The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[snowcat]

[YOUTUBE]bC1Mc6-RDyQ[/YOUTUBE]

[myboynoah]

And here is an article from the other side attempting to debunk the various accusations:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201...g-about/211344

This is a sufficiently technical issue that most Americans don't have the legal background or experience to fully and properly analyze what really happened and how egregious it is. Therefore, it seems that everyone is just drawn to sources and analysts that confirm their biases. In the end, I doubt this moves the needle much in the election. Trump is not the right candidate to exploit it.

Dude, forget the legal arguments; that is indeed in the past. But there are plenty of us who know that had we done what she did they would have pulled our clearances and told us to hit the road. Plus she and her minions lied so callously about the whole affair. Now she won't even talk to the press. She's a horrid, horrid person.

Your're right, The Dump is such a mess. Clinton is trying so hard to hand this to him and not only can he not get out of his own way, but he seems to love kicking himself in the nuts.

Write in Mitt!!!

[Commando]

This is the worst. Why couldn't Biden run? All Trump has to do is be nice and charming, don't say bigoted things, don't say outrageously stupid ideas, and not openly praise monstrous, genocidal dictators. Yet he cannot because he is ridiculous. This is a farce of an election.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Dude, forget the legal arguments; that is indeed in the past. But there are plenty of us who know that had we done what she did they would have pulled our clearances and told us to hit the road. Plus she and her minions lied so callously about the whole affair. Now she won't even talk to the press. She's a horrid, horrid person.

Your're right, The Dump is such a mess. Clinton is trying so hard to hand this to him and not only can he not get out of his own way, but he seems to love kicking himself in the nuts.

Write in Mitt!!!

Sure, and there are plenty of experts who spin it the other way. Either way, you are asking me to rely on YOUR expert opinion as to how egregious it was (and come on, you aren't exactly unbiased). That proves my point. Most Americans are in no position to make an objective or thorough analysis on a technical issue like this so we fall back to our preconceived assumptions/biases.

[myboynoah]

Sure, and there are plenty of experts who spin it the other way. Either way, you are asking me to rely on YOUR expert opinion as to how egregious it was (and come on, you aren't exactly unbiased). That proves my point. Most Americans are in no position to make an objective or thorough analysis on a technical issue like this so we fall back to our preconceived assumptions/biases.

On what particular issue about which I just opined am I not an expert?

[Topper]

Sure, and there are plenty of experts who spin it the other way. Either way, you are asking me to rely on YOUR expert opinion as to how egregious it was (and come on, you aren't exactly unbiased). That proves my point. Most Americans are in no position to make an objective or thorough analysis on a technical issue like this so we fall back to our preconceived assumptions/biases.

I am biased, so I wouldn't be the one to judge how egregious it is. I can show you how plainly a case can be made that she violated the law:

Here is what Comey said:

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

The law does not require knowledge but gross negligence. Read as follows:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
18 U.S.C. 793(f)

Whether it is egregious or not is a matter of values, but the extreme carelessness should meet the technical terms for gross negligence. That is not that hard for any seasoned attorney to judge.

[creekster]

That proves my point. Most Americans are in no position to make an objective or thorough analysis on a technical issue like this so we fall back to our preconceived assumptions/biases.

This is your point? And to what end does this point lead? If we are too stupid to understand it then it shouldn't be an issue in the election? If a candidate commits some egregious act that is just too hard to grasp we should ignore it? Maybe, in the end, this means we should just not vote at all and let a panel of experts run the place.

[Northwestcoug]

This is your point? And to what end does this point lead? If we are too stupid to understand it then it shouldn't be an issue in the election? If a candidate commits some egregious act that is just too hard to grasp we should ignore it? Maybe, in the end, this means we should just not vote at all and let a panel of experts run the place.

That doesn't sound like such a crazy idea this election. Can we put term limits on a king/queen and a star chamber-esque body? At least until we get non-clowns for nominees?

[Topper]

That doesn't sound like such a crazy idea this election. Can we put term limits on a king/queen and a star chamber-esque body? At least until we get non-clowns for nominees?

There is no good method. Society is evolving and how individuals learn about the political process and how the founding principles interact is not being taught very well. It is frustrating that some clear efforts are not being made, yet.

[dabrockster]

Listened to the whole hearing.. Very interesting. What I wished was asked more I depth is if the FBI will prosecute her lawyers for obstruction by deleting all the emails..

I found Comey to be resolute in his decision and while I disagree I see his reasoning and how he came to that conclusion..

Meaning.. He found a loophole and took it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeff Lebowski]

On what particular issue about which I just opined am I not an expert?

Good heavens, I never claimed you aren't an expert. But most Americans don't have your background and experience.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is your point? And to what end does this point lead? If we are too stupid to understand it then it shouldn't be an issue in the election? If a candidate commits some egregious act that is just too hard to grasp we should ignore it? Maybe, in the end, this means we should just not vote at all and let a panel of experts run the place.

No, that wasn't my point at all.

[creekster]

No, that wasn't my point at all.

You stated what your point was when you said "that proves my point." Now you could clarify your point here, if you chose, to make this a discussion, or you could deny it was your point (after making it seem fairly clear that it was your point) without explanation. I was merely asking the question that if your point is we are too dumb to understand, where does that leave the issue and our system?

[Jeff Lebowski]

You stated what your point was when you said "that proves my point." Now you could clarify your point here, if you chose, to make this a discussion, or you could deny it was your point (after making it seem fairly clear that it was your point) without explanation. I was merely asking the question that if your point is we are too dumb to understand, where does that leave the issue and our system?

I think I have explained it in rather simple terms. If you disagree, that is fine. I have zero interest in debating it with you.

[LA Ute]

This is partisan theater, but Representative Gowdy (a former federal prosecutor himself) does lay out the case an aggressive prosecutor would make:

What a depressing circus this election year has become.