[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;50668631]Does classification of information not trump this?[/QUOTE]
Probably not. The point of the attorney-client privilege is so that the client can safely disclose all of the information about the case to their attorney, so their attorney can formulate the best legal defence. The attorney is obliged - by an oath they swore to their profession - to never disclose anything discussed under a-c privilege to anyone else (not even the police or a court), unless the attorney knows that the client will be committing a crime in the future.
[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;50668660]I honestly hope that her escaping an indictment a second time would incentivize people to go full scale riot, or at least protest all across the nation. A revolution doesn't happen sitting down.
That's another thing too. The fact that Trump is beyond successful as a business man would probably mean great fiscal policies from him. I'm all for bringing blue collar work back to the US instead of outsourcing it all to China and the rest of Asia.
Note: I'm not saying I support him, but if I could only choose between him and Hitlary I'd choose Trump in a heartbeat. I'd personally much rather Jill Stein or Sanders win, though.[/QUOTE]
Except we already have had economists comb over his policyou proposals for the colony, and they came to the conclusion that they would lead to an recession.
It's easy to dismiss Trump critics as angry sjws mad about his skin color, but all of his platform proposals have been godawful. Hillary will be a continuation of Obama, and as much as many of you would like to upend our society for asinine reasons, 4 years of the same ultimately will not destroy the country.
It's not fucking 1989 and this is not the iron curtain. We do not need a revolution.
Like have you even paid attention to a single thing he's said about foreign policy? He'd send Poland, the Baltics, and Ukraine up shit Creek without a paddle because he thinks "we need to be getting a more equitable deal with our 'allies'". It flies in the face of common sense and everything our country has been trying to build up since the end of the cold war.
Trump doesn't know anything about policy. His foreign policy is terrible. His economics are terrible. Etc.
they really should have just said she'd have to leave but no go to jail i dought the backlass would have big
[QUOTE=Monkah;50668632][B]Comparison:[/B] failed businesses versus successful ones.
[URL="https://i.imgur.com/SHxla1R.jpg"](larger)[/URL][/QUOTE]
ah yes, who can't forget Trump 845 UN GP LLC, and of course Trump 845 LP LLC. if your measure of "success" is "companies founded that didn't go bankrupt" then that's another story, but simply creating a company doesn't make that company successful.
[QUOTE=Foda;50669365]ah yes, who can't forget Trump 845 UN GP LLC, and of course Trump 845 LP LLC. if your measure of "success" is "companies founded that didn't go bankrupt" then that's another story, but simply creating a company doesn't make that company successful.[/QUOTE]
And having a handful of companies go bankrupt doesn't make you a failed businessman, what's your point? The rhetoric that Trump is a business failure is total nonsense perpetuated by people who have zero understanding of how business works.
[QUOTE=srobins;50669382]And having a handful of companies go bankrupt doesn't make you a failed businessman, what's your point? The rhetoric that Trump is a business failure is total nonsense perpetuated by people who have zero understanding of how business works.[/QUOTE]
Many of those businesses on there are ones Trump only has partial ownership or naming rights in.
And this is all besides the point that a good businessman does not mean a good president. Trump's record in Atlantic City, the fact that he got his start thanks solely to the real successes of his father, who was able to come a much farther way than he did with none of the bombast or pompousness, as well as the fact that he's not respected or considered a major presence by the real businessmen and real estate brokers in New York (Who know far more about how to run a business than you or I do) should spell out that he's not America's greatest businessman.
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50669436]Many of those businesses on there are ones Trump only has partial ownership or naming rights in.
And this is all besides the point that a good businessman does not mean a good president. Trump's record in Atlantic City, the fact that he got his start thanks solely to the real successes of his father, who was able to come a much farther way than he did with none of the bombast or pompousness, as well as the fact that he's not respected or considered a major presence by the real businessmen and real estate brokers in New York (Who know far more about how to run a business than you or I do) should spell out that he's not America's greatest businessman.[/QUOTE]
I agree Trump would be a terrible president, I just think claiming he's a failure as a businessman is untrue. People should focus on concrete flaws in his platform rather than petty attacks on his businesses.
[QUOTE=srobins;50669490]I agree Trump would be a terrible president, I just think claiming he's a failure as a businessman is untrue. People should focus on concrete flaws in his platform rather than petty attacks on his businesses.[/QUOTE]
We do exactly that, with sources when we get pushed. Just two posts ago I was ripping into his foreign and defense policy.
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;50668594]Because he's horrible with money (has gone bankrupt multiple times, almost every business under his command has gone bankrupt as a direct result of his poor choices), doesn't know the first thing about running a country, almost ever foreign leader (except putin) hate his guts which is horrible for our already pretty not-great foreign relations, and many more issues[/QUOTE]
I'd rather have that than an outright criminal that openly flaunts being above the law.
To be fair, I'd rather we elect the chair they want to sit in over either of them, but if you held a gun to my head and forced me to choose one of the two offerings on the november ballot it'd be the one that isn't guilty of major federal offenses.
Can we focus on the Clinton Email case rather than the Trump vs Clinton election please?
[QUOTE=TestECull;50669552]I'd rather have that than an outright criminal that openly flaunts being above the law.
To be fair, I'd rather we elect the chair they want to sit in over either of them, but if you held a gun to my head and forced me to choose one of the two offerings on the november ballot it'd be the one that isn't guilty of major federal offenses.[/QUOTE]
So you would rather vote for Hillary? You know, [url=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/donald-trump-scandals/474726/]given Trump's huge number of run-ins with the law on everything from links to organised crime, to sexual assault, intimidation and scams?[/url]
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50669571]Can we focus on the Clinton Email case rather than the Trump vs Clinton election please?[/QUOTE]
I mean, in this current political climate, it's kind of hard not to, particularly after McCarthy's comments last year
[QUOTE]Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.[/QUOTE]
I mean obviously you can make the case that there was genuine cause for such an investigation and that it was necessary, but there's been a political and electoral element about this investigation from the day it started, aimed at ensuring that Clinton would become unelectable. And it's working, were it not for Trump wasting his opportunity by continuing to run his mouth about Saddam and the star of David tweet.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50669571]Can we focus on the Clinton Email case rather than the Trump vs Clinton election please?[/QUOTE]
Kinda hard to do when the election is pivoting on her email case right now.
[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;50669897]Kinda hard to do when the election is pivoting on her email case right now.[/QUOTE]
There were 6 full hours of questioning the head of the FBI and the Intelligence community. There's plenty of stuff in there to talk about
Trey Gowdy was relentless against Comey. Absolutely brutal.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50670106]Trey Gowdy was relentless against Comey. Absolutely brutal.[/QUOTE]
Gowdy never pulls his punches when it comes to questioning. I always love listening to him drill people.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50670106]Trey Gowdy was relentless against Comey. Absolutely brutal.[/QUOTE]
I listened to about half of it, and the part that looked the worst for Comey, in my opinion, was when someone questioned him about Clinton's clear intent of giving her server data to the lawyers that didn't have security clearance. He didn't really have an answer other than Clinton being totally incompetent with her classification knowledge.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50670106]Trey Gowdy was relentless against Comey. Absolutely brutal.[/QUOTE]
Gowdy is great, I'd love to see him as AG. Shit would get done.
[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;50668660]I honestly hope that her escaping an indictment a second time would incentivize people to go full scale riot, or at least protest all across the nation. A revolution doesn't happen sitting down.
That's another thing too. The fact that Trump is beyond successful as a business man would probably mean great fiscal policies from him. I'm all for bringing blue collar work back to the US instead of outsourcing it all to China and the rest of Asia.
Note: I'm not saying I support him, but if I could only choose between him and Hitlary I'd choose Trump in a heartbeat. I'd personally much rather Jill Stein or Sanders win, though.[/QUOTE]
You know Bernie is out of the race right?
[url]http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4609395/special-access-programs-involved[/url]
This particular piece is interesting.
One of the classified emails she leaked has such a high classification that not even the Inspector General of the Intel Community is allowed immediate access to it.
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50669007]Except we already have had economists comb over his policyou proposals for the colony, and they came to the conclusion that they would lead to an recession.
It's easy to dismiss Trump critics as angry sjws mad about his skin color, but all of his platform proposals have been godawful. Hillary will be a continuation of Obama, and as much as many of you would like to upend our society for asinine reasons, 4 years of the same ultimately will not destroy the country.
It's not fucking 1989 and this is not the iron curtain. We do not need a revolution.
Like have you even paid attention to a single thing he's said about foreign policy? He'd send Poland, the Baltics, and Ukraine up shit Creek without a paddle because he thinks "we need to be getting a more equitable deal with our 'allies'". It flies in the face of common sense and everything our country has been trying to build up since the end of the cold war.[/QUOTE]
Here's the thing. Obama is a boring but nice dude.
Hillary is a corrupted as all hell woman that's been using any dodgy tactic she can to get out of trouble, including the one fucking REOPENED by the State Department. Yeah I don't want her for 4-8 years.
[QUOTE=Monkah;50668632][B]Comparison:[/B] failed businesses versus successful ones.
[thumb]https://i.imgur.com/SHxla1R.jpg[/thumb]
[URL=https://i.imgur.com/SHxla1R.jpg](larger)[/URL][/QUOTE]
The image itself is complete bullshit. It's lying about the number of successful businesses Trump has, and lying about the number of failed businesses that trump had. Trump Shuttle is the same as Trump Airlines afaik so I don't know where they got the information from the left from, but the information they got from the right from is from the following article (same font and everything):
[url]http://qz.com/461688/a-list-of-everything-donald-trump-runs-that-has-his-name-on-it/[/url]
Trump has much more businesses than that. Successful ones, and failed ones. It's even in the article I linked so it really shows that the person who made that image doesn't know what they're talking about. (Not to mention that the image itself was only posted on r/The_Donald, and the comment section of political news sites.)
[url]https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2175187/trump.pdf[/url][B][/B]
I think it would be the best thing in the world if a non-bias news organization went through all the organizations in the document and formed a valid hypothesis on Trump's success and if this matters.
Any sane person would say that Trump is successful, but the question is, how much did he have to do with that and does any of this matter if he's the president of the united states?
I'm trying to keep my hope up that something, just something will happen. I'm sick of politicians getting away with breaking the law and nothing being done to them.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50671350]I'm trying to keep my hope up that something, just something will happen. I'm sick of politicians getting away with breaking the law and nothing being done to them.[/QUOTE]
She hasn't broken the law beyond a reasonable doubt. She's not guilty of a crime just because you think she is.
[QUOTE=sb27;50671408]She hasn't broken the law beyond a reasonable doubt. She's not guilty of a crime just because you think she is.[/QUOTE]
Yes, she has according to Comey. He just doesn't think they should prosecute because her absolute ignorance about technology and classification lead him to believe that she didn't have criminal intent.
Basically, she's so much of an idiot that she didn't understand that what she did was wrong even though everyone else does.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50668394]Comey said that in his FBI if someone was found guilty of the security issues Clinton committed they wouldn't be [I]criminally[/I] prosecuted. They would be likely be fired, have their clearance changed or revoked, receive demotion, ect. Since Clinton is no longer employed by the government at this time there are no consequences for her.
The Chairperson of the committee basically said "Well what is the fucking point of having a security clearance?" Her lawyers and attorneys possibly saw the classified emails and they didn't have clearance, but the FBI didn't think it was an issue because they weren't planning against the US, rather they were helping out a State employee.
The problem is that there are no consequences to giving a random, uncleared individual a load of classified information unless they hand it over to a malicious body.[/QUOTE]
snip it's 1am and I can't read
[QUOTE=sgman91;50671470][b]Basically, she's so much of an idiot[/b] that she didn't understand that what she did was wrong even though everyone else does.[/QUOTE]
People don't actually believe this do they? She's not an idiot, she knew exactly what she was doing, she's just manipulative.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50671470]Yes, she has according to Comey. He just doesn't think they should prosecute because her absolute ignorance about technology and classification lead him to believe that she didn't have criminal intent.
Basically, she's so much of an idiot that she didn't understand that what she did was wrong even though everyone else does.[/QUOTE]
Comey's decision is consistent with 99 years of case law.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;50671560]People don't actually believe this do they? She's not an idiot, she knew exactly what she was doing, she's just manipulative.[/QUOTE]
Comey's exact words were "technological unsophistication."
[editline]7th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=sb27;50671624]Comey's decision is consistent with 99 years of case law.[/QUOTE]
Only if you hold that she was so incompetent as to not have intent when doing something that, in Comey's words, a "reasonable person" would know not to do.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
