Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 25     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next   »
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #76 
http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-condemns-disavows-alt-right-defends-bannon/

Trump has had to distance himself from the far-right/neo-Nazi fringe that has tried to hijack his campaign, just as they have tried to hijack legitimate causes which includes, dare I say, infiltrating this forum and various social media sites. I am not kidding that they need to be weeded out because they do not serve our interests.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #77 
http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2016/11/21/billionaire-carl-icahn-weighs-official-role-with-trump.html

Carl Icahn? Just... NO. Everyone who knows the airline industry knows the story of how TWA was ran into the ground. By this guy. During his time in charge, TWA also retreated from Heathrow among other places. So did Pan Am, btw, who also sold off their Asia and Pacific routes to United. The airline industry has not recovered from the mayhem following D-Day in 1978.

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #78 
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/a-besieged-presidency-ahead/

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/watch-foreign-policy-in-americas-interest/

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/flynn-and-ledeens-imaginary-alliance/

It will be interesting to see what path Trump chooses as president. He seems to be giving so many mixed signals, in many areas, domestic and foreign. What he does about Justice Scalia's seat will be an indication of how he decides to proceed.

Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,103
Reply with quote  #79 
The transition is becoming less stable as days go on.  It is a transition like no other in the history of this republic.

Senior Trump officials are clashing over the possibility that he might appoint Mitt Romney as Secretary of State.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/28/politics/trump-conway-romney/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/28/politics/romney-secretary-of-state-criticism/index.html

Trump himself is starting a separate firestorm over the Secretary of State position by considering former disgraced CIA Director and four star General Petraeus for the post.  Petraeus left government in disgrace for sharing top secret information with his mistress who was writing a book about him.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-28/trump-to-meet-with-petraeus-as-contender-for-secretary-of-state

Wisconsin has approved a speedy recount of it's votes at the insistence of independent candidate Jill Stein.  The Clinton campaign said it will join the effort "to ensure all sides are treated fairly".

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/28/politics/wisconsin-recount/index.html

President-Elect Trump has rather bizarrely claimed that he actually won the popular vote if you eliminated "millions" of fraudulent votes cast illegally.  This is being called an outright lie in some reports, an unprecedented situation for an American head-of-state to be.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/politics/donald-trump-voter-fraud-popular-vote/index.html

A thinly veiled threat to prosecute Mrs. Clinton if she continues to pursue the recount with Ms. Stein was issued by Kellyann Conway, Mr. Trump's leading press spokesperson these days.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/27/trump-threatens-prosecute-hillary-clinton-pursues-election-recount.html

There is some controversy over the manner in which the President-Elect receives intelligence briefing, having turned away Intelligence officials who have tried to give him briefings recently.  Ms. Conway says the President-Elect has been receiving his intelligence information from other sources as well, raising alarm in some quarters as to who those sources might be.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/offered-daily-intelligence-briefings-trump-takes-pass

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-intelligence-briefings-number-of-sources-a7443021.html

But she did say that the President-Elect speaks to President Obama often, and that they got along well, and it would seem the outgoing president is the only one of his opponents that Trump's team are feeling any kind of warmth towards.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3976260/They-nicely-Kellyanne-Conway-reveals-Trump-Obama-speaking-regularly-won-t-say-president-elect-skipping-daily-intelligence-briefings.html

Ms. Stein is gearing up an effort to have a recount in Pennsylvania and Michigan in addition to Wisconsin in an effort to deny Mr. Trump the Presidency.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Despite-successful-fundraising-effort-recount-of-Pennsylvania-remains-difficult.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/27/jill-steins-wisconsin-recount-kicks-off-as-critics/

President Obama's administration is decidedly chilly towards the recount efforts.  The White House is denying that Russian Hacking swung the election for Trump.

http://www.businessinsider.com/audit-the-vote-recount-jill-stein-election-hillary-clinton-trump-2016-11

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/white-house-hackers-election-recount-231849

A Republican member of the Electoral College from Texas has resigned rather than cast his vote for Donald Trump, which he said would have been an un-Christian act.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-11-28/texas-elector-art-sisneros-to-resign-instead-of-voting-for-donald-trump

Other Texas electors are finding themselves heavily lobbied, even threatened, to change their votes to deny Mr. Trump the Oval Office.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/election/article116847928.html
 

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #80 
It will be interesting if he does choose Petraeus, given I believe he leans to the Democrats. He may be a good choice though, as a non-ideologue and a military man, he may be a realist. But his conviction, given Trump legitimately attacked Hillary for similar (actually worse), would be embarrassing.

There should be no threats to Clinton; there should be proper investigations in which the FBI are not hamstrung by political pressure (a grandjury should be empanelled, for example, which is basic in such cases - it didn't happen). The botched previous investigation may have prevented moving forward on some counts - for example, the inexplicable decision to let co-accused sit in on Clinton's FBI interview may rule out crucial testimony from Mills and Samuelson. Something needs to be done about Comey. He allowed a botched investigation (even if it was due to pressure from the DOJ and White House), he created a new category of extremely careless to not have to find Clinton criminally negligent, and he then reported on an ongoing investigation in the last weeks of the campaign (which the Democrats were legitimately annoyed at, as it is not usually done).
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,103
Reply with quote  #81 
I really don't think there is anything criminal there for them to prosecute Hillary Clinton for, otherwise the endless investigations (admittedly politically motivated) would have resulted in an indictment.  The whole "lock her up" rabble rousing was a deliberate ploy at grass roots Jacobinism with Secretary Clinton playing the role of a vilified Queen.  It is an old game played regularly by every republic to discredit elites.  The Trump camp were very adept at rousing their base with such slogans, but you will notice that once elected many of those demands have been bundled off the stage:
  • "Lock her up" has become "I don't want to hurt them"(referring to the Clintons)
  • "President Obama is the worst president ever" has become, "I have respect (for Obama)" and "I like President Obama".
  • "We will scrap Obamacare on day one" has become "We will keep parts of Obamacare
  • "We will build a wall" has become "it will be a fence in places, possibly an electronic fence"
The fact is that "small r" republicanism is at it's core the most shifty, most un-principled form of government, where the desires of the mob regularly pummel the rights of minority groups, and runs roughshod over them, where money is king, and where the loudest dominate the brightest.  It does however tend to protect it's privileged classes in a way that far exceeds traditional monarchial elites.  The American system is showing us all the weaknesses and evils of the tyranny of the masses, and republican democracy.

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,103
Reply with quote  #82 
The latest uproar over President-Elect Trump's statements involves his idea that people that burn the U.S. flag should be stripped of their citizenship or imprisoned.  The big problem is that such action would be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court having said in Texas vs. Johnson that burning the flag is covered by the Freedom of Speech clause of the Bill of Rights.  People seem to have forgotten that then Senator Hillary Clinton sponsored a law to ban flag burning, and failed to get it passed back in 2005.  It is also unconstitutional to strip someone of their citizenship for any crime.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/politics/trump-flag-burners-citizenship-first-amendment.html

http://thedailybanter.com/2016/11/trump-tweet-lose-citizenship/

https://www.rt.com/usa/368607-trump-flag-burning-citizenship/

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/fox-host-says-trumps-new-supreme-court-will-let-him-strip-citizenship-for-flag-burning/

Someone should disable Mr. Trump's ability to tweet.  It's just not working out well for him.

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #83 
No, there was only one criminal investigation into her use of a private email server, and that was unbelievably botched. Remember, Comey essentially indicted her, and then he walked it back with some very spurious reasoning (inventing a new category of grossly careless, though not criminally negligent). Andrew McCarthy presents the case well and is well worth reading. He, and his publication, is not especially a fan of Trump or his populism:

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2016-10-24-0100/hillary-clinton-fbi-obama-administration
Quote:

The details are complicated, naturally. Whenever something as straightforward as Hillary Clinton’s guilt is eradicated by dizzying theories that statutes are constitutionally infirm or evidence is lacking, it is because clever lawyers have obscured the forest by picking at the trees. But here, too, a couple of themes help us navigate the swirl. First, there is a way the Justice Department and the FBI go about things when they are trying to make a case versus not make a case. In the former, their default mode, they are aggressive — sometimes hyper-aggressive. In the latter, less frequent mode, they channel the defense lawyers they usually work against. In the Clinton investigation, the FBI became the defense lawyer.

Second, when convincing evidence shows that a suspect took every action necessary to violate a criminal statute, cases come down to the mental element that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt — mens rea, criminal intent. Contrary to the narrative spun by the president, Justice Department officials, media talking heads, and the FBI director, mens rea is neither complicated nor difficult to prove in most cases. People are presumed to intend the natural and foreseeable consequences of their actions. When a suspect has no defense for her actions, though, her lawyer is sure to claim that her intentions were ambiguous, even benign. Those are the cases that ought to be indicted and tried. When they are, juries tend to laugh the mens rea defense out of court. But the Obama Justice Department is chockablock with defense lawyers, so the FBI wasn’t laughing. This gets to the legerdemain at the heart of Director Comey’s recommendation against the prosecution of Clinton for felony mishandling of classified information. The former secretary patently violated the 1917 Espionage Act — specifically, the subdivision (section 793(f) of the federal penal code) that prohibits government officials with security clearances from exercising “gross negligence” in storing classified information outside its proper place of custody (e.g., the government’s secure classified e-mail system) or transmitting it to people not authorized to have it. Even by Comey’s account, Clinton and her underlings were “extremely careless” in their handling of top-secret intelligence. That’s the very definition of gross negligence. Yet Comey rationalized that the statute could not be applied to Clinton because Congress’s criminalization of mere “negligence” was constitutionally suspect; therefore, the theory went, the FBI could not greenlight prosecution absent proof of willful misconduct, a higher mens rea standard.

Needless to say, not only is Comey's theory nonsense, but it isn't his job to decide what is and is not constitutional, as McCarthy notes. Besides, as he notes, there actually is ample evidence she was willful in her misconduct.

Clinton was grossly negligent with her handling of confidential documents. By law, she is assumed to be able to reasonably foresee the consequences of her actions - as secretary of state and a long time government insider she knew she was risking national security. Clinton acted with intent - she knew what she was doing was wrong, and took measures to hide it. She even seems to have overseen efforts to destroy or hide evidence:

Quote:
As Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.) pointed out to Comey in a late-September hearing, false exculpatory statements are among the best proof of criminal intent. Clinton made them by the truckload: devolving, as the known facts grew worse for her, from assertions that she never sent or received classified information to the subtle amendment that she meant information “marked classified” to risible feigned ignorance about classified markings in her e-mails (pretending that she believed the ubiquitous “(C)” — for confidential — in classified documents had something to do with placing paragraphs in “alphabetical order”). Remarkably, however, Comey never considered Clinton’s testimony, rife with misleading assertions, before Gowdy’s House Benghazi Committee; and he rationalized that Clinton’s mendacious public statements were somehow irrelevant because she hadn’t lied directly to the FBI — a claim that proved indefensible when the Bureau’s report of Clinton’s FBI interview, replete with incredible statements and claims of memory lapse, was released on the sleepy Friday before Labor Day weekend. In essence, the FBI first strained to overlook powerful proof of willful law violation that would have made Clinton prosecutable under a different Espionage Act subsection, 793(e). Having thus tied its own hands, the FBI claimed it was stuck with trying to make the case under the supposedly problematic 793(f). On that score, it was preposterous for Comey to maintain that negligence (the usual standard for liability in civil cases) is not a valid predicate for criminal charges. Negligence is prescribed by legislatures as the mens rea element in criminal statutes involving extremely careless behavior that has catastrophic consequences — for example, states routinely prosecute negligent homicide.

The FBI investigation was a joke. It was obvious she was not going to be indicted when they let co-accused sit in her interview (where the FBI agents acted more as stenographers than FBI interviewers). This never happens and can compromise evidence. Besides, they hadn't even empanelled a grand jury, which is basic to such cases if they are being taken seriously. This meant that they couldn't act as they normally do, and just get warrants and subpoenas, but had to give Mills and the like immunity. Comey talked about no evidence of intent, but the interviewers didn't even follow up Clinton's answers on that question, or in other areas (she claimed she couldn't remember many things, because of her concussion - normally they would seek medical confirmation, but they didn't in this case). A very good case can be made for the charges of criminally mishandling evidence and destruction of evidence and perjury. It is an open question whether the case could proceed at this stage, especially given that key witnesses, like Mills and Samuelson, were compromised by sitting in on Clinton's FBI interview.

Then there is the issue of the Clinton Foundation. There are a lot of fishy going-ons there, although it is less clear cut to prove anything criminal occurred. Proper investigations of it have been squashed so far, though.

Certainly, there was much rabble-rousing done by Trump (and Clinton), including on this issue. But Clinton really does deserve to at least be properly investigated over it, and probably indicted and perhaps convicted.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #84 
Interesting interview from Steve Bannon a few years back:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.kfYdxyAMo#.kuBWZd73R
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,103
Reply with quote  #85 
Wessexman you may have a point about her being negligent, but was it criminally so, or was it even prosecutable?  Have other high government officials not done the same thing without facing even a single question never mind a massively expensive investigation that led nowhere?  They found no breaches of security, even among the copies they found on the disgraceful Mr. Wiener's personal computer, none.  Comey behaved horribly.  You are right that it was not his place to proclaim her "careless".  I hope that Trump manages to get rid of him somehow (rumor is that he would gladly get rid of him), but I'm not confident that he can.  Comey had one job, which was to determine if there had been criminality.  His other opinions were out of line, no matter how valid they might have been.    

The Clinton Foundation is very widely respected for the work it does around the world.  It is very unfortunate that the campaign tried to sully it.  The so called "fishy goings on" that  you mentioned have proven to be such hollow allegations under closer examination that nothing even comes up about them now that the campaign is over.  The Trump foundation on the other hand...[eek].  Let's not even go there....

I've never been a huge fan of the Clinton machine, but I will admit to having a huge preference for her over the President-Elect.  I think that she would have made a good President (as did a great majority of those who voted), and I am sadly sure that President Trump will not be, and his recent tweet feuds seem to indicate we are destined for pettiness not greatness in the coming years.  However, the system being what it is, Trump is president and she is not.  This whole re-count business by Jill Stein is contemptible to me.  Had she not run, Trump might not be President-Elect.  Instead of shouldering her own responsibility for this result, she's demanding recounts.  Greens! [rolleyes]

I sincerely hope that Trump chooses Romney for State.  He is a sane choice, unlike Giuliani who would be an unmitigated disaster (not to mention the vast potential for conflict of interest thanks to his many international business links). General Petraeus is simply too tainted.  Most officers recognize that he got off lightly for adultery when any of them would have faced serious consequences for just that, never mind sharing state secrets with his girlfriend.  The intelligence community would be very uncomfortable with him after what happened.  On the other hand I think again he'd be way better than Giuliani.  Cross party appointments to the cabinet are not uncommon.  Remember Secretary of Defense Gates was a Republican serving under President Obama.  There are several other examples.

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #86 
I don't think it was wrong for Comey to proclaim her careless. She was. The problem was the law criminalises gross negligence, yet Comey said she wasn't negiglent but extremely careless. This doesn't much sense. It was wrong he didn't indict her or even do a proper investigation. He claimed that there was no evidence of intent, yet the law presumes you have reasonable foresight of the consequences of your actions, and those consequences are that national security is endangered. Besides, there is ample other evidence of intent. The FBI ignored this and took her word for it. It seems highly likely foreign governments hacked into her server, though this doesn't have to have happened for her to be criminally negligent. She broke the letter of the law. No one of her rank has done what she did, despite what her camp sometimes implies. Lower ranking people, especially in the military, have often gone to prison for far less. One soldier or sailor took a picture of a file on his phone to work from home, for example. Clinton knowingly ignored regulations and the law, endangering national security, in order to avoid scrutiny by congress and the public, especially of the links between the foundation and her state department. It is true, though, Comey should not have announced the reopening of the case in October.

Yes, the foundation has done good work, although it also flies the Clintons round on private jets and that sort of thing. There does seem to be at least some questionable links between it, its donors, and Clinton's actions as secretary of state.

The central problem for me with Clinton is the absurdly politicised Supreme Court. The court is bad as it is. She'd have had an opportunity revive the worst days of the Warren Court. Besides, she is left-liberal and politically correct, and would have cemented Obama's legacy. I'm no fan of Trump, but I'm glad he won.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,103
Reply with quote  #87 
Quote:
I don't think it was wrong for Comey to proclaim her careless.


But this isn't a legal finding, it is an opinion (valid, but still just an opinion).  His task as part of law enforcement was to find criminal wrong doing, not to opine on her carelessness.  If he did not find criminality, it was not his place as a member of law enforcement to opine, that is the job of a prosecutor.  

Quote:
 It was wrong he didn't indict her or even do a proper investigation. He claimed that there was no evidence of intent, yet the law presumes you have reasonable foresight of the consequences of your actions, and those consequences are that national security is endangered. 


He is the Director of the FBI, not the Attorney General.  He has no power to indict anyone, only make a recommendation based on finding criminality which he did not.  That he volunteered an opinion of "carlessness" is actually ethically questionable since it is outside of his purview.  He can have a personal opinion and share it with whom he likes but making it part of his official report which should only be about whether he recomends indictment or not, shows bias on his part. 

Quote:
He claimed that there was no evidence of intent, yet the law presumes you have reasonable foresight of the consequences of your actions, and those consequences are that national security is endangered. Besides, there is ample other evidence of intent. The FBI ignored this and took her word for it


If you've seen "ample other evidence of intent" I'm sure congress would be eager to hear from you, but if there was any such evidence it wasn't enough even for a clearly hostile Comey or Congress.

Quote:
It seems highly likely foreign governments hacked into her server, though this doesn't have to have happened for her to be criminally negligent.

The FBI and the State Department have stated that they are certain that this did not happen (unlike the Democratic National Committee which clearly was hacked).

Quote:
No one of her rank has done what she did, despite what her camp sometimes implies.

How certain are you of that?  There is considerable feeling that this investigation didn't go further because there were other cases in the current and previous administrations that no one wanted brought up.  Anyway, that is a very definitive statement that cannot really be made with certainty.

Quote:
The central problem for me with Clinton is the absurdly politicised Supreme Court. The court is bad as it is. She'd have had an opportunity revive the worst days of the Warren Court. Besides, she is left-liberal and politically correct, and would have cemented Obama's legacy. I'm no fan of Trump, but I'm glad he won.
 

If you think the court is politicized now, just you wait till Trump gets his hands on it.  It's going to get even more politicized, and you'll see Republicans turning on each other over it.

Hillary Clinton would have been a competent President.  Maybe not a great one, maybe just ok, but Trump will not be competent, and is a disaster waiting to happen, a ticking time bomb.  She is smart, she is experienced, and knows how to play the game, and would have served the office well.  Trump is a bull in a China shop, an distinct non-Conservative who will end up driving his own team (actually Mike Pence's Conservative team) to distraction.  Let's wait and see, but I think we are in the New World Order where China and Russia are the emerging powers, and the United States will begin its fade out.

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,520
Reply with quote  #88 
Romney would be an unpopular choice among many Americans for one reason which is less to do with politics and more to do with religion.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,040
Reply with quote  #89 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethiomonarchist


But this isn't a legal finding, it is an opinion (valid, but still just an opinion).  His task as part of law enforcement was to find criminal wrong doing, not to opine on her carelessness.  If he did not find criminality, it was not his place as a member of law enforcement to opine, that is the job of a prosecutor.  



He is the Director of the FBI, not the Attorney General.  He has no power to indict anyone, only make a recommendation based on finding criminality which he did not.  That he volunteered an opinion of "carlessness" is actually ethically questionable since it is outside of his purview.  He can have a personal opinion and share it with whom he likes but making it part of his official report which should only be about whether he recomends indictment or not, shows bias on his part. 


He proclaimed her careless to shield her. He had to say something, as she seems, on the face of it, to have been negligent. He invented a category of extremely careless, so that he did not have to find her criminally liable. If he had simply let her off completely, the whitewash would have been even more obvious.

Quote:

If you've seen "ample other evidence of intent" I'm sure congress would be eager to hear from you, but if there was any such evidence it wasn't enough even for a clearly hostile Comey or Congress.


Congress is well aware. Andrew McCarthy, in that article, quotes from Trey Gowdy. Congress quizzed Comey at length about this. There doesn't technically have to be evidence of intent, as the situation clearly put national security at risk and it was foreseeable for someone in her position. But there were emails released that show intent to hide things from congress and the public. Besides, as Gowdy pointed out, lies to cover up are often used as proof of mens rea. Clinton lied in bucketfuls.  I see little evidence Comey was hostile to her. He allowed his FBI to be compromised by basically playing defence lawyers for her, and bent over backwards to get her off. Yes, he made the announcements late in the campaign that he shouldn't have, but some of that was to forestall leaks by FBI agents furious at the political cover-ups for Clinton.


Quote:
The FBI and the State Department have stated that they are certain that this did not happen (unlike the Democratic National Committee which clearly was hacked).



This is incorrect. They have stated that they do have no knowledge it happened, or cannot confirm it. But they hardly stretched themselves to find out, and it can be quite hard to confirm if the hackers are sophisticated. But we know foreign governments, both hostile and friendly, have been trying to get access to US government systems, and sometimes have. It seems quite probable some would have got access to the server, which was hardly secure from such actors. But it doesn't really matter. The fact she used such a server put national security at risk, and that is enough.


Quote:
How certain are you of that?  There is considerable feeling that this investigation didn't go further because there were other cases in the current and previous administrations that no one wanted brought up.  Anyway, that is a very definitive statement that cannot really be made with certainty.


Well, this is certainly the Clinton line, but it seems incorrect. They are referring to the use of private email accounts by Rice and Powell, not private servers, and not for the sending of classified documents. But it doesn't really matter. Clinton broke the letter of the law. Lesser personnel have certainly been held liable for far less than what she did. Surely we should demand more from higher ranking officials, not less. It isn't the job of the FBI or DOJ to play judge. As McCarthy points out, this is exactly what the DOJ tells investigators and prosecutors not to do. It isn't for Comey or even Lynch to try and get her off in this way.

To quote from McCarthy:

Quote:
Originally Posted by McCarthy


Apparently cognizant of the frivolousness of his constitutional claim, Comey concurrently relies on Justice Department tradition: Even if not invalid, 793(f) should not be applied, because the Justice Department nearly never applies it. This circular argument leads to the director’s astonishing conclusion that prosecuting Mrs. Clinton would amount to unequal protection of law: one punishing standard for her, a forgiving one for everyone else.

This is absurd. Mrs. Clinton’s case may be singular, but that is because of the breadth of its audaciousness. No official of such high rank has ever systematically conducted government business through unauthorized, unlawful channels, with the inexorable result that thousands of classified e-mails were generated and tens of thousands of government files — e-mails involving government business, whether or not classified — were destroyed (and even more had their destruction attempted). It is not invidious selective prosecution to subject an offense of unprecedented scope to prosecution under a perfectly fit statute, no matter how infrequently that statute has been used.

Just as significantly, several people have been prosecuted for gross negligence in mishandling classified information. The fact that these are military cases, not Justice Department prosecutions, does not nullify them, as Comey implies. In federal prosecutions, low-level U.S. officers were sent to prison and subjected to other penalties. Director Comey’s factitious distinguishing of these cases is meritless. They involve officials many rungs below Mrs. Clinton’s status who engaged in misconduct geometrically less serious in scope. So yes, there is a different standard of justice for Clinton, but it is laughable to suggest that she got the short end of that stick.

Read more at: https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2016-10-24-0100/hillary-clinton-fbi-obama-administration


Quote:
If you think the court is politicized now, just you wait till Trump gets his hands on it.  It's going to get even more politicized, and you'll see Republicans turning on each other over it.


I don't agree that there is an equivalency between those who respect original intent and precedent and aim to interpret the constitution as law, and those who disregard these for ideological purposes. I know the left likes to talk of Republican or rightwing judges, but the likes of Scalia, Alito, and Thomas actually treat the constitution and law as something beyond ideology. As far as I can see, this is the only way to stop the politicisation of the court and the undermining of the rule of law. Yes, it is not perfect - there are always some debates about original intent or precedent (and their relationship) - but respect for original intent, the plain meaning of terms, and precedent are the only means for limiting the influence of ideology on the law and the court. If Trump does appoint someone from the list he put forward, this alone seems to me to make him preferable to Clinton (who went further than Democrats usually do and explicitly stated a politicised vision for the court in one of the debates).

Edit: It is possible you are referring to the politicisation of the appointment process, not the Court's decisions themselves. I was more referring to the latter, although it is this latter that causes the former.

Quote:

Hillary Clinton would have been a competent President.  Maybe not a great one, maybe just ok, but Trump will not be competent, and is a disaster waiting to happen, a ticking time bomb.  She is smart, she is experienced, and knows how to play the game, and would have served the office well.  Trump is a bull in a China shop, an distinct non-Conservative who will end up driving his own team (actually Mike Pence's Conservative team) to distraction.  Let's wait and see, but I think we are in the New World Order where China and Russia are the emerging powers, and the United States will begin its fade out.


I'm not a Trump fan, but I have a somewhat different perspective. Clinton would have been a left-liberal and cemented the left-liberal ascendency in the US. As a conservative, I can't welcome that. You are correct that Trump is no conservative, but he will be a moderate, at least. For me, the worst thing about Trump was his election - he is a buffoon and a demagogue (although Clinton was a demagogue too), and represents a low in that regard. I doubt he will be that bad as president. He will probably govern as a pro-business moderate. Also, on foreign policy, Trump does give some signs he will be a realist, which seems to me preferable to Clinton's liberal hawkishness or the neo-con interventionism of much of the GOP establishment.


Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,103
Reply with quote  #90 
Well obviously we have many very basic disagreements Wessexman, but your points are very well argued.  

Quote:
I'm not a Trump fan, but I have a somewhat different perspective. Clinton would have been a left-liberal and cemented the left-liberal ascendency in the US. As a conservative, I can't welcome that. You are correct that Trump is no conservative, but he will be a moderate, at least. For me, the worst thing about Trump was his election - he is a buffoon and a demagogue (although Clinton was a demagogue too), and represents a low in that regard. I doubt he will be that bad as president. He will probably govern as a pro-business moderate. Also, on foreign policy, Trump does give some signs he will be a realist, which seems to me preferable that Clinton's liberal hawkishness or the neo-con interventionism of much of the GOP establishment.


We have considerable agreement on this point.  I do question however whether Hillary Clinton is really a left-liberal.  She's more left than her husband perhaps, but her leftism during this last campaign was new-found, and a reaction to the unexpected popularity of the Sanders campaign.  I have little doubt that once in office she would have joined the race to the middle that Clintonites always seem to take.  Even Obama is to her left, and he is nowhere as liberal as Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.  

As for Trump, while in my most optimistic moments I too am hopeful he will govern as a pro-business moderate, but I then watch the daily drama over what he's decided to tweet at 3 in the morning and fear that his impulsiveness, his lack of personal control, his vengeful pettiness will get the better of him and he will lead us into some ugly situations.  I am going to be praying very hard over the next few years I fear, but I hope you're right.


__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.