The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[Silat]

No. Neither will be fine with me thanks.

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton's top aide was given a limited immunity deal by the FBI in the investigation into Clinton's private email server, according to congressional sources Friday.

Cheryl Mills, Clinton's chief of staff and adviser at the State Department, was given the narrow immunity deal during the FBI's investigation into the former secretary of state's use of a private email server during her time in office.

"This is beyond explanation," Rep. Jason Chaffetz said in a statement. "The FBI was handing out immunity agreements like candy. I've lost confidence in this investigation and I question the genuine effort in which it was carried out. Immunity deals should not be a requirement for cooperating with the FBI."
More: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/politics/cheryl-mills-immunity-hillary-clinton-emails/

(That's 5 immunity deals known now, if anyone is counting..)
-----------------

"Three key witnesses to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server were given immunity from prosecution in exchange for their cooperation with the FBI’s investigation, a top U.S. congressman said on Friday. The revelation is certain to fuel Republican anger over the FBI’s handling of the Clinton investigation just days before she and GOP rival Donald Trump will face off at the first presidential debate.

Those who received the deals were Clinton’s former State Department chief of staff and her attorney, Cheryl Mills; Clinton aide and lawyer Heather Samuelson; and John Bentel, who ran the State Department's information resources management office when Clinton served as secretary.
Potential witnesses are only given immunity when investigators have concluded they cannot obtain the information they need from any other sources. That the three individuals were given deals indicates that the FBI felt their knowledge was vital to its investigation.

The immunity deals, which were first reported by the Associated Press and independently corroborated by The Daily Beast, shed new light on the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s server.
Bentel, who was aware that Clinton was using a private email server while she was secretary of state, was given immunity from prosecution for the improper transmission or storage of classified materials on unclassified servers, an individual with knowledge of the agreement told The Daily Beast.

The FBI found that some of the emails on Clinton’s server contained highly-classified information. In 2010, when two State Department employees asked Bentel why Clinton was using a private server, he told them that the matter had been reviewed by the department’s lawyers and that it “was not to be discussed any further,” according to the State Department inspector general.

Much more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ton-witnesses-were-given-immunity-by-fbi.html

fuckit:
Former Democratic Congressional Candidate Says Hillary Stole Nevada

Bernie Sanders Could Be the Democratic Hero in 2016 Victory
The most trusted man in national politics will lift Dem turnout

Breaking: Guccifer 2.0 Releases More DNC Docs, Exposing More Corruption
New evidence proves Clinton was always the Democratic choice

How Hillary Clinton helped create what she later called the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’

DONALD TRUMP EITHER LIED TO THE REPUBLICANS OR BROKE THE LAW (EXCLUSIVE)

I have no idea what your point is?
Limited immunity is standard.
No one wants to be punished by the bs of the reich wing hunt for nothing whatsoever.
It does not imply guilt or anything else.

 

[Silat]

Some did not like that I call ll Dooshy by his true family name. DRUMPF.
I call him that because he attacked others who as he said, "were so ashamed of their heritage that they changed their names".

Love this stuff...

"Donald’s grandfather, Friedrich Drumpf, was born in Kallstadt into a vintner’s family on March 14, 1869. Previous generations of the Drumpf family used variant spellings of the name, including “Drumpf,” “Dromb” and “Trumpff,” according to local historians, or even “Drumpf,” according to a 2000 family history by Gwenda Blair; but by the time Friedrich was born they had settled on “Drumpf.”

"He entered the U.S. through official channels, but he had left Bavaria illegally. “Both he and his mother must have known that he would not have been granted official permission to leave the country unless he had paid a bail guaranteeing that he would later return to do his mandatory military service,” said Roland Paul, the recently-retired director of the Institute for Palatinate Regional History and Folklife Studies in the city of Kaiserslautern.

According to documents uncovered by Paul, Friedrich was stripped of his Bavarian citizenship “as his own request” four years after arriving in the U.S."
http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-ancestry-forefathers-kallstadt/

 

[gangababa]

Equal opportunity debunking.
Lawyers told the Clinton underlings in the Congressional "throw-it-at-the-wall" (and nothing sticks) endless inquiry, that they were being set up for possible criminal prosecution by Congressional actions.
5th amendment rights protecting people from 5th-rate regressives. Or so I have heard, people are saying, just saying, I don't know, probably (Google it!).

Meanwhile, Clinton will be armed to smear Trump in his own mendacity and perfidy, like the nose of a not house-broken trumPET. He will be left with nothing but and bluster and a plethora of ISM's (yuuugly yuuucky).
On Tuesday morning the right will be all over the spin that Hillary was mean to Donald.
Clinton Campaign: Trump Cannot Pass Debate Test If He Repeats These Debunked Lies

 

[Joel W.]

I have no idea what your point is?
Limited immunity is standard.

Can you elaborate when it is??

Types[edit]
Immunity of government officials[edit]
Many forms of immunity are granted to government officials to enable them to carry out their functions without fear of being sued or charged with a crime for so doing:

• Absolute immunity, a type of immunity for government officials that confers total immunity when acting in the course of their duties
• Qualified immunity, in the United States, immunity of individuals performing tasks as part of the government's actions
• Judicial immunity, immunity of a judge or magistrate in the course of their official duties
• Parliamentary immunity, immunity granted to elected officials during their tenure and in the course of their duties
• Speech and Debate Clause, a provision in the United States Constitution that provides immunity to members of Congress for statements made
• Sovereign immunity, the prevention of lawsuits or prosecution against rulers or governments without their given consent
  • Sovereign immunity in the United States, the legal privilege by which the American federal, state, and tribal governments cannot be sued

Grants of immunity are particularly important in intergovernmental relations, where traditions have arisen to prevent the diplomatic representatives of a country from being harassed by their host countries.

• Diplomatic immunity, agreement between sovereign governments to exclude diplomats from local laws
• Immunity from prosecution (international law), exclusion of governments or their officials from prosecution under international law
• State immunity, principle of international law that the government of a state is not amenable before the courts of another state

Such immunities may be granted by law (statutory or constitutional) or by treaty.

Immunity of citizens participating in the legal process[edit]

• Amnesty law, a law that provides immunity for past crimes
• Spousal privilege, also called spousal immunity, protects a spouse from testifying against the defendant
• Witness immunity, immunity granted to a witness in exchange for testimony
• Reporter's privilege, a limited First Amendment right many jurisdictions by statutory law or judicial decision have by which journalists may not be prosecuted for protecting their confidential sources fromdiscovery[2]
• Charitable immunity, immunity from liability granted to charities in many countries from the 19th century to the mid-20th century

Such immunities may be granted by law or, for witness immunity, by prosecutors or other authorities on a case by case basis, commonly as an agreement with the witnesses.

 

[Silat]

I would pick:

• Witness immunity, immunity granted to a witness in exchange for testimony

And that does not mean any crimes have been committed.

 

[Joel W.]

I would pick:

• Witness immunity, immunity granted to a witness in exchange for testimony

And that does not mean any crimes have been committed.

Thanks and agreed. That was my guess also, but I am not familiar with the "limited" part..

Edit: Partial immunity means that they will only receive immunity for some of the charges, not for all... hmm/

edit2: Matthew Whittaker, another former federal attorney says the Clinton aides were “treated differently than any other investigation has ever been done.” Mills got the immunity deal after refusing to let investigators examiner her computer, according to the Associated Press,

 

[Silat]

Edit: Partial immunity means that they will only receive immunity for some of the charges, not for all... hmm/

There are no charges
And there will be no charges as no crimes have been committed.


And Matthew Whittaker is a reich wing nutcase.
Nothing he says has validity.

 

[grokit]

Interesting;

Qualified immunity, in the United States, immunity of individuals performing tasks as part of the government's actions​

might also apply

 

[Joel W.]

There are no charges
And there will be no charges as no crimes have been committed

That's a stretch for me but ok... Considering they had immunity from any crimes they might have committed. lol..

 

[Msek]

Here's another commentary listing why Trump is/will win.

A little lighter fare, Jimmy is a hoot... still plenty butt sore about Bernie.

 

[ClearBlueLou]

That first video? Perfect proof that ignorant idiots often only seem like they're stoned: too bad he's not playing for laughs - but that guy's not funny, he's careless, lazy, vague, and condescending ('clueless hipsteroid disdain' - how's that?): if HE (or his arguments) represents why "Trump will win", you've just set my mind and heart at great ease, thank you.

Your askance view of Sanders & his supporters is noted.

You & Saul Alinsky have a nice weekend!

 

[His_Highness]

There are many who believe that the first debate will be the truth-teller in terms of who will win the election. I'm not sure the first debate will be the only factor in the remainder of the election but it very well could be.

When Bill Maher debated Kellyanne Conway it gave me chills because it demonstrated a road-map to a republican debate win. It also demonstrated that pressure points like 'Is this what you want your children to emulate' weren't the wooden stake to the heart you would hope it would be.

I like Bill a bunch but there are times when he's a cringe inducing asshole doing a democratic version of FAUX news. The leftist force is strong with Bill and he was somewhat of a proxy for Hillary that night.

I'm clinging to the hope that:
- Kellyanne's personality and delivery is softer and less childish than Trump and that's part of the reason she handed Bill his ass.
- Hillary will be more effective than Bill because Bill's job is to add entertainment to the mix and he's not required to exude a presidential demeanor the way Hillary is.

I'm so excited about the debate Monday and I'm really fucking scared at the same time.

 

[TeeJay1952]

@hishighness All in the eye of the beholder. I saw same and thought Bill crushed the equivocating, non answering, obvious political hack who was doing it for the money.

 

[cybrguy]

When Launching Nukes Isn’t Really About Launching Nukes
by David Atkins
September 24, 2016 7:00 AM

The results of a recent poll showing that large percentages of voters think that Trump will use a nuclear weapon and default on the nation’s debt have been raising eyebrows, and rightly so. About half the country doesn’t just think that Trump is crazy. They think he’s crazy enough to destroy the world’s economy and potentially annihilate the human race. That’s kind of a big deal.

But what’s even more interesting is how many of Trump’s own supporters agree. A full 22% of Trump supporters think he would launch a first strike nuclear attack. Think about that. More than 1 in 5 Trump voters think he would launch a nuke first–and they support him, anyway.

Now, it’s entirely possible that there are some nuts out there who believe this and actually think it’s a good idea–that somehow everyone else in the world is so subhuman and weak, and Trump so tough, that America could launch nukes at an enemy and come out the better for it somehow. I’m sure those people exist, but it’s not one tenth of America. It’s not 30 million American citizens who actually believe.

No, what’s going on here is just another facet of what Martin Longman already put so eloquently a few days ago in regard to birtherism and why Trump isn’t suffering anger from his own base for rejecting it:

There’s more truth in this than I’d like to admit, but the key is that few people took Birtherism seriously on its merits. They just liked that it was a big middle finger to the president and that it made the liberals go nuts. They knew what Trump was up to, in other words, so they don’t judge him now on his truthfulness.

What Birtherism has in common with other Trump gambits is disrespect for people in power and authority. So, going after the Bush family or McCain or the senators and governors Trump ran against in the primaries, these are all part of the same phenomenon, they have the same appeal, and they are judged with the same lack of concern for factual accuracy. If you saw how these people turned Trayvon Martin into a thug and George Zimmerman into a well-funded hero, none of this should shock you. Because it’s not just giving a big F.U. to the political and media establishments. It’s also about fighting back against a culture that suddenly cares about black lives, that insists on the legitimacy of gay relationships, that celebrates people who won’t stand for the national anthem.​

It’s not that Trump supporters really think that launching a first strike nuclear attack is such a great idea. It’s not so much that they think he would actually do it.

What they know is that Trump is just crazy enough to do it, and that the eggheads who supposedly run America would be shocked and appalled by the consequences both moral and geopolitical. That makes Trump supporters happy. They feel so rejected and left behind by the modern world that their one political goal is to make the sort of people who read the Washington Monthly fearful and uncomfortable. The more we “tsk tsk” them and call them deplorable, the more they smile. They thrive on our condescension, and live to shock us.

Ttrump’s supporters have lost so much faith and trust in the establishment that they don’t believe there’s any shock to the deep state apparatus and to the cultural or financial elite of the country that would be worse than continuing to let them run the show. Trump and his supporters’ bigotry and unbridled belligerent glee is now its own reward just to see the looks on our faces–the racism is less for its own sake than it is a form of shock-value rebellion, much like a teenager getting a lip piercing and tattoo just to annoy Daddy.

That, more than the actual bigotry itself, is the most dangerous aspect of our current political moment. These people have lost faith that anything any “serious” person says matters at all, even if it’s that we maybe shouldn’t launch nukes as a first resort–much less that we should cooperate with international partners on climate change.

On one hand, it’s appalling and dangerous. On the other hand, it’s hard to blame them too much given how poorly elites have performed over the last few decades. The left isn’t too far behind the right in its contempt on that front, and for some pretty good reasons.

 

[His_Highness]

@hishighness All in the eye of the beholder. I saw same and thought Bill crushed the equivocating, non answering, obvious political hack who was doing it for the money.

I don't disagree with your assessment of Kellyanne or of the methods she used in answering/debating with Bill. Even before last week I had commented on how the Trumpets use those debate methods to their own advantage. It frustrates the crap out of me when they do the defer, deflect and non-answer answer......because it works. It's like trying to catch a greased pig.

But....In terms of how well she did....I'll quote Bill "Gotta give it to ya. You did it." And...the body language, and look on both their faces also told a story for me.

......maybe it's my affinity for blonds though

 

[grokit]

If I vote for killary it will be strictly out of self-interest on a single issue: health care.

There's a new study out that says 20 million people would lose their health insurance under drumpf's plan, while millions more would benefit from clinton’s. The ACA isn't perfect and could use some shoring up.

If I write bernie in, it would be to make a political statement that reflects my values. Of course if the trumpoclypse happens it would be nice to say that I voted against it, rather than just not for it.

So two birds with one vote, means I'm probably going with health care

Trump’s healthcare plan would raise costs, while Clinton’s plan would insure more people.
A new study sheds light on the healthcare plans proposed by presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

The Commonwealth Fund study, released on Friday, was conducted by “Christine Eibner and colleagues at the RAND Corporation,” using “RAND’s COMPARE microsimulation model to estimate how the candidates’ proposals would affect health insurance coverage, the federal deficit, and consumers’ out-of-pocket health care spending.”

As NBC News explains, the analysis determined that Trump’s plan “would cause about 20 million to lose coverage,” while Clinton’s plan “would provide coverage for an additional 9 million people.”

Noting the two plans’ “stark differences,” the Associated Press reports that “Republican candidate Trump would repeal ‘Obamacare’ and replace it with a new tax deduction, insurance market changes, and a Medicaid overhaul. Democrat Clinton would increase financial assistance for people with private insurance and expand government coverage as well.”

Sara R. Collins, Vice President for Health Care Coverage and Access at The Commonwealth Fund, provided further analysis on the study in an additional To the Point post.

According to Collins, “Hillary Clinton’s proposals might be best described as enhancements to the ACA and Donald Trump’s as replacements for the ACA.”

Collins summarized the plans as follows:

In summary, Hillary Clinton’s health care proposals would maintain and extend existing affordable insurance coverage, providing insurance to millions more people than would Donald Trump’s proposals. Clinton’s proposals also lower consumers’ out-of-pocket spending on average. Trump’s ACA repeal and replacement options would make insurance coverage in the individual market more expensive on average, with some proposals resulting in low- and moderate-income families paying more than higher-income people. In contrast, Clinton’s proposals maintain the progressivity of the ACA insurance expansions—lower-income people would pay less for coverage than higher income people—while providing some savings to people across the income spectrum.​

Collins goes on to explain that, while both Clinton and Trump “emphasize improving the quality of health care and the performance of the health system,” Clinton’s plan offers the following three distinctions from Trump’s:

• “Clinton proposes dedicating more resources to ensuring that people in poor neighborhoods and rural areas have access to primary care services.”
• “She wants greater integration of mental health services and physical health care”
• And she “also offers a number of new proposals to provide help for families caring for older relatives or family members with Alzheimer’s disease, as well as people with drug or alcohol addiction.”

http://samuel-warde.com/2016/09/20-million-lose-healthcare-trump-plan-according-new-study/


Oh yeah grandma and grandpa don't care about any of this; they just want to stop orange hitler:

 

[Amoreena]

... If I write bernie in, it would be to make a political statement that reflects my values. ...

You remind me of this:

 

[CarolKing]

I believe Trump is too dangerous, more dangerous than Hillary Clinton. I think a nuclear war is a worrisome thing when it comes to Trump. He doesn't use common sense. He rules with his feelings. Not a good attribute in a presidents or a leader. The emails seem like a little thing when we think of the big picture.

I'm having a hard time understanding voting to make a statement, not when the election is so risky this time around. More than ever in my lifetime. Our well being is at stake more than ever before.

The black lives matter folks could be an off shoot of how Trump is causing division in our country. Causing a terrible dark cloud it seems like. Am I being over dramatic? Is it just me?

The debate will be interesting and nerve racking at the same time. Hopefully Trump will be at his most horrible best.

Mark Cuban will be sitting in the front row. Trump just tweeted maybe Jennifer Flowers can sit next to him. Keep tweeting Mr Trump. Ha ha ha. KellyAnne Conway better be babysitting this weekend. Interesting too we haven't seen much of Malania Trump since the RNC convention. Maybe some embarrassment from the speech.

 

[TeeJay1952]

I think it has more to do with all those unarmed "filmed" shootings.
Trump is more a sign of "I am hurting, Feel my pain!"

 

[grokit]

You remind me of this:

This kind of attitude actually makes me want to double-down on bernie.

Decisions! Like it even matters (depending on state).

 

[Joel W.]

I am starting to think that trump was a failed attempt to make Hillary look good, again.

 

[Msek]

That first video? Perfect proof that ignorant idiots often only seem like they're stoned: too bad he's not playing for laughs - but that guy's not funny, he's careless, lazy, vague, and condescending ('clueless hipsteroid disdain' - how's that?): if HE (or his arguments) represents why "Trump will win", you've just set my mind and heart at great ease, thank you.

Your askance view of Sanders & his supporters is noted.

You & Saul Alinsky have a nice weekend!

Hey back @ClearBlueLou, glad to be of service. ;>) You should click on that dudes About Page.
As mentioned before I have followed this thread a while, left leaning dialog is not unexpected in this forum, the lack of empathy and reasoned debate is quite obvious though. The ridicule is toning down, although fear mongering is arising to do battle for the faithful.
Opinion is also well represented, to the point of faith.
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

As for Bernie, the draw of power and staying in power produces gerrymandering etc. I have met folks that vote for anybody but the incumbent, to the point of disregarding their stance on the issues even, as a reset vote to prevent kingdom building. The citizens on the west side of the cascade mountains determine the vote in Washington state. The DNC super delegates provided me a slight glimpse of the frustration a conservative voter residing here must feel at times. Empathy is a good thing.

Championing your goals and ideas for a better society is great, debate away, attacking the person vs the ideas, not so much. I will stop now, later Msek.

As for Saul
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_senior_thesis

 

[Silat]

Kellyanne's personality and delivery is softer and less childish than Drumpf and that's part of the reason she handed Bill his ass.

Interesting.
I saw it completely the opposite.
The Drumpf mouthpiece showed that she would lie in the face of multiple facts.
Bill had a list of Drumpf quotes that he used that proved she was lying.
Even in the face of those she lied straight faced.
She could/would not answer direct questions.
Instead she brought up Hillary.
She lost.

 

[macbill]

 

[Amoreena]

This kind of attitude actually makes me want to double-down on bernie. ...

Which brings to mind this fact:

... Bernie is no longer running and the choice for President doesn't include him.