Hillary

[psalms 91]

Do you think she will be indicted thus opening the door for bernie Sanders? Personally I doubt it

 

[tango]

Do you think she will be indicted thus opening the door for bernie Sanders? Personally I doubt it

I'd be surprised, which I think is a large part of the problem with politics. If you or I did what she did with an email server the chances are we'd have federal agents crawling all over us to the extent we could barely take a hike let alone run a presidential campaign. When the people get the impression (rightly or wrongly) that there's one set of rules for them and a different set of rules for those in government it's easy to see why they start to elect more extreme politicians and anyone who promises to clean things up.

 

[psalms 91]

I'd be surprised, which I think is a large part of the problem with politics. If you or I did what she did with an email server the chances are we'd have federal agents crawling all over us to the extent we could barely take a hike let alone run a presidential campaign. When the people get the impression (rightly or wrongly) that there's one set of rules for them and a different set of rules for those in government it's easy to see why they start to elect more extreme politicians and anyone who promises to clean things up.

This I agree with

 

[Highlander]

The alleged crimes that Hillary has committed with her private email server would net a sentence of about 10 years in prison if she were to be prosecuted & convicted. This is what a famous judge said last week on Fox News.

The thing is that Obama has the presidential authority to pardon Hillary before leaving office -- and he can even pardon himself from any involvement he may have had with this situation. And he apparently DID know about the illegal server.

Obama would probably instruct his puppet, who serves as the attorney general (Loretta Lynch), to DECLINE to file charges against Hillary if the FBI recommends prosecution. But the big thing is that this probably would end her chances of winning the election -- and possibly even remaining the nominee. If the FBI recommends prosecution, the superdelegates (who were rigged in advance to support Hillary) might very well withdraw their support from her and heap it upon Sanders, which would probably give Sanders enough total delegates to claim the nomination.

Ahhhh, what juicy times we live in! LOL

 

[psalms 91]

lol yes

 

[tango]

The alleged crimes that Hillary has committed with her private email server would net a sentence of about 10 years in prison if she were to be prosecuted & convicted. This is what a famous judge said last week on Fox News.

Really? I'm surprised by that, I'd have thought it would be far more serious than 10 years in prison, especially if some rumors that her server was hacked prove to be true.

The thing is that Obama has the presidential authority to pardon Hillary before leaving office -- and he can even pardon himself from any involvement he may have had with this situation. And he apparently DID know about the illegal server.

True, although if the president-elect is pardoned of serious crimes by the retiring president it wouldn't do anything for her mandate.

Obama would probably instruct his puppet, who serves as the attorney general (Loretta Lynch), to DECLINE to file charges against Hillary if the FBI recommends prosecution. But the big thing is that this probably would end her chances of winning the election -- and possibly even remaining the nominee. If the FBI recommends prosecution, the superdelegates (who were rigged in advance to support Hillary) might very well withdraw their support from her and heap it upon Sanders, which would probably give Sanders enough total delegates to claim the nomination.

That sounds reasonable, if it looks like a hugely grubby stitch-up is what it takes to keep Hillary in the race it's easy to see why people might not want to be associated with it all. Are these superdelegates elected or appointed (forgive my ignorance of that, I didn't grow up in the US)?

Ahhhh, what juicy times we live in! LOL

Funny to see me agreeing with you in a political thread here

 

[psalms 91]

Super delegates can give an unfair advantage to a candidate as we see with Hillary as she has alomost all of them and has for a long time. It is nuts that they even have this system

 

[visionary]

By hook or by crook, Hillary will be our next President....

 

[Highlander]

By hook or by crook, Hillary will be our next President....

Most likely the president of her future cell block.

 

[Highlander]

Really? I'm surprised by that, I'd have thought it would be far more serious than 10 years in prison, especially if some rumors that her server was hacked prove to be true.



True, although if the president-elect is pardoned of serious crimes by the retiring president it wouldn't do anything for her mandate.



That sounds reasonable, if it looks like a hugely grubby stitch-up is what it takes to keep Hillary in the race it's easy to see why people might not want to be associated with it all. Are these superdelegates elected or appointed (forgive my ignorance of that, I didn't grow up in the US)?



Funny to see me agreeing with you in a political thread here

Nice to see you agreeing. LOL

I believe the superdelegates are elected by the party, itself, during their caucuses. They first tell who they support. The fix has been in for a long time as DNC Chairwoman Debbie Shultz has done Hillary's bidding and maneuvered voting to elect those who will support Hillary.

 

[tango]

Nice to see you agreeing. LOL

Ha.... make the most of it

I believe the superdelegates are elected by the party, itself, during their caucuses. They first tell who they support. The fix has been in for a long time as DNC Chairwoman Debbie Shultz has done Hillary's bidding and maneuvered voting to elect those who will support Hillary.

So does that mean the party elects the superdelegates, then the superdelegates have a particularly heavy voting weight when it comes to the party voting for its presidential nominee? That seems like voting once and then voting again in case you got it wrong the first time.

And I thought UK party politics was odd...

 

[Highlander]

The regular delegates are bound by the rules to cast their ballots according to how the voters in their state voted. If more than one vote (by the delegates) at the nominating conventions is required, the delegates are free to vote for whomever they wish.

However, to have more power than the individual voters, the Democrats schemed up the idea of "superdelegates" -- who are NOT bound by the voters' wishes. The DNC chairwoman arranged for the vast majority of these superdelegates to support Hillary. As a result, she has something around 600 of them and Sanders only has about 40. It is because of these superdelegates that Hillary is ahead of Sanders in overall delegates.

But, if the superdelegates were to switch their support AWAY from Hillary (they did this in 2008), the winning number of overall delegates would put Sanders over the top -- and put Hillary in the looney bin. LOL

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'd be surprised, which I think is a large part of the problem with politics. If you or I did what she did with an email server the chances are we'd have federal agents crawling all over us to the extent we could barely take a hike let alone run a presidential campaign. When the people get the impression (rightly or wrongly) that there's one set of rules for them and a different set of rules for those in government it's easy to see why they start to elect more extreme politicians and anyone who promises to clean things up.

If you or Bill were secretary of state, as Hillary was, then you'd very likely get the same treatment that she did. Seems that senior government members (elected or appointed) get different treatment and always have. It may be because in their role as whatever (secretary of state for Hillary) they know things that are secret from the public and do things that if done by others would be illegal.

 

[psalms 91]

I would agree that people in high positions are treated differently but it is not right

 

[MoreCoffee]

I would agree that people in high positions are treated differently but it is not right

Some things require a difference in treatment. If somebody accuses the President of the USA of committing a crime must he stop his work and attend court to answer for the alleged crime? What if thousands of people make such accusations one at a time over the full four years of the USA President's term of office?

 

[psalms 91]

Those are the known things seems to me we are talking about hidden things such as the privelege to break the law with impunity and noone should be able to do this, thus oversight committees in congress

 

[tango]

Some things require a difference in treatment. If somebody accuses the President of the USA of committing a crime must he stop his work and attend court to answer for the alleged crime? What if thousands of people make such accusations one at a time over the full four years of the USA President's term of office?

There's a difference between a single allegation of committing an unspecified crime, and credible evidence that a major security breach resulted from someone breaking the rules. It's not as if Hillary didn't have the option to use standard, approved, email systems. But for reasons we may never know she decided it wasn't suitable for her and went her own way, with consequences we may never yet know.

If she'd been let off a speeding ticket because she knew the cop who pulled her over that would be trivial but we're talking about things in a totally different league.

 

[psalms 91]

There's a difference between a single allegation of committing an unspecified crime, and credible evidence that a major security breach resulted from someone breaking the rules. It's not as if Hillary didn't have the option to use standard, approved, email systems. But for reasons we may never know she decided it wasn't suitable for her and went her own way, with consequences we may never yet know.

If she'd been let off a speeding ticket because she knew the cop who pulled her over that would be trivial but we're talking about things in a totally different league.

Yup national security but I also wonder about the point brought up that at the time it wasnt illegal, if that is the case then she diod nothing wrong criminally, maybe stupid but not criminal

 

[tango]

Yup national security but I also wonder about the point brought up that at the time it wasnt illegal, if that is the case then she diod nothing wrong criminally, maybe stupid but not criminal

If she was holding classified material on a private server it's hard to see how it couldn't have been a serious crime. She might have said "nothing was marked classified" but whether that's a generic term to say she had no classified material, or lawyer speak to fool the masses (classified material isn't marked "classified", it's marked with a classification grade such as "restricted", "secret" etc).

The weird thing about it all is that even if she could be shown to have not committed a single offence, however trivial, she has shown a lack of judgment so severe that alone should disqualify her from the White House.

 

[psalms 91]

If she was holding classified material on a private server it's hard to see how it couldn't have been a serious crime. She might have said "nothing was marked classified" but whether that's a generic term to say she had no classified material, or lawyer speak to fool the masses (classified material isn't marked "classified", it's marked with a classification grade such as "restricted", "secret" etc).

The weird thing about it all is that even if she could be shown to have not committed a single offence, however trivial, she has shown a lack of judgment so severe that alone should disqualify her from the White House.

I would agree but I also think Trump is unqualified if for no other reason than his temperment and ego although there are other issues