Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Mar 2016, 11:11 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
1. Bernie is not even a possibility. Even if lightening strikes, the party won't let him be the nominee

I'm pretty sure the Democratic Party would respect the will of their members. Especially since polling shows him well ahead of all republicans in head to head match ups.
Though I agree that Hillary is now inevitable.


No, it would not respect the voters. If the DNC did, there would be no "super delegates." They are a corrective.

Fate
2. If you think negative ads are going to hurt Trump, just wait until he starts attacking Hillary
.
She's been attacked constantly . There's nothing new under the sun here. Her negatives are baked in.


In your dreams. Trump will stoop to things "normal" politicians would not dare--and get away with it. I would not be surprised to see even Chelsea pilloried as part of the Clinton Foundation corruption. She deserves it--and no, she is not "a child."

fate
Finger on the pulse . . . that should be your middle name. After all, when I think "Republican leadership," I think Colin Powell, who endorsed Obama for President. Nothing says "party stalwart" like "endorsed the other party's nominee."

He was a Secretary of State. He is still well respected across the US.


I appreciate his service in the Army. That's where it ends. He has zero respect in terms of political impact.

And he will not be alone among Republican "stalwart" in endorsing a democrat if Trump is the nominee... Hell, thats on now isn't it?


He's no "stalwart." That's just garbage. No one who has ANY allegiance to the Republican Party would have endorsed Obama. He's Benedict Arnold in any political sense.

You'll also note that Congressional Republicans have dialed back their efforts on the email thing?
They can't afford another travesty like 13 Ben Ghazi hearings and no damage to Hill.


Clueless, you are Captain Clueless. King of Cluelessness.

They backed off (and said so) because the FBI is investigating. Some with knowledge of how the DOJ works say they would not have offered immunity if there was not a grand jury and if indictments were not inevitable.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Mar 2016, 11:12 am

SLOTerp wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Meanwhile, the guy who installed Hillary's home brew server has been given immunity from the DOJ and is cooperating with the FBI.

We are closer than ever to President Trump. May God spare the USA.

If Hillary gets indicted, she drops out. A brokered Dem convention might bring in Joe Biden, the only candidate who realistically could have beat Hillary anyway. Hello President Biden...


That's what I mean by they won't let Bernie have it--even if lightening strikes.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Mar 2016, 11:36 am

Conservatives being forced to choose between supporting Trump and letting Hillary win? Why would God put them through so much torture? RJ would vote for Hillary but then RJ for the most part appears to be from the northeastern RINO ( in conservative eyes) remnant of the party.

I think conservatives are going to put all their energy into stopping Trump now. The Trump train might still derail, particularly given this odd flirtation with white supremacism. That introduces a shame factor, as I don't think the vast majority of his followers want to be linked to that. If Trump wins though ...I suspect most of them grit their teeth and vote for him, no way are they helping Hillary to win.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 03 Mar 2016, 1:41 pm

freeman3 wrote:Conservatives being forced to choose between supporting Trump and letting Hillary win? Why would God put them through so much torture? RJ would vote for Hillary but then RJ for the most part appears to be from the northeastern RINO ( in conservative eyes) remnant of the party.

I think conservatives are going to put all their energy into stopping Trump now. The Trump train might still derail, particularly given this odd flirtation with white supremacism. That introduces a shame factor, as I don't think the vast majority of his followers want to be linked to that. If Trump wins though ...I suspect most of them grit their teeth and vote for him, no way are they helping Hillary to win.


I will not vote for Mr. Trump. (Unlike RickyP, I can spell someone's name). I am as conservative as they come. I will vote third party (e.g. Constitution party). It makes me sick to have my vote benefit Mrs. Clinton, but I cannot do Mr. Trump.

It is in God's hands...
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 03 Mar 2016, 2:01 pm

fate
Some with knowledge of how the DOJ works say they would not have offered immunity if there was not a grand jury and if indictments were not inevitable
.

You sound like Trump. "I heard, from some one with knowledge, that they wouldn't have offered immunity..."

Here's what you need to consider... The "investigation" was going no where without his testimony. (In part because there's no where to go) They finally offered him immunity in order to try and move it forward. That doesn't mean he has anything of substance to add to the conversation that will implicate Hillary in anything criminal.
Perhaps be wanted immunity because he lied about his credentials getting the contract or about the security of the server? And that's why he wanted immunity. But he probably can't tell anyone anything about classified emails.. Which is the crux of the matter.
And they have all the emails...and whatever else was on the servers...


bbauska
(Unlike RickyP, I can spell someone's name)
.
But unlike RickyP you aren't up to the latest in cultural references...

His family name used to be Drumpf....

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-new ... wn-w166114

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 03 Mar 2016, 2:27 pm

Family names change. They quite often become "Americanized". I got the reference. I watched John Oliver's HBO monologue. (Quite funny, btw)

Has Donald Trump's last name ever been Drumpf?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 03 Mar 2016, 2:52 pm

The problem with the Drumpf thing is that it isn't actually very funny. In truth, it's hard to make any kind of joke about Trump that doesn't pale in comparison with the source material.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 123
Joined: 02 Jun 2012, 9:41 am

Post 03 Mar 2016, 3:49 pm

Ray:

Ray Jay wrote:Shrizzz:
It seems, from reading the posts here in recent weeks, that there also exists a certain section of conservatives, like you and Ray, who will refuse to vote for Trump. Not that you'll vote for Hillary, of course, but those votes seem to be going elsewhere.


I am an economic conservative, but not a social conservative. I'm all for equal gay rights on marriage, de-criminalization of pot, and legal abortion in the 1st trimester. I'm for gun control and think there's something to global warming in spite of the left's hyperbole and the potential for the cure to be worse than the disease.

I would vote for Clinton over Trump. I'll hope that the Republicans retain Congress.


Sorry to misconstrue your position there.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Mar 2016, 6:08 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Some with knowledge of how the DOJ works say they would not have offered immunity if there was not a grand jury and if indictments were not inevitable
.

You sound like Trump. "I heard, from some one with knowledge, that they wouldn't have offered immunity..."


And, you sound like you're auditioning to be Hillary's press secretary. Ignore the obvious and lie--you're perfect!

Here's what you need to consider... The "investigation" was going no where without his testimony.


Is this based on your massive experience in law enforcement? Okay, so maybe you know why Pagliano took the Fifth in the first place? Oh, and if he knows nothing of value (which is nonsense), what was in his "proffer?" Furthermore, if he had no info on criminal activity, why did they offer him immunity?

I'll await your "informed" answer.

(In part because there's no where to go) They finally offered him immunity in order to try and move it forward. That doesn't mean he has anything of substance to add to the conversation that will implicate Hillary in anything criminal.


So, the FBI has nothing? Interesting. So, they offered immunity to a guy who knows nothing? What did he proffer? Please, don't hold back, tell us! How did he dupe the FBI into an immunity deal when he offered them nothing? Pagliano must be brilliant!

Perhaps be wanted immunity because he lied about his credentials getting the contract or about the security of the server? And that's why he wanted immunity.


Wow, thanks for taking us "behind the scenes." I feel like I"m part of the investigation!

Without naming names, how many contacts do you have at DOJ? Must be dozens.

But he probably can't tell anyone anything about classified emails.. Which is the crux of the matter.
And they have all the emails...and whatever else was on the servers...


So, you're guaranteeing no indictment? You seem very sure. If you guarantee it, I'll bow to your insights.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 04 Mar 2016, 7:00 am

Fate
So, you're guaranteeing no indictment? You seem very sure. If you guarantee it, I'll bow to your insights.

They aren't my insights... They are what I read from respected sources who understand the law...
For instance:

The National Law Journal's Laurie Levenson noted in a September 21, 2015 piece that most criminal statutes involving classified information require "a knowing or intentional disclosure or mishandling" of the classified information. Levenson further pointed out "it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures":


And you could compare the two kinds of "analysis" offered in the following, It clearly shows the two distinct ways of reporting the issue of immunity, and whether or not there is a "criminal investigation" underway . You are exposed to the one view only. Judge Napoliatano is no expert...

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/0 ... ity/208999
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Mar 2016, 1:19 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
So, you're guaranteeing no indictment? You seem very sure. If you guarantee it, I'll bow to your insights.

They aren't my insights... They are what I read from respected sources who understand the law...
For instance:

The National Law Journal's Laurie Levenson noted in a September 21, 2015 piece that most criminal statutes involving classified information require "a knowing or intentional disclosure or mishandling" of the classified information. Levenson further pointed out "it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures":


And you could compare the two kinds of "analysis" offered in the following, It clearly shows the two distinct ways of reporting the issue of immunity, and whether or not there is a "criminal investigation" underway . You are exposed to the one view only. Judge Napoliatano is no expert...

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/0 ... ity/208999


I'm asking for a guarantee. Yes or no?

Further, you have two problems:

1. Media Matters is part of Clinton Inc. Look it up.

2. That legal analysis is from September. Things have changed--and we know more than we did then.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 19 Sep 2016, 8:49 pm

Christie got a lot of play on this thread.

The "bridgegate" trial started and in the opening statements both sides acknowledged that the Christie knew about it. I wonder if he knows yet that his political career, and probably any career, is over.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/nyregion/bridgegate-trial.html
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Sep 2016, 6:59 am

Besides being NJ governor, Christie is leading Trumps transition team. Which is funded with about $6 million of tax payers money. With no real over sight. Christie's doing all right today.

If Trump is elected he'll be part of a Trump Administration.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Sep 2016, 7:05 am

rickyp wrote:Besides being NJ governor, Christie is leading Trumps transition team. Which is funded with about $6 million of tax payers money. With no real over sight. Christie's doing all right today.

If Trump is elected he'll be part of a Trump Administration.


But he hasn't been convicted. Isn't that your line regarding Mrs Clinton?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 20 Sep 2016, 7:10 am

rickyp wrote:If Trump is elected he'll be part of a Trump Administration.


Yes, my prognostication does hinge on Trump losing, which I think he will, but stranger things have happened. (Like his nomination!)