The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[SeattleUte]

I recall a similar statement from the White House in 1973. But yes, so much of it is political posturing and the Starr Chamber was ultimately a harmful waste. But destroying evidence, rather than challenging the process through the courts, ought to trouble you just a little.

Destroying evidence troubles me a lot. What I'm saying is I question whether those emails were actually evidence. There has never been and apparently never will be a judicial proceeding over this (unless some alt right group has filed a civil complaint somewhere I'm not aware of).

[Topper]

You are correct. The best reason to oppose Trump if you're a conservative is on the merits. His nativism, protectionism--overall isolationism--and condemnation of our country's economic direction in the face of unprecedented prosperity that was created by capitalism and its constituent businesses addressing the market--pure and simple--are not in the tradition of true economic conservativism. These international trade deals that Bill and Hillary have backed and Trump condemns are not bad. And, if you're a social conservative (which I'm not), all the more reason to hate Trump--unless you're a misogynist or sexist who buys into his tarring of Hillary for what her husband is alleged to have done. The Utahns who appear ready to give Trump their state's four electoral votes are doing it for the ugliest of reasons--not because they are principled conservatives.

Republicans nominated Trump, and it happened because of Republicans' foolishness, mendacity, and poor values. Frankly, I think this whole election mess is the result of a backlash against same sex marriage, LGBTQ bathroom laws, etc. The "Christian" right cares most about it's hatreds, and whether or not Trump is clear about his position on these social issues, his supporters blame Hillary and her party and urban elites.

So, given that Republicans have created this mess, they are hardly in a position to be picky about the only viable alternative to Trump qua her conservativism. Truth is she's not that far removed from her husband, the Bushes, or Obama--she is more hawkish like the Bushes.

She is an anathema for me. I am not a social conservative, nor am I a warhawk.

I am first and foremost an economic conservative. Johnson comes closest, not perfect in that regard. I reject tendencies to eliminate the Federal Reserve as pure libertarians do. That is craziness. There is no element in conservatism in her. Neither Bill, nor the Bushes, nor Obama had any measure of fiscal conservatism. I reject them all.

Trump is an economic moron. She is simply economically wrong and malicious.

The foreign policy is all messed up, because neither party understands history of regions, the origins of many of these centuries long conflicts, and are not loyal to our natural allies. We engage in humanitarian wars, which is nonsense. We have no plan for state-building and no ability to do it.

She will be a disaster for the judiciary. Ugh. I am sick already.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Destroying evidence troubles me a lot. What I'm saying is I question whether those emails were actually evidence. There has never been and apparently never will be a judicial proceeding over this (unless some alt right group has filed a civil complaint somewhere I'm not aware of).

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if the deleted emails were all personal--Chelsea's wedding, cat videos, Boney Fuller re-tweets, etc. But that makes her deletion of them in the face of an active subpoena (be it Congressional or judicial), all the more confounding. Inundating her inquisitors with thousands of trivial, benign and personal emails would have helped her cause, not hurt it. And she was a trial lawyer who should be very sensitive about the destruction of evidence, and yet she did this anyway. I regard it as an example of her poor judgment with it comes to Clintonian self-preservation.

[Topper]

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if the deleted emails were all personal--Chelsea's wedding, cat videos, Boney Fuller re-tweets, etc. But that makes her deletion of them in the face of an active subpoena (be it Congressional or judicial), all the more confounding. Inundating her inquisitors with thousands of trivial, benign and personal emails would have helped her cause, not hurt it. And she was a trial lawyer who should be very sensitive about the destruction of evidence, and yet she did this anyway. I regard it as an example of her poor judgment with it comes to Clintonian self-preservation.

Perhaps. Or perhaps there were enough questionable material she destroyed them for lack of ability and time to sanitize the cache from those damning ones. Once destroyed she knew her connections with the Administration would clear her way. Outside of the Starr investigation, the Clintons have able to win most other legal entanglements.

[SeattleUte]

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if the deleted emails were all personal--Chelsea's wedding, cat videos, Boney Fuller re-tweets, etc. But that makes her deletion of them in the face of an active subpoena (be it Congressional or judicial), all the more confounding. Inundating her inquisitors with thousands of trivial, benign and personal emails would have helped her cause, not hurt it. And she was a trial lawyer who should be very sensitive about the destruction of evidence, and yet she did this anyway. I regard it as an example of her poor judgment with it comes to Clintonian self-preservation.

You got past Bush's lies about WOMD; I'm sure you can get past her getting in the way of Congress obtaining a lot of boring or even tawdry personal emails. Again, this issue only has legs because of partisan politics.

[Topper]

You got past Bush's lies about WOMD; I'm sure you can get past her getting in the way of Congress obtaining a lot of boring or even tawdry personal emails. Again, this issue only has legs because of partisan politics.

Not true. If she were not a high profile politician, she would be denied access to sensitive information ever again and would be barred from government employ. It doesn't require a criminal conviction to disqualify an employee under the security protocol. YOhio is more familiar than I in this regard. This is not partisan but something for graft. She blatantly disregarded security protocols. The numbers of emails affected is staggering and reflects her disdain for rules, because little people's rules don't apply to her.

[Northwestcoug]

Does any lawyerly type here want to compare and contrast the Bush email controversy? I really didn't know about it until I saw memes saying he 'lost' far more emails than Clinton did. Here's a wiki summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_W...il_controversy

Sounds like the emails were deleted before the investigation asked for them, so I guess that's a difference. But the general facts seem very similar.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Trump claims the "locker room talk" was just talk and he didn't really behave that way. Scores of women who beg to differ are coming forward.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us...omen.html?_r=0

[PaloAltoCougar]

You got past Bush's lies about WOMD; I'm sure you can get past her getting in the way of Congress obtaining a lot of boring or even tawdry personal emails. Again, this issue only has legs because of partisan politics.

Not sure about your opening observation (FTR, I think the Iraq war was a huge mistake and that the Bush Admin cherry-picked the available evidence, but I don't think W lied). As bad as I think the email issue is, I don't think Hillary should be prosecuted, much less jailed. The now-unshackled Trump has made a weird, and doomed, decision to go so hard after her. Calling her a crook and announcing (today) that Hillary must go to jail for her "crimes' shores up (unnecessarily) his base, but puts off the people (college-educated women) he needs if he wants to win. Instead, he's going Saddam in the waning days of his campaign, igniting all the oil wells as the end draws near. Look for similar declarations from his sons Uday and Qusay.

[falafel]

Trump claims the "locker room talk" was just talk and he didn't really behave that way. Scores of women who beg to differ are coming forward.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us...omen.html?_r=0

This gives new context to Trump's quote about "having problems with Utah."

A former Miss Utah is among the women who have reported receiving unwanted romantic or sexual contact from Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Temple Taggart, Miss Utah USA 1997, was quoted in a New York Times story from May 14 as describing Trump's kisses during the first Miss USA pageant he supervised as the event's owner.

Taggart described her introduction to Trump:

"He kissed me directly on the lips. I thought, 'Oh my God, gross.' He was married to Marla Maples at the time. I think there were a few other girls that he kissed on the mouth. I was like 'Wow, that's inappropriate.'"

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4453150-1...is-among-women

[Northwestcoug]

Guys, guys, it's OK. It's all just a coordinated attack by the democrats and the lame-stream media:

Trump Campaign Statement

“This entire article is fiction, and for the New York Times to launch a completely false, coordinated character assassination against Mr. Trump on a topic like this is dangerous. To reach back decades in an attempt to smear Mr. Trump trivializes sexual assault, and it sets a new low for where the media is willing to go in its efforts to determine this election.

"It is absurd to think that one of the most recognizable business leaders on the planet with a strong record of empowering women in his companies would do the things alleged in this story, and for this to only become public decades later in the final month of a campaign for president should say it all.

"Further, the Times story buries the pro-Clinton financial and social media activity on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, reinforcing that this truly is nothing more than a political attack. This is a sad day for the Times.” - Jason Miller, Senior Communications Advisor

[SeattleUte]

Not sure about your opening observation (FTR, I think the Iraq war was a huge mistake and that the Bush Admin cherry-picked the available evidence, but I don't think W lied). As bad as I think the email issue is, I don't think Hillary should be prosecuted, much less jailed. The now-unshackled Trump has made a weird, and doomed, decision to go so hard after her. Calling her a crook and announcing (today) that Hillary must go to jail for her "crimes' shores up (unnecessarily) his base, but puts off the people (college-educated women) he needs if he wants to win. Instead, he's going Saddam in the waning days of his campaign, igniting all the oil wells as the end draws near. Look for similar declarations from his sons Uday and Qusay.

Splendid analogy! Did you think of that yourself?

[Topper]

Does any lawyerly type here want to compare and contrast the Bush email controversy? I really didn't know about it until I saw memes saying he 'lost' far more emails than Clinton did. Here's a wiki summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_W...il_controversy

Sounds like the emails were deleted before the investigation asked for them, so I guess that's a difference. But the general facts seem very similar.

I am no longer familiar with the Bush email issue, so I might be wrong. I thought, correct if I err, that it was the GOP itself deleting the emails, not the Bush administration.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Splendid analogy! Did you think of that yourself?

I did; copyright application to the PTO is pending, but you are granted a royalty- and attribution-free license.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Despite his campaign's denunciations, as more women come forward with stories of Trump's groping, we'll hit a Cosby-like tipping point and more supporters will bail. And Trump has never enjoyed nearly the goodwill Cosby once did. And while I don't think what Trump has done is as bad as Cosby's depredations, he deserves the nation's disdain.