Duckk said take Mrs Clinton\not in jail here.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... rt-date-f/

As I said, I reserve judgement. The case has been dismissed and now reopened. Sort of like Mrs. Clinton's situation. Of course these aren't criminal charges where Mrs. Clinton's are.

Excuse me? WHAT charges, criminal or otherwise, have been filed against Clinton?


And if there was a democratic candidate who had an extended history of sexually inappropriate behavior towards women, had at least three times (that I am aware of) been accused of rape or attempted rape *before* their presidential run, had over a dozen women come forward saying he had inappropriately touched them after being caught on tape bragging about how his celebrity let him get away with sexual assault while facing a pending case for the sexual assault of a minor you would be having a stroke if anyone just hand waved that all away as not worth consideration.

You are right. No charges, but only an investigation into possible criminal activities on the part of Clinton.

Apologies.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
As I said, I reserve judgement. The case has been dismissed and now reopened. Sort of like Mrs. Clinton's situation. Of course these aren't criminal charges where Mrs. Clinton's are.

Excuse me? WHAT charges, criminal or otherwise, have been filed against Clinton?


And if there was a democratic candidate who had an extended history of sexually inappropriate behavior towards women, had at least three times (that I am aware of) been accused of rape or attempted rape *before* their presidential run, had over a dozen women come forward saying he had inappropriately touched them after being caught on tape bragging about how his celebrity let him get away with sexual assault while facing a pending case for the sexual assault of a minor you would be having a stroke if anyone just hand waved that all away as not worth consideration.

Dismissed on jurisdiction grounds, not evidental.

Not that it will ever get to trial. Trump on the stand about any sexual impropriety would be suicide.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Actually, stuff like that really does need to go to trial.

Going back to a different thread, what I'd do if president, baring out of court settlements for certain classes of law suits is something worth looking at.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:Actually, stuff like that really does need to go to trial.

Going back to a different thread, what I'd do if president, baring out of court settlements for certain classes of law suits is something worth looking at.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I don't disagree. It does need to go to trial.

A minor point. For any US citizens complaining about the outsiders here not having a stake in your election, the crazy scenario where the FBI's stating that they are looking into emails held by a third party that just possibly might on the 32nd day of some unknown month have a tenuous connection to Clinton, caused the polls to bounce towards Trump, this has led to a variable slide of stock markets world wide averaging about 1.5%, which in turn has slashed several thousand dollars out of my retirement stash. I'm tempted to buy gold in case he wins.

Daryl wrote:A minor point. For any US citizens complaining about the outsiders here not having a stake in your election, the crazy scenario where the FBI's stating that they are looking into emails held by a third party that just possibly might on the 32nd day of some unknown month have a tenuous connection to Clinton, caused the polls to bounce towards Trump, this has led to a variable slide of stock markets world wide averaging about 1.5%, which in turn has slashed several thousand dollars out of my retirement stash. I'm tempted to buy gold in case he wins.

Sorry, Daryl, but you are off the mark. Clinton destroyed governmental records housed in a private server through gross negligence. The FBI found this to be true and stated this in July. That investigation should have uncovered this source (Weiner) of additional emails as part of a thorough investigation. It did not, but has since discovered them in another investigation. That has led the FBI investigating not only her and her staff's handling of confidential information, but also the Clinton Foundation.

They faced a quandary. Allow the American voter to vote with incomplete information or divulge the information so that we can make a decision based on as complete information as possible. Comey chose to do the honorable thing just as he did in July (much as that prior decision irked me). The timing sucked but so what? Allowing the American voter to elect a President under investigation without knowing it is truly playing the Pretorian Guard.

You can wish that we elected someone under criminal investigation to comfort your sense of concern. I for one would prefer more information on the candidates so that I may make the best choice possible. Yes, this revelation supports my contentions all along so it is no hardship.

Yet to wish as you did that we voters remain in ignorance to soothe your prejudice is beneath you. That's what your comments amounted to: withholding information to confirm judgements made without information/evidence. Or in other words, don't let the facts influence our opinion. Choosing to do this for one's own opinion is delusional. Choosing to do that for others without their knowledge or consent is a violation of trust at the very least and clearly shoving one's self interest ahead of everyone else's.

Which is pretty much what our elites have been doing to us that sparked all this support for Trump to begin with.

PeterZ wrote:Yet to wish as you did that we voters remain in ignorance to soothe your prejudice is beneath you. That's what your comments amounted to: withholding information to confirm judgements made without information/evidence. Or in other words, don't let the facts influence our opinion.

What Facts?

Comey didn't release any facts. "There are e-mails on someone else's laptop, we don't know what's in them but maybe there will be something that matters after we look that possibly maybe has anything problematic to do with Clinton" isn't providing the public with any facts to base decisions on. It's just speculation and innuendo.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Yet to wish as you did that we voters remain in ignorance to soothe your prejudice is beneath you. That's what your comments amounted to: withholding information to confirm judgements made without information/evidence. Or in other words, don't let the facts influence our opinion.

What Facts?

Comey didn't release any facts. "There are e-mails on someone else's laptop, we don't know what's in them but maybe there will be something that matters after we look that possibly maybe has anything problematic to do with Clinton" isn't providing the public with any facts to base decisions on. It's just speculation and innuendo.

But he did release that she was under investigation. That is helpful. If that doesn't concern anyone, it will not influence the election. If it does, then that WILL influence the election. The choice belongs to the voter.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Yet to wish as you did that we voters remain in ignorance to soothe your prejudice is beneath you. That's what your comments amounted to: withholding information to confirm judgements made without information/evidence. Or in other words, don't let the facts influence our opinion.

What Facts?

Comey didn't release any facts. "There are e-mails on someone else's laptop, we don't know what's in them but maybe there will be something that matters after we look that possibly maybe has anything problematic to do with Clinton" isn't providing the public with any facts to base decisions on. It's just speculation and innuendo.

Exactly. Not one piece of actual information about potential wrong doing. Just a speculative hand grenade thrown out at the worst possible time. Perception is everything, and this unfairly alters that. If it happened here the Federal Police Chief would be out of work regardless of who won.