The OFFICIAL Trump/HRC/2016 General Election Thread...

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So was the "You'd be in jail" simply a laugh line, or do you think there was a nugget of truth to it? That he would have an investigation then put her in jail fair and square.

Certain Trump haters will no doubt land on the side of him being a fascist dictator will say and do fascist-dictator-things. But people like me that look at the information we were presented and with the FBI directors' own words, believe justice was not done and as I said above, believe he meant "you'd be in jail" if an honest investigation was done.

 

[T.Lex]

She has everybody in her corner. whitehouse, FBI, "justice" department.
It is and was political corruption at its finest.
Hell comney had to put "intent" into a law from thin air to attempt justify no prosecution.
Who do you think told him and lynch to let this go?

See, when people know things, some things look different.

"Intent" is a necessary element of crime. It is absolutely part of any investigation.

You can't (generally) negligently be guilty of a crime. That's a Good Thing.

Certain Trump haters will no doubt land on the side of him being a fascist dictator will say and do fascist-dictator-things. But people like me that look at the information we were presented and with the FBI directors' own words, believe justice was not done and as I said above, believe he meant "you'd be in jail" if an honest investigation was done.

No. An "honest investigation" might amount to charges. Charges = a trial. We do not know how a trial would end up.

It is a huge jump to say charges would've meant a conviction.

Again, that is a Good Thing.

I do not know if there was an "honest" investigation. Superficially, to the extent the reporting on it has been honest, it seems like a professional investigation of a close case. I can absolutely see that a conviction would've been difficult to obtain in our system.

Of course, if we want to copy/paste all the INGO arguments about whether the system is rigged, let's just skip it, eh?

For someone campaigning to be the executive branch leader to pre-judge a case is troubling, to say the least.

 

[printcraft]

You don't think clinton intended to hide evidence from the American people?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

You don't think clinton intended to hide evidence from the American people?

I didn't see him say that.

Can you prove she intended to? We may think she did, and she probably did... but can it be proven, given her excuses?

 

[1DOWN4UP]

 

[T.Lex]

You don't think clinton intended to hide evidence from the American people?

To borrow a phrase, at this point, what does it really matter?

You don't think Trump intends to hide evidence of wrongdoing from the American people? Would Trump supporters care? (Meant rhetorically - no one Trump supporter can answer for all, obviously.)

HRC is a fundamentally flawed candidate and poor campaigner. The punch line is that the GOP nominated the only person who was a more flawed candidate and worse campaigner.

 

[Thor]

List of Hillary Tax Hikes | Americans for Tax Reform

So Hillary supporters...25% National Gun Tax and doubling the Federal Excise Tax on guns...we can all see what you really think of the 2nd amendment now, it's yours if you can pay the government for it and pass its tests.

Never mind that 65% Inheritance Tax...

Vote with pride D's! Vote with pride. After all, it's someone else's money and you don't like them anyway.

 

[printcraft]

I didn't see him say that.

Can you prove she intended to? We may think she did, and she probably did... but can it be proven, given her excuses?

30000 emails deleted AFTER subpoena? Bleachbit?
WTF guys.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

The EPA has shut down the only bullet lead smelter in Mo.Ammo has doubled in price.Add another 25% on top of that,not to add the Govt selling all new ammo it can buy,to our "Friends."

 

[ArcadiaGP]

30000 emails deleted AFTER subpoena? Bleachbit?
WTF guys.

I understand that. But how do you prove that it wasn't done in the interest of security? I think that's the biggest hurdle

 

[printcraft]

LULZ

 

[T.Lex]

30000 emails deleted AFTER subpoena? Bleachbit?
WTF guys.

What WTF?

Ok.

Her guilt or not-guilt doesn't matter in the context of whether Donald understands how the system works - or cares. Could she be found guilty by a jury? Sure. Could she be acquitted? Yeah.

Do you think Donald understands that a fair trial has to come before a conviction? If you think he does, where has he said such a thing? He might've and I missed it.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

LULZ

You're right. I never thought of it from this elaborate and well-phrased point-of-view.

This is definitely a "lulz" Presidency.

Thanks for your genius insight on the subject and response to my question.

 

[dusty88]

Maybe it's just that Trump would have a Justice Dept, FBI, administration that couldn't be bought on an airport tarmac? One that would actually transparently enforce and follow the law?

NeverTrumpers are reaching?

I don't know. He can appoint a few people but he does not and should not have control over the result.
I'm not a "nevertrumper" by the way though compared to the Trumpsters here I suppose it appears that way.

HRC's weaknesses are a given here on INGO.
What is missed here on INGO is that many other people see Trump as much or more of an authoritarian than they see HRC.
While I applauded the "you'd be in jail" comment, I don't think independents did. They may agree she is dishonest but they also see Trump as a bully. And he isn't taking his controversial audio comments as seriously as some people think he should.

It's a playground shouting match and winning the shoutdown just isn't that impressive.

 

[printcraft]

What WTF?

Ok.

Her guilt or not-guilt doesn't matter in the context of whether Donald understands how the system works - or cares. Could she be found guilty by a jury? Sure. Could she be acquitted? Yeah.

Do you think Donald understands that a fair trial has to come before a conviction? If you think he does, where has he said such a thing? He might've and I missed it.

I understand that. But how do you prove that it wasn't done in the interest of security? I think that's the biggest hurdle

Come on..... did Petraus or any of the plethora of others prosecuted for mishandling classified materials have intent to break the law?

You're right. I never thought of it from this elaborate and well-phrased point-of-view.

This is definitely a "lulz" Presidency.

Thanks for your genius insight on the subject and response to my question.

(is that better?)

 

[T.Lex]

Come on..... did Petraus or any of the plethora of others prosecuted for mishandling classified materials have intent to break the law?

Ok. I admit I may not be fully aware of all the facts.

Petraeus gave classified information to an author who did not have clearance who then announced it (some time later) at a conference.

To whom did Clinton send classified information who was not cleared to have it? Sidney Blumenthal? My understanding is that he sent her classified information, not the other way around. Again, open to additional facts on this.

 

[Vigilant]

Ok. I admit I may not be fully aware of all the facts.

Petraeus gave classified information to an author who did not have clearance who then announced it (some time later) at a conference.

To whom did Clinton send classified information who was not cleared to have it? Sidney Blumenthal? My understanding is that he sent her classified information, not the other way around. Again, open to additional facts on this.

All of her lawyers! They were not cleared, and were given access to her devices to decide what was private and personal, and what was DoS business. Just allowing them (uncleared) access is a crime!

ETA: devices as opposed to just laptops

 

[T.Lex]

All of her lawyers! They were not cleared, and were given access to her devices to decide what was private and personal, and what was DoS business. Just allowing them (uncleared) access is a crime!

Do you mean after the investigation began, or they were original recipients?

After the investigation began, they are allowed to - either subsequent to a background check/approval by the FBI or by court order.

Otherwise, it is a deprivation of counsel.

ETA: devices as opposed to just laptops

I do not understand this clarification.

 

[foszoe]

I didn't see him say that.

Can you prove she intended to? We may think she did, and she probably did... but can it be proven, given her excuses?

Deleted emails after a subpoena is not intent? It qualifies as negligence?

You and T.LEX have made me change my mind in the past but you've got a real uphill climb on this one.

 

[foszoe]

What WTF?

Ok.

Her guilt or not-guilt doesn't matter in the context of whether Donald understands how the system works - or cares. Could she be found guilty by a jury? Sure. Could she be acquitted? Yeah.

Do you think Donald understands that a fair trial has to come before a conviction? If you think he does, where has he said such a thing? He might've and I missed it.

Yes. The phrase special prosecutor.