself.

Then the impeachment would begin.

Pro Hoc Vice

FISMA. wrote: »

Nixon was elected by a large majority, then impeached.

She could be elected, pardoned by Obama, or pardon herself.

Then the impeachment would begin.

Nixon was not impeached, as he resigned before the process was completed.

I do not believe a president could pardon a person who has not been found guilty of a crime so Obama would be well out of office.

RobertKK

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The Weiner investigation told the Clinton investigation early October there may be some E-mails from Clinton server on a laptop used by Clintons aid and her then husband weiner. Why was a Warrant not sought straight away why was congress only told recently why did Trump surporters know in September there would be something in October. It stinks and what if this changes the election and it is proved nothing new on laptop is the FBI guilty of treason?

I said before any of this 'who holds the FBI to account?'.
Comey went beyond his powers when he declared that Clinton would not be prosecuted, and the WSJ say there were people inside the FBI very unhappy with how he dealt with the email scandal and he felt under pressure.
Maybe if he had done his job properly at the start by not making himself a prosecutor and declaring Hillary would not be prosecuted, then maybe he would not be involved in the current email mess.

Comey is guilty of doing a bad job and I don't know the processes that are there to hold him to account, presume it is congress but they are next to useless.

Pro Hoc Vice

RobertKK wrote: »

I said before any of this 'who holds the FBI to account?'.
Comey went beyond his powers when he declared that Clinton would not be prosecuted, and the WSJ say there were people inside the FBI very unhappy with how he dealt with the email scandal and he felt under pressure.
Maybe if he had done his job properly at the start by not making himself a prosecutor and declaring Hillary would not be prosecuted, then maybe he would not be involved in the current email mess.

Comey is guilty of doing a bad job and I don't know the processes that are there to hold him to account, presume it is congress but they are next to useless.

That is a different question but at the moment both Clinton and Trump are innocent of any crime as neither to the best of my knowledge been convicted of any criminal act.

Sweetemotion

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Or he as a state employee is trying to influence a federal election knowing that there may not be enough time to show nothing on the hard drive

A warrant has just been granted to find out what is in these e-mails classed as "life insurance" by Huma Abedin are.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sweetemotion wrote: »

A warrant has just been granted to find out what is in these e-mails classed as "life insurance" by Huma Abedin are.

And my question is why was it not grantedin early October the reason for a warrant was that Abedin used the laptop and she is also under investigation if it was just Clinton I do not believe a warrant would have been required but am open to correction on that point from a US lawyer.

Can you give a source for the "life insurance" comment.

Sweetemotion

RobertKK wrote: »

I said before any of this 'who holds the FBI to account?'.
Comey went beyond his powers when he declared that Clinton would not be prosecuted, and the WSJ say there were people inside the FBI very unhappy with how he dealt with the email scandal and he felt under pressure.
Maybe if he had done his job properly at the start by not making himself a prosecutor and declaring Hillary would not be prosecuted, then maybe he would not be involved in the current email mess.

Comey is guilty of doing a bad job and I don't know the processes that are there to hold him to account, presume it is congress but they are next to useless.

This must be serious business, for Comey to declare. Clinton would not be prosecuted.

To opening the case again 11 days before election day.

RobertKK

Huma Abedin had signed a document under the penalty of perjury that she had turned over all devices and had searched all devices in her possession for emails associated with the Clinton email case and that she had no copies of emails in her possession.
Currently her lawyers are in talks with the Justice department, because it seems she should be going to prison and maybe she is looking for a deal, if the laptop is the smoking gun, will she push Hillary under the bus to avoid prison?

Sweetemotion

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

And my question is why was it not grantedin early October the reason for a warrant was that Abedin used the laptop and she is also under investigation if it was just Clinton I do not believe a warrant would have been required but am open to correction on that point from a US lawyer.

Can you give a source for the "life insurance" comment.

Obviously new evidence was found to reopen a closed case.

Your question regarding "early October" is irrelevant.

RobertKK

Sweetemotion wrote: »

This must be serious business, for Comey to declare. Clinton would not be prosecuted.

To opening the case again 11 days before election day.

It has to be serious, otherwise Comey will look really stupid and he will have made his position untenable.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Obviously new evidence was found to reopen a closed case.

Your question regarding "early October" is irrelevant.

The possibility of Clinton server e-mail being on the weiner laptop came to light in early October so it is relevant in my opinion.

Sweetemotion

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The possibility of Clinton server e-mail being on the weiner laptop came to light in early October so it is relevant in my opinion.

Case closed so.

New emails. Appear on Weiner's wives laptop, case reopened.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Case closed so.

New emails. Appear on Weiner's wives laptop, case reopened.

Yes my issue is the FBI knew early October why did they wait till 11 days before election to first tell congress and therefore the media then the FBI director explain by internal letter to staff and finally only then seek the warrant.

While the case has now reopened Clinton remains innocent like Trump does in relation to 1 fraud 2 sexual assault and 3 rape.

Also the FBI admits the emails may be Ines they had already seen as they just got the warrant we do not know what's on there.

Sweetemotion

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Yes my issue is the FBI knew early October why did they wait till 11 days before election to first tell congress and therefore the media then the FBI director explain by internal letter to staff and finally only then seek the warrant.

While the case has now reopened Clinton remains innocent like Trump does in relation to 1 fraud 2 sexual assault and 3 rape.

Also the FBI admits the emails may be Ines they had already seen as they just got the warrant we do not know what's on there.

No they did not.

Sweetemotion

If Trump has raped anyone he should be in prison also.

Nabber

Innocent or guilty... Surely this has got to take its toll on her health.

I'd imagine the campaign alone is stressful for both

Pro Hoc Vice

Sweetemotion wrote: »

No they did not.

Do you bother to read the links I post and I even posted this quote,

"The review will take weeks at a minimum to determine whether those messages are work-related emails between Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide and the estranged wife of Weiner, and State Department officials; how many are duplicates of emails already reviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and whether they include either classified information or important new evidence in the Clinton email probe, which FBI officials call “Midyear.”"

Pro Hoc Vice

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If Trump has raped anyone he should be in prison also.

Yes but he is innocent or do you rather people go to prison based on just been accused or do you think that the 5th amendment means nothing in the USA.

Sweetemotion

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Do you bother to read the links I post and I even posted this quote,

"The review will take weeks at a minimum to determine whether those messages are work-related emails between Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide and the estranged wife of Weiner, and State Department officials; how many are duplicates of emails already reviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and whether they include either classified information or important new evidence in the Clinton email probe, which FBI officials call “Midyear.”"

Who are the FBI investigating, Hilary or Trump?

Are you saying if the FBI found new evidence of Trump raping a young girl they should wait till after the election?

Pro Hoc Vice

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Who are the FBI investigating, Hilary or Trump?

Are you saying if the FBI found new evidence of Trump raping a young girl they should wait till after the election?

No the FBI would not investigate rape as that is a state issue. But if someone had evidence of such a crime I would be very suspect if they sat on it for weeks and only released it within days of the election when they know the investigation would not produce any positive results till after the election.

Sweetemotion

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No the FBI would not investigate rape as that is a state issue. But if someone had evidence of such a crime I would be very suspect if they sat on it for weeks and only released it within days of the election when they know the investigation would not produce any positive results till after the election.

Comey put his reputation on this and you don't know anything just like the rest of us.

I believe Comey knows something is going to happen.

Would you give up your reputation like that if you knew you were 100% correct?

It's opinion vs opinion.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Comey put his reputation on this and you don't know anything.

Like the rest of us.

I believe Comey knows something is going to happen.

Would you give up your reputation like that if you knew you were 100% correct?

So you are willing to brand someone guilty on your assumption.

Due process was enshrined in the constitution (bill of rights) for a reason but considering trump does not know how many articles in the constitution http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/08/politics/sanford-questions-trump-constitution-gaffe/

Sweetemotion

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So you are willing to brand someone guilty on your assumption.

Due process was enshrined in the constitution (bill of rights) for a reason but considering trump does not know how many articles in the constitution http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/08/politics/sanford-questions-trump-constitution-gaffe/

A cnn article?

If I linked a daily mail or fox news article.

Would you read it?

Overheal

FISMA. wrote: »

Nixon was elected by a large majority, then impeached.

She could be elected, pardoned by Obama, or pardon herself.

Then the impeachment would begin.

Nixon resigned before any form of impeachment process could begin. Gerald R Ford assumed the presidency, and infamously pardoned Nixon for any and all crimes he may have committed as President of the United States

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon

Pro Hoc Vice

Sweetemotion wrote: »

A cnn article?

If I linked a daily mail or fox news article.

Would you read it?

Yes I would I fink the daily mail and fox informative and often interesting. Like all media once you understand the thrust of any possible bias you get a better understanding of the world.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/07/trump-wants-to-protect-article-xii-of-the-constitution/%3F0p19G%3De?client=safari[URL][/url]

Sweetemotion

Overheal wrote: »

Nixon resigned before any form of impeachment process could begin. Gerald R Ford assumed the presidency, and infamously pardoned Nixon for any and all crimes he may have committed as President of the United States

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon

Could Kaine then infamously, pardon the Clintons of all crimes they may have committed?

FISMA.

Overheal wrote: »

Nixon resigned before any form of impeachment process could begin.

In 1974, Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States, was in the process of being impeached by the United States House of Representatives on several charges related to the Watergate scandal.

Overheal

FISMA. wrote: »

In 1974, Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States, was in the process of being impeached by the United States House of Representatives on several charges related to the Watergate scandal.

So he wasn't impeached, so you were still wrong.

Overheal

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Could Kaine then infamously, pardon the Clintons of all crimes they may have committed?

Obama could do it even, before she even gets into office.

Pro Hoc Vice

FISMA. wrote: »

In 1974, Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States, was in the process of being impeached by the United States House of Representatives on several charges related to the Watergate scandal.

Yes as I said he resigned before he was impeached there was not vote and so he was never impeached.

I would also think for two reason fords pardon did not mean much 1 Nixon was never convicted and 2 the only thing the president cannot pardon is impeachment.

Section 2.

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Sweetemotion

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So you are willing to brand someone guilty on your assumption.

Due process was enshrined in the constitution (bill of rights) for a reason but considering trump does not know how many articles in the constitution http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/08/politics/sanford-questions-trump-constitution-gaffe/

isn't that what every jury of the courts has to decide?

Pro Hoc Vice

Overheal wrote: »

Obama could do it even, before she even gets into office.

I think such a pardon would be on shaker Ground

Section 2.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

As you can see except in impechement also I would think such a pardon would be challenged and may not stand, but that is a guess.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sweetemotion wrote: »

isn't that what every jury of the courts has to decide?

No a jury should not decide on assumption the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt I would not believe it's enough to assume based on the fact that the Charges are brought but that the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt.

Remind me if you ever appear in a jury in a trial I'm involved in to tell my instructing solicitor to object to you for cause.

vetinari

Coney would want there to be something of interest on those emails.
What he's done so far in terms of his statement on Friday is borderline treasonous.
He's directly impacting the US presidential election.
What happens if there is no clarification before election day?

Black Swan

Donald Trump stated during a 30 October 2016 New Mexico rally if Clinton was elected president: "You could have 650 million people pour in and we'd do nothing about it. Think of it. That's what could happen. You triple the size of our country in one week."

I've heard several ignorant and laughable statements made by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, but this takes the cake. He claims that "650 million people" could "pour in" to the United States "in one week." How can anyone not laugh at Donald Trump? How can anyone take Donald Trump seriously after making such public statements?

"Think of it. That's what could happen," claims Donald Trump. Ohhhhh "Think of it" I am, once I stop laughing!

Hank Scorpio

I'd take hypothetical OTT statements any day of the week over lying to the faces of families who've lost children in a bid to use a cover up story and save face. What happened in Benghazi and the lies told to the families were far from funny.

Trump is over the top and loud it's nothing new, and people love him for it. I like him because he's so anti PC it's refreshing which has connected with so many non upper class people giving him a real shot at becoming the next President. It's not just America either, his support comes from all around the world.

It will be interesting to see who has the final laugh when more of the wikileaks emails and videos are released tomorrow, all while the FBI are looking at another separate 650000 emails that they came across by investigating a pedofile who is "married" to the vice chairwoman of Hillary Clintons campagn. Now that imo, is funny.

BoJack Horseman

Black Swan wrote: »

I've heard several ignorant and laughable statements made by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, but this takes the cake.

Preferable over Hillary & her 'Syrian no-fly zones' fantasy.

Either she'll keep her word & it's war with Russia, or she won't and it's more lies.

fryup

Nabber wrote: »

Innocent or guilty... Surely this has got to take its toll on her health.

I'd imagine the campaign alone is stressful for both

Hillary is about 10 years too late for this presidential campaign, can't see her last 4 years if she does get in

btw - are these the oldest candidates to go head to head ever??

Igotadose

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/30/former_bush_ethics_lawyer_richard_painter_files_complaint_against_fbi_director.html

Former Bush admin lawyer files a complaint about the FBI director.

cnocbui

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Comey put his reputation on this and you don't know anything just like the rest of us.

I believe Comey knows something is going to happen.

Would you give up your reputation like that if you knew you were 100% correct?

It's opinion vs opinion.

And I believe Comey is a Republican who is trying to avoid getting fired with this last minute attempt to swing the election in favour of the candidate he thinks least likely to fire him when they get into office.

It appears he may have broken the law, the 1939 Hatch act which was designed to dissuade federal officials from trying to influence an election.

He should just resign now.

Itssoeasy

vetinari wrote: »

Coney would want there to be something of interest on those emails.
What he's done so far in terms of his statement on Friday is borderline treasonous.
He's directly impacting the US presidential election.
What happens if there is no clarification before election day?

Well he's already gone against the 60 days rule of the FBI not to be seen interfering in an election. Politics aside he's made a big mess of it from the FBIs point of view.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

I think they have to use the word 'may' because what they are reporting is not in the open.


It is not pure hope from me, what you are doing is shooting the messenger. I could just have seen it and not reported.

My gut instinct is Hillary is very corrupt, and far more dangerous for the world.
I don't like either, they would not be my choices, and so I don't bother defending either candidate, but people here are entitled to be very defensive of Clinton or Trump.
I just don't believe the messenger should be shot.

The messenger should report everything (I. E. Not pick and choose polls) and not add their own spin. It is still may. You have nothing but conjecture and hope. That is all that has hurt the Clinton campaign. OMG no one will be able to support Hillary campaign after next week's wiki leaks but we aren't going to tell you what is in it now for reasons.

Followed by OMG did you see the wiki leaks you can't vote for her but we won't go into what it was about because you would realise we have nothing while the other candidate campaigns on a platform of war crimes.

Hande hoche!

Surprised there haven't been accusations that Coney is working for the Russians.