Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
applecorped said:
Bernie should run as an Independent. everyone loves a spoiler
Click to expand...

Won't happen. Bernie has gone on the record saying he doesn't want Trump as president. An independent Bernie would only ensure that happens, so expect some news tomorrow or the next day about Bernie conceding or suspending his campaign.

Cleon said:
So.....Is she done yet?
Click to expand...

I'd say medium rare, so it depends on your taste.
 
Foolmewunz said:
The Cox situation is not comparable. It was a desperation move by Nixon. A Democratic special consul, appointed to appease congress who then refused to obey "the boss" who he felt he didn't report to. Where is the Cox-comparable character in these "investigations". Where is the desperate-and-drowning Nixon in this scenario? Until those people are on the scene, there's no such Saturday Night Massacre scenario.
Click to expand...


I disagree with you. The DOJ would bring charges if they thought there was a sufficient chance of winning a case. Prosecutors generally don't like being bullied by politicians. Now, large policy changes department-wide - like not enforcing marijauna laws - are generally acceptable to prosecutors because they only have limited resources to go around. But a single case? No. No lawyer would stand for it.

None of this is to say that Clinton is in any danger of indictment. She isn't. The partisan Congressional committee couldn't find anything. The State Department said at most she violated policy. It will never happen.

But Obama wouldn't and probably couldn't keep an indictment from coming if he wanted to.
 
Loss Leader said:
None of this is to say that Clinton is in any danger of indictment. She isn't. The partisan Congressional committee couldn't find anything. The State Department said at most she violated policy. It will never happen.

But Obama wouldn't and probably couldn't keep an indictment from coming if he wanted to.
Click to expand...

What partisan Congressional Committee?

The State Department IG specifically said that they were halting the intelligence component of their investigation in deference to the FBI.
 
Foolmewunz said:
The Cox situation is not comparable. It was a desperation move by Nixon. A Democratic special consul, appointed to appease congress who then refused to obey "the boss" who he felt he didn't report to. Where is the Cox-comparable character in these "investigations". Where is the desperate-and-drowning Nixon in this scenario? Until those people are on the scene, there's no such Saturday Night Massacre scenario.
Click to expand...

Those people won't be on the scene unless there's an FBI recommendation to bring charges, then all sorts of interesting characters pop up. The players and their roles change, but the story is pretty much the same: "important" people trying to avoid justice. In this case, there's no Cox, but there is a person desperate to avoid indictment, an Attorney General appointed by the desperate person's husband, and an FBI director with a reputation for integrity.

The story is very simple:

The FBI recommends criminal charges against Clinton, former Bill Clinton appointee and now Attorney General Loretta Lynch refuses to indict, mass FBI resignations ensue.
 
Loss Leader said:
I disagree with you. The DOJ would bring charges if they thought there was a sufficient chance of winning a case. Prosecutors generally don't like being bullied by politicians. Now, large policy changes department-wide - like not enforcing marijauna laws - are generally acceptable to prosecutors because they only have limited resources to go around. But a single case? No. No lawyer would stand for it.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right about the current crop of lawyers at DOJ. I'm pretty sure you would have been wrong if Eric Holder was still there though.

None of this is to say that Clinton is in any danger of indictment. She isn't. The partisan Congressional committee couldn't find anything. The State Department said at most she violated policy. It will never happen.
Click to expand...

You have zero basis for claiming any of those things. First, the "partisan" Congressional committee was not tasked with investigating Hillary's mishandling of classified information or her evasion of FOIA and record-keeping laws. Second, the State Department IG was not tasked with making accusations of criminal wrongdoing either. And the report certainly never said anything like "at most she ..." A much fairer reading would be that the report implies "at least she ..." As for it never happening, well, you'd have to assume either the DOJ would never indict Hillary because of politics (which you claim isn't the case), or you'd have to assume that Hillary never did anything criminal in relation to her handling of classified information or donations to the Clinton Foundation, or in her efforts to evade FOIA requirements. That doesn't strike me as a realistic assumption.

But Obama wouldn't and probably couldn't keep an indictment from coming if he wanted to.
Click to expand...

He absolutely could if he wanted to. Depending upon the willingness of his subordinates to go along quietly, however, he may not want to.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Loretta Lynch has the final say of acting or not acting on the FBI's findings.

Obama likely has some input.
Click to expand...
I guarantee that refusal to indict after receiving a recommendation from the reviewing Justice attorneys would result in mass resignations. As a lawyer, I feel that if I were in that position. I would resign.
 
Loss Leader said:
I guarantee that refusal to indict after receiving a recommendation from the reviewing Justice attorneys would result in mass resignations. As a lawyer, I feel that if I were in that position. I would resign.
Click to expand...
Much earlier in the email discussion thread I believe it was mentioned the wording of the report would not include recommendations.

I'll have to look into it.

Police present reports to prosecutors all the time that prosecutors don't choose to go forward with. I think it will depend on how minor the violation is, if any are reported.
 
 
 
TheL8Elvis said:
It's only been "hotly contested" by HDS sufferers [and all the Sanders supporters clinging to their fantasy].

The rest of us understand the she is the presumptive nominee.
Click to expand...

ftfy

Sanders has been stump speeching trying to salvage his early demise. He wanted that momentum of giving CA voters a reason to believe. Now he's shifting it to vote against 'unfair'.
 
Fantasy

Glenn Greenwald, journalist at The Intercept, criticized the AP story’s reliance on anonymous interviews of superdelegates. Greenwald wrote, “How can AP – or anyone – justify the concealment of the identity of the supposedly decisive super-delegates?”
Click to expand...

That is why HDS stands for Hillary Delusion Syndrome, folks
 
jhunter1163 said:
Why would someone title a file "secret win"? If I really wanted to keep a file secret, the last thing I would name it would be "secret".
Click to expand...

Keeping in mind that Hillary is a villain, and certainly a “big” and “evil” villain, there are lots of reasons to do this:

1. Makes it easier for the “good guys” to thwart you at the exciting climactic scene.
2. Keeps your “secret” files all nice and neat.
3. “Secretly” lets you gloat that you knew you were going to win all along.
4. Reasons.
5. Explains your “secret” plan in a paint-by-numbers manner that can easily be picked up by the internet.
6. Reasons.
7. Provides a clear “weakness” so that you can be easily defeated.
8. Allows you to utter the line, “Before I defeat you, I want you to know one thing . . .”
9. Gives you the chance to indulge in maniacal laughter at how foolish everyone else is before you hit “send”.
10. Reasons.
​

Thank you for your kind attention!
 
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...olluding-ap-announce-delegate-win-california/

BOOM! Hillary Clinton CAUGHT COLLUDING With AP to Announce Delegate Win Before California!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/author/jim-hoft/

"On Monday night – the day before California’s primary election – the Associated Press announced Hillary Clinton had finally secured enough delegates to win the Democratic Party nomination.
The Associated Press reported Hillary gained enough extra super-delegates to give her the 2383 delegates to secure the nomination.
But now there is evidence that this announcement the night before the nation’s largest primary was planned days in advance.
Via Mike Cernovich:
The graphic titled “Secret Win Version 2” was created days ago on June 4, 2016."


Bernie never stood a chance.
 
applecorped said:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...olluding-ap-announce-delegate-win-california/

BOOM! Hillary Clinton CAUGHT COLLUDING With AP to Announce Delegate Win Before California!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/author/jim-hoft/

"On Monday night – the day before California’s primary election – the Associated Press announced Hillary Clinton had finally secured enough delegates to win the Democratic Party nomination.
The Associated Press reported Hillary gained enough extra super-delegates to give her the 2383 delegates to secure the nomination.
But now there is evidence that this announcement the night before the nation’s largest primary was planned days in advance.
Via Mike Cernovich:
The graphic titled “Secret Win Version 2” was created days ago on June 4, 2016."


Bernie never stood a chance.
Click to expand...

Gateway Pundit reporting on news from Mike Cernovich!? My last bowel movement would produce more reliable news.
 
applecorped said:
Bernie never stood a chance.
Click to expand...

Exactly. He never had the popular support he or his more delusional supporters thought he did, nor did he have the support of the party he decided to join 6 or so months ago. When the people and the party don't support you, you don't stand a chance.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Isn't polling of primary races done by asking each of the people polled how they will be voting?
Click to expand...

No, polling is done by asking a representative sample of the people who are likely to vote in the primary who they are going to vote for, not every person.

Why not just declare the delegates based on the results of the polls? Sure there's a little bit of statistical error, and perhaps some small systematic bias, but if you average several different polls, you get a pretty good result.
Click to expand...

Because the polls aren't asking every person, but rather a sample of the people and then extrapolating the results. There is a time when every person is asked, and that does determine the total number of delegates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom