2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Name one person convicted for sending Unmarked classified information?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us/politics/no-classified-emails-by-clinton-some-experts-are-skeptical.html?_r=2

More recently, a Marine Corps board of inquiry recommended that a reservist, Maj. Jason Brezler, be dismissed from the corps with an “honorable separation” for mishandling classified information.

Kevin Carroll, his lawyer, said that Major Brezler, 35, a New York City firefighter and a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, accidentally took home 14 documents on his personal computer, some of which were classified. He was in a graduate school class when he received an urgent email from military officials in Afghanistan and sent a specific document in response, using his personal email account, Mr. Carroll said.

The document was classified, and that led to an internal review, the lawyer said.

Some more examples are documented here:

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-10-punished-less/

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-30/a-look-at-federal-cases-on-handling-classified-information

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us/politics/no-classified-emails-by-clinton-some-experts-are-skeptical.html?_r=2



Some more examples are documented here:

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-10-punished-less/

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-30/a-look-at-federal-cases-on-handling-classified-information

Did I miss the report of any of them being convicted of sending non marked classified information? It's open to the voting citizens to punish her by not giving her the job. But I asked about conviction for what has been shown against Clinton, I have since the start being talking about criminal charges.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Did I miss the report of any of them being convicted of sending non marked classified information? It's open to the voting citizens to punish her by not giving her the job. But I asked about conviction I have since the start being talking about criminal charges.

Multiple cases of people mishandling classified information, resulting in those individuals being punished.

Clinton mishandled classified information. She should be punished. It's not rocket surgery.

marienbad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Multiple cases of people mishandling classified information, resulting in those individuals being punished.

Clinton mishandled classified information. She should be punished. It's not rocket surgery.

So why were charges not brought against her ?

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Multiple cases of people mishandling classified information, resulting in those individuals being punished.

Clinton mishandled classified information. She should be punished. It's not rocket surgery.

Yes mishandling leading to sanction not conviction actual taking known classified information then conviction. What's rocket surgery.

Pro Hoc Vice

marienbad wrote: »

So why were charges not brought against her ?

I assume they could not satisfy the knowledge requirement of the law. Such serious laws do not have a strict liability test.

AbusesToilets

marienbad wrote: »

So why were charges not brought against her ?

Because the Justice Department is unwilling to challenge the political establishment.

marienbad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Because the Justice Department is unwilling to challenge the political establishment.

is that fact or opinion ?

oscarBravo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

marienbad wrote: »

So why were charges not brought against her ?

Because the Justice Department is unwilling to challenge the political establishment.

Is that a statement of fact? You seem to be claiming to understand US law better that either the FBI or the Justice Department.

ebbsy

marienbad wrote: »

So why were charges not brought against her ?

It would have thrown the election process into turmoil.

Trump wouldn't want her facing charges anyway. A damaged enemy is a good one.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Because the Justice Department is unwilling to challenge the political establishment.

No the FBI could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the required elements of the crime.

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/472991438/officials-scrutinized-over-classified-information-but-rarely-found-criminal

Just like I can't prove that trump is a wife rapist as the only witness has been proved to be a liar on the issue in that she either lied under oath that he did or lied later that he did not so any evidence she would possible give against him would be tainted. Funny after a multi million divorce settlement she changed her story but that of course could have two reasonable reasons hence he can not in my opinion be found guilty. Also under US law I assume the statute of limitations applies.

AbusesToilets

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is that a statement of fact? You seem to be claiming to understand US law better that either the FBI or the Justice Department.

It is my opinion. There is more than sufficient evidence to pursue charges against Clinton and her staff.

Lynch's testimony before Congress demonstrated her absolute unwillingness to take a stance on the issue. She repeatedly refused to answer the most straightforward of questions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0ZS1VI

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/loretta-lynch-testify-hillary-clinton-email.html

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ten-takeaways-from-the-fbis-investigation-into-hillary-clintons-email-server/article/2600919

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No the FBI could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the required elements of the crime.

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/472991438/officials-scrutinized-over-classified-information-but-rarely-found-criminal

Just like I can't prove that trump is a wife rapist as the only witness has been proved to be a liar on the issue in that she either lied under oath that he did or lied later that he did not so any evidence she would possible give against him would be tainted. Funny after a multi million divorce settlement she changed her story but that of course could have two reasonable reasons hence he can not in my opinion be found guilty. Also under US law I assume the statute of limitations applies.

Except we know the details of Clinton actions and they alone are sufficient to warrant prosecution. That the Justice Department didn't pursue such is a whole other issue.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Except we know the details of Clinton actions and they alone are sufficient to warrant prosecution. That the Justice Department didn't pursue such is a whole other issue.

On the advice of the FBI, who based on how they pursued the investigation would have loved a conviction. I as a criminal barrister do not believe the evidence warranted a prosecution and would not lead to a conviction.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

On the advice of the FBI, who based on how they pursued the investigation would have loved a conviction.

That view is not supported by the testimonies given by Comey and Lynch, who were very reluctant to make definitive statements.

Congratulations on being a barrister. You still seem to be incapable of admitting Clinton's clear and apparent wrong doing here.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That view is not supported by the testimonies given by Comey and Lynch, who were very reluctant to make definitive statements.

Congratulations on being a barrister. You still seem to be incapable of admitting Clinton's clear and apparent wrong doing here.

I have only said that a prosecution is not warranted I never said if I think she did wrong or not. I do not claim to know her mind. I have kept my opinion solely about on the evidence is a prosecution possible based on the knowledge test.

Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges," Comey said at a Tuesday press conference. "There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-didnt-the-fbi-charge-hillary-clinton-2016-7?r=US&IR=T

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-won-t-recommend-clinton-be-indicted-over-private-email-use-1467731774

I for one think the use of the word knowingly removes both careless and reckless, even if reckless survives I think in Ireland the relevant criminal test for reckless would not be satisfied.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I have only said that a prosecution is not warranted I never said if I think she did wrong or not. I do not claim to know her mind. I have kept my opinion solely about on the evidence is a prosecution possible based on the knowledge test.

That's not quite accurate though, is it? You have tried to spin and deflect Clinton's actions repeatedly.

Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges," Comey said at a Tuesday press conference. "There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.

The main consideration being the political power wielded by the Clintons and her forthcoming election to the Presidency.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That's not quite accurate though, is it? You have tried to spin and deflect Clinton's actions repeatedly.

Where?

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Where?

No that's not what they said, I used the term mens rea for a reason. Also in evidence the FBI said that there was only 3 e-mails out of 30,000 plus and also accepts that the 3 e-mails where incorrectly marked as classified in that they should have been headed classified but instead had at the bottom "(c)".

I grasp it totally it's you who do not. Have you heard of forward e-mail. Or do you really think when Clinton or her staff got a e-mail not marked as classified they transcribed it again and sent it on. It is more akin to staff in say defence being allowed to take files not marked as classified home to work on. A person in say another department who created the file did not stamp as classified how in such circumstances could a criminal charge be proved against the person who unknowing took such a file, or in this case forward a e-mail.

What law did Clinton break. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ty-information

That law only sets out how classified documents should be marked. My reading of the information is that the Clinyon server was unknowing used to send the incorrectly marked emails in 54 chains I have see no evidence that Clinton herself incorrectly marked the e-mails only that she responded to emails.

We are talking criminal responsibility of Clinton if a member of staff erred in not marking the e-mail how is she criminally liable.

that is the point. If a person is not aware of the classified nature of the communication how can they be guilty of using an unsecured service to transmit it. As I said at the start mens rea. Look it up. The executive order sets out how the communication should be marked if she receives a email not marked as classified then to deal with the matter quickly uses her blackberry to respond or ask a question she can not be guilty of sending classified information using a non secured system because it can not be proven that the communication was classified as none of the 113 e-nails where correctly marked as classified. Only 3 carried at the end of the email (c) which is not correctly marked at the heading "classified" for exactly thes situations if it's clearly marked at the top it's hard to miss.

I don't want to quote the entire thread, but the thrust of your argument was focused on the whether various emails were marked as containing classified materials. The main crime is that said information was present on Clinton's unsecured email server at all.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I don't want to quote the entire thread, but the thrust of your argument was focused on the whether various emails were marked as containing classified materials. The main crime is that said information was present on Clinton's unsecured email server at all.

No it's not. The crime is knowingly the emails where not marked as classified how can it be proved she knowingly mishandled.

You said I "deflect Clinton's actions repeatedly." I have simply pointed out why no prosecution and according to links my legal view is agreed by many US lawyers. Now this is getting boring for the May people who have well turned off so I'm out. If you can not understand the legal argument I am making its a waste of time me continuing so happy posting but on this issue I'm not going to continue as it is in my opinion not fair on the other users. I have in the past been turned off a thread by such posting I am now guilty of.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No it's not. The crime is knowingly the emails where not marked as classified how can it be proved she knowingly mishandled.

You said I "deflect Clinton's actions repeatedly." I have simply pointed out why no prosecution and according to links my legal view is agreed by many US lawyers. Now this is getting boring for the May people who have well turned off so I'm out. If you can not understand the legal argument I am making its a waste of time me continuing so happy posting but on this issue I'm not going to continue as it is in my opinion not fair on the other users. I have in the past been turned off a thread by such posting I am now guilty of.

No, it is not. The crime is having classified material, i.e. Secret and Top Secret information, being transmitted on an open, unsecured network. You still fail to grasp that simple fact.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No, it is not. The crime is having classified material, i.e. Secret and Top Secret information, being transmitted on an open, unsecured network. You still fail to grasp that simple fact.

From a link you posted earlier

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—


I am now putting you on ignore so I can get on with my life as you should.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

From a link you posted earlier

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—


I am now putting you on ignore so I can get on with my life as you should.

Well done, that one's way to conduct a mature dialogue.

Clinton also knowingly made classified materials available to her legal team, who did not hold clearances at the time. So, there's that as well.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/fbi-director-10-people-without-security-clearance-had-access-clintons

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No, it is not. The crime is having classified material, i.e. Secret and Top Secret information, being transmitted on an open, unsecured network. You still fail to grasp that simple fact.

No. That is not a fact. I think he's explained that enough times. The crime you charge Clinton with does not exist, from what I can see.

If only the was some sort of organisation, a bureau of sorts, who were responsible for investigating crimes like this. It would have to be a federal body. The could investigate and make a recommendation to the justice department on whether a prosecution could precede.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

No. That is not a fact. I think he's explained that enough times. The crime you charge Clinton with does not exist, from what I can see.

If only the was some sort of organisation, a bureau of sorts, who were responsible for investigating crimes like this. It would have to be a federal body. The could investigate and make a recommendation to the justice department on whether a prosecution could precede.

Was material found on her server considered classified at the highest level by the FBI during their investigation?

And as to your ninja edited comment, I have engaged respectfully with sources. If you have issue with my behavior, report it.

RobertKK

B0jangles wrote: »

I think your obvious loathing for Clinton is seriously clouding your judgement if you think the dreaded emails/private server narrative is in any way on a par with Trump's endless lurching from one controversy to another. You previously posted a very obviously looped and edited video of her turning her head and claimed it showed her having a seizure; I honestly think you should step back a bit and try to look dispassionately at the two candidates at this stage.

Whoever is elected is incompetent in my opinion.
I believe Hillary is the most dangerous candidate given her lust for war.
'We came, we saw, he died' with a laugh, sums up Hillary Clinton. Contributed to a refugee crisis and a failed state.


There are plenty of people arguing against Trump. The same people do what you accuse me of, and I await for you to say the same to the people who dislike Trump more than Hillary, and who only post in that manner.

AbusesToilets

The relevant legal codes as pertains to this issue:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—

The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;

The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.
(d)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
(B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)), shall apply to—
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,
if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund established under section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
(5) As used in this subsection, the term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.

K-9

AbusesToilets wrote: »

She established a private server, which was used by her and others to transmit classified information, which was transcribed illegally from a secure network. I can't state it any plainer than that.

http://ijr.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillary-may-violated-secret-email-accounts/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

The fact check dite states the FBI found potential violations, it doesn't seem to say she definitely broke the law.

holly44

K-9 wrote: »

The fact check dite states the FBI found potential violations, it doesn't seem to say she definitely broke the law.

Other American government workers/Military personnel have gone to prison for the same.

Pro Hoc Vice

holly44 wrote: »

Other American government workers/Military personnel have gone to prison for the same.

No people who it was proved knowingly did it have been convicted. Some people really don't understand that word. the FBI felt that a necessary ingredient of the offence could not be proved. Murder requires the intention to cause serious harm or to kill with out that necessary ingredient it is not murder.

Black Swan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Oh, that's grand so. I'll go knock over a bank but as long as I say I didn't intend to commit a crime, everything's kosher.

The FBI, based upon the evidence, decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton, even after being pressured to do so by the Republican controlled Congress. But a federal judge of a US District Court, after reviewing the evidence, ordered Donald Trump to stand trial 28 November 2016 as a defendant for "fraud, racketeering, and corruption," in the Trump University class action case (and this is not the only case that Trump is being tried for "fraud," rather 3 cases in the states of California and New York with different judges ordering his trial). Donald Trump may call Hillary Clinton cooked and corrupt, but she is not being tried for "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" as Donald is today in 2 different states.

Overheal

Nevermind the fact that the GOP had nothing but praise for the Director during the investigation, and nothing put lament and pitchforks immediately after :rolleyes:

AbusesToilets

K-9 wrote: »

The fact check dite states the FBI found potential violations, it doesn't seem to say she definitely broke the law.

Well, as laid out by the Codes posted above, her actions would constitute a violation of the law.

Prosecution is at the discretion of the Justice Department, who IMO, made a political decision not to pursue charges.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I don't want to quote the entire thread, but the thrust of your argument was focused on the whether various emails were marked as containing classified materials. The main crime is that said information was present on Clinton's unsecured email server at all.

From your own previous links,

"Did hackers successfully break into her computer and access her emails?

Attempts were made, but the IG and FBI found no evidence that any attempt was successful. That does not mean, however, that none was successful."

Also,

"Did Clinton or her staff violate any federal laws or policies?

Comey said the FBI found evidence of “potential violations” of federal law, but such cases are generally not prosecuted. “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey said.
It’s clear, though, that she violated department policies. Comey said, “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”"

Well, as laid out by the Codes posted above, her actions would constitute a violation of the law.

Prosecution is at the discretion of the Justice Department, who IMO, made a political decision not to pursue charges.

Listen I get this is a big deal for you or something, but the (Republican - well, now former Republican after they endorsed him glowingly then threw him under the bus) FBI Director, over a dozen congressional hearings regarding HRC, a day long examination of HRC, and an hours long cross examination of said FBI Director, all turned up much ado about not much at all. Certainly not enough for anyone to say "we're indicting Hillary Clinton." and that's from the people who don't get all their information from blogs, news sites, and facebook, but actually have been paid good tax money (and untold piles of dark money) to pour over the emails and the law and the mountains of paperwork caused by one political stunt after the other, concerning this pile of dung-flinging dragon spunk.

I'm gonna have to go with what's happening in Washington, and as far as Hillary is concerned, that is not a whole lot, regarding any scandals. Meaning as much as you might agree or disagree with it, copying and pasting the all writs act or the riot act or the federal records act or the 28th chapter of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Don't think hard about that, I just numbered a random chapter), is not going to proceed in creating any further constructive outcome. We might as well go back to talking about Obama's birth certificate, the Bay of Pigs, Watergate, the JFK assassination, New Coke, or Creationism vs. Evolution, for all the good it will do. With all due respect, there are better things to talk about.

AbusesToilets

I am in no doubt that nothing of consequence will come out of these revelations. That should be cause enough for concern among voters. If it were any normal Joe Soap, the likely outcome would be fines, loss of clearances and disbarment from holding any in the future. I have a slim sliver of hope that her staff might face such a sanction.

Overheal

Don't hold your breath. She's not the first politician to fly through a shower of **** and come out clean on the other side. She won't be the last. The bottom line being that She's not being disqualified from this race - for that matter, Trump isn't being dropped by the GOP. I'm sure for some people it will be a case of not letting that devil woman who "killed people" into office versus voting in the guy who is almost-certain to give us another Missile Crisis if he isn't very tightly controlled at worst, and at best will set progressive lawmaking back in the United States 20 years. For me though I'm out. SC will vote Trump regardless of what I say or do so I'm staying home and watching the world burn.

conditioned games

Hillary would need a miracle to win it now. With the debates still to come and Hillary's health problems it looks like Trump will win in a landslide. The only other option open to the elites now is to begin the next financial crisis in October and cancel the elections keeping Obama for a third term.

Akrasia

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The Justice Department declined to prosecute. That's wholly different ball game.

The FBI recommended that no prosecution should take place, and the Justice dept had already committed to following the recommendations of the FBI following that infamous airport meeting with Bill Clinton.

Calina

conditioned games wrote: »

Hillary would need a miracle to win it now. With the debates still to come and Hillary's health problems it looks like Trump will win in a landslide. The only other option open to the elites now is to begin the next financial crisis in October and cancel the elections keeping Obama for a third term.

The option of a third term for Obama and election cancellation does not exist. A financial crisis absent a 100% drop in gdp won't do it. A land invasion might.

If the Americans do vote in Trump, and he is as ridiculously inept, incompetent and dangerous as his campaign suggests he might be impeachment is the next best option.

Mind you I do wish people would lean on Trump for a proper medical report and especially his taxes. I can't take a trump supporter seriously yammering on about Clinton's health when their candidate's med details have not been released.

Brian?

conditioned games wrote: »

Hillary would need a miracle to win it now. With the debates still to come and Hillary's health problems it looks like Trump will win in a landslide. The only other option open to the elites now is to begin the next financial crisis in October and cancel the elections keeping Obama for a third term.

I think you're spending too much time on Infowars horse. Obama cannot run for a third term.

conditioned games

Calina wrote: »

The option of a third term for Obama and election cancellation does not exist. A financial crisis absent a 100% drop in gdp won't do it. A land invasion might.

If the Americans do vote in Trump, and he is as ridiculously inept, incompetent and dangerous as his campaign suggests he might be impeachment is the next best option.

Mind you I do wish people would lean on Trump for a proper medical report and especially his taxes. I can't take a trump supporter seriously yammering on about Clinton's health when their candidate's med details have not been released.

We're heading into uncharted water, a Obama 3rd term and election cancellation might not look likely now but with the biggest financial crisis since before world war 2 on the horizon it is a strong possibility.

Trump is the safest option for world peace, with Obama and Clinton prepping the west for a confrontation with the east through continued demonisation of China and especially Russia, Trump would be the best person to reverse the current path to world war 3 they are pushing us towards.

Hillary has never been the same since the operation on the blood clot in her brain back in 2012. The seizures, freezes in front of cameras and help walking up stairs we are seeing from her now are symptoms of a sick person. It looks like Trump will now release his tax returns would will Hillary do the same with her health records?

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Was material found on her server considered classified at the highest level by the FBI during their investigation?

Yes. Was this a crime? No.

And as to your ninja edited comment, I have engaged respectfully with sources. If you have issue with my behavior, report it.

That wasn't a ninja edit. A ninja edit is when one changes the content of a post retroactively to bolster their point. I deleted a snide comment I shouldn't have made.

Brian?

conditioned games wrote: »

We're heading into uncharted water, a Obama 3rd term and election cancellation might not look likely now but with the biggest financial crisis since before world war 2 on the horizon it is a strong possibility.

Trump is the safest option for world peace, with Obama and Clinton prepping the west for a confrontation with the east through continued demonisation of China and especially Russia, Trump would be the best person to reverse the current path to world war 3 they are pushing us towards.

Hillary has never been the same since the operation on the blood clot in her brain back in 2012. The seizures, freezes in front of cameras and help walking up stairs we are seeing from her now are symptoms of a sick person. It looks like Trump will now release his tax returns would will Hillary do the same with her health records?

Hilary has released as much medical information as any presidential candidate is expected to. Trump has repeatedly lied about why he can't release his tax returns. The 2 are not equivalent. But hey its some fine whataboutery to ask for Clinton's medical records every time Trump’s tax return is mentioned.

Pro Hoc Vice

conditioned games wrote: »

We're heading into uncharted water, a Obama 3rd term and election cancellation might not look likely now but with the biggest financial crisis since before world war 2 on the horizon it is a strong possibility.

Trump is the safest option for world peace, with Obama and Clinton prepping the west for a confrontation with the east through continued demonisation of China and especially Russia, Trump would be the best person to reverse the current path to world war 3 they are pushing us towards.

Hillary has never been the same since the operation on the blood clot in her brain back in 2012. The seizures, freezes in front of cameras and help walking up stairs we are seeing from her now are symptoms of a sick person. It looks like Trump will now release his tax returns would will Hillary do the same with her health records?

You think a man who changes a speech last minutiae because he is pissed a head of state of a neighbouring country tweets, is good for world peace. what will it take from him to use the launch codes a Facebook post from Iran.

Look at trumps doctor's letter the only surprising thing it did not say is "I have medical knowledge extreme knowledge."

At least if trump wins he will be the first president who has been accused of rape by a former wife.

Calina

conditioned games wrote: »

We're heading into uncharted water, a Obama 3rd term and election cancellation might not look likely now but with the biggest financial crisis since before world war 2 on the horizon it is a strong possibility.

We head into uncharted waters every single day. Even electing Barack Obama was major uncharted waters. You seem to have this delusion that things are somehow more worrying now than ever before. The world looked a whole pile worse 77 years ago than it does now.

An election cancellation is highly, highly unlikely but you're going to need more than a major financial crisis as justification. Our financial crises are nothing on 1929, absolutely nothing. You need to take a look at some of the photographic records of the time to get a feel for the damage wrought on society in the 1930s in the US.

conditioned games wrote: »

Trump is the safest option for world peace, with Obama and Clinton prepping the west for a confrontation with the east through continued demonisation of China and especially Russia, Trump would be the best person to reverse the current path to world war 3 they are pushing us towards.

Appeasement is the only way that Trump could be the safest option for world peace. Given his comments on NATO, however, I suspect that he is the least safe option for world peace. YOu might be surprised but I suspect if Russia was fairly sure that the US was going to ignore its commitments to other member states of NATO, they might be more likely to invade a few more strategically useful European countries like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. China is unlikely to attack in any case, but economic war might not be excluded if the US defaults on payments. Which incidentally, Trump was talking about doing.

I'm not sure why you think Trump would be better for world peace. The guy has demonstrated a total lack of foreign policy knowledge to date so far.

conditioned games wrote: »

Hillary has never been the same since the operation on the blood clot in her brain back in 2012. The seizures, freezes in front of cameras and help walking up stairs we are seeing from her now are symptoms of a sick person. It looks like Trump will now release his tax returns would will Hillary do the same with her health records?

Trump's campaign made it abundantly clear in the last two months that they were never going to release his tax returns. So you had better provide evidence of "it looks like he will now release his tax returns".

Hilary Clinton's medical reports - significantly more detailed than Trump's weird letter from his difficult to find doctor - have already been released. As have her tax returns.

Videos supporting delusional theses about Clinton's apparent illness have been debunked already in this thread. That being said, Trump needs to release as comprehensive a medical report as Clinton already has before you're in any position to demand anything more from Clinton.

But first, I want to see Trump's tax returns released and I want more than your word that "it looks like" he will return them since his campaign has already straight out said they will not be released.

oscarBravo

The election is going to happen, and Obama won't be getting a third term.

When people spout Alex Jones crap on here, we should be pointing and laughing, not discussing it seriously. Otherwise we'll have to have straight-faced conversations about lizard people.

Overheal

conditioned games wrote: »

We're heading into uncharted water, a Obama 3rd term and election cancellation might not look likely now but with the biggest financial crisis since before world war 2 on the horizon it is a strong possibility.

I run a forum here that might interest you: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

If it hasn't happened by now, it's not going to happen. That is to say during any period of the Cold War, the Gulf war(s), Iraq War, WWII for that matter, etc. etc. etc.

If you think the 3 branches of government would allow an extended presidential term because of a bad economic forecast... The 22nd Amendment is the bottom line in this regard. Attempts at repealing it are as old as the Reagan administration but they're flaccid.

Also there's the fact that we already had a global financial crisis, in the fall of 2008. It didn't keep GWB in office. Why would anything even similar to that keep Obama in office?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308

Trump is the safest option for world peace, with Obama and Clinton prepping the west for a confrontation with the east through continued demonisation of China and especially Russia, Trump would be the best person to reverse the current path to world war 3 they are pushing us towards.

Trump has consistently demonized China during his campaign if you failed to notice, and our own national security has come out with their grave concerns about how prepared Trump is to understand the ramifications of being responsible for our police of Mutually Assured Destruction and the Nuclear Triad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/politics/donald-trump-trade-speech.html

https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying-things-donald-trump-has-publicly-said-about-nuclear-weapons-99f6290bc32a

Hillary has never been the same since the operation on the blood clot in her brain back in 2012. The seizures, freezes in front of cameras and help walking up stairs we are seeing from her now are symptoms of a sick person. It looks like Trump will now release his tax returns would will Hillary do the same with her health records?

Are you a PhD or otherwise have intimate familiarity with her health records?

On the flip side youre comparing her to a candidate who is holding a letter a doctor was paid to write within minutes saying he'd be "the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency" (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-doctor-who-said-trump-would-be-the-healthiest-president-ever-wrote-his-glowing-letter-in-5-minutes-2016-8) yet at the same time was too ill to fight for his country (http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/02/donald-trumps-draft-deferments/). Hopefully his phantom bone spurs won't come back to haunt him!

Pro Hoc Vice

oscarBravo wrote: »

The election is going to happen, and Obama won't be getting a third term.

When people spout Alex Jones crap on here, we should be pointing and laughing, not discussing it seriously. Otherwise we'll have to have straight-faced conversations about lizard people.

http://disinfo.com/2013/04/45-failed-alex-jones-predictions/

How can any sane person take that stuff seriously, o I forgot they not sane.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57caea4ae4b0a22de096342e[URL][/url]

Calina

oscarBravo wrote: »

The election is going to happen, and Obama won't be getting a third term.

When people spout Alex Jones crap on here, we should be pointing and laughing, not discussing it seriously. Otherwise we'll have to have straight-faced conversations about lizard people.

The problem - as I see it - is I just don't have time to keep abreast of who's who in conspiracy theory thinking and, more importantly, it's starting to mainstream for some reason. Pointing and laughing doesn't really help because it reinforces the isolation and conviction that the other (more reasonable) side don't know the Truth. It's particularly an issue given the mainstreaming of Breitbart.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Education usually works but I can't help feeling it'll get attacked as lefty brainwashing.

Overheal

Calina wrote: »

The problem - as I see it - is I just don't have time to keep abreast of who's who in conspiracy theory thinking and, more importantly, it's starting to mainstream for some reason

Probably because some of the better known conspiracies have been shown to either hold up terribly to additional scrutiny or have been proven out over time to be completely true. NSA scope is just one topic which has gravitated from paranoia/hollywood through to open secret and finally to headline news - and back to Hollywood.