Observer
-
Posts
800 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Observer
-
-
POLITICO: Swing-state stunner: Trump has edge in key states.
“New swing-state polls released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University show Trump leading Clinton in Florida and Pennsylvania — and tied in the critical battleground state of Ohio. In three of the states that matter most in November, the surveys point to a race much closer than the national polls, which have Clinton pegged to a significant, mid-single-digit advantage over Trump, suggest.” Trump’s not a typical GOP candidate, which means that traditional election models won’t work very well.
Its this kind of answer that makes me think that even a flawed candidate like Trump has a chance.........
Quinnipiac poll question: The old way of doing things no longer works and we need radical change. Strongly/somewhat agree:
FL - 71%
OH - 73%
PA - 72%
RCP has Clinton up by 3 in PA. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html
PA hasn't gone R in almost 30 years...since 1988. Called a battleground state but hasn't been one in a while.
-
Can someone explain to me how a cop can racially profile a person driving a car?
Seriously, I can't even tell who's driving until I'm next to someone. Most of the time, you can't even see because of the window tint unless you look through the rear-view mirror.
You'd make a bad cop.
-
That's the first thing I've seen from his campaign that is thought out, coherent, and not bug!@#$ insane.
When they start asking him questions next week, the train will get back off the rails. No worries.
-
He can speak for 7 minutes on a topic but expect a lot of repetition.
When I was at Trump Arena next to Trump Tower inside the Trump Salon getting a Trump haircut thinking about Trump Largo and my Trump Cruiseline, build a wall. How much time left?
-
Yes he was lying. How can you not charge someone with at least obstruction when they admit to willfully destroying evidence pertaining to the case you are investigating?
The AG can charge her. The FBI Director was tasked with looking into her possible guilt with respect to the two statutes mentioned before.
Comey had to play the hand he was given. You don't understand it. That's OK. Comey wants another shot at Clinton but with a broader mandate--he was seething while testifying. He can't stand her.
I would not be shocked if she was indicted in a second pass.
-
Yes it was. You can try to convince yourself otherwise if it makes you feel better.
So you think Comey was lying today when he said he was not asked by Congress to look into whether Clinton lied (or obstructed)?
Today and yesterday I saw a man who is seething at Clinton but was handcuffed by his legal duty to investigate Clinton under certain statutes quoted earlier in this thread by me. Comey would love a broader mandate. And given it, will come back with a much different result. Clinton is a long ways from out of the woods.
You let your uniform get in the way of your vision. Clinton is in deep crap but got off because an honest guy followed his mandate.
Comey did everything he could over the last two days to ask for another bite at the apple of this investigation. He's going to get it.
-
Destruction of evidence in a case looking for evidence is illegal.
But not what the FBI was referred to investigate.
-
LOL!
It's a legal question. Intent to what?
She was hiding/destroying evidence like a MFer but Comey was not asked to look into perjury or obstruction (yet).
-
Dear God, Comey admits under oath her attorneys scrubbed devices in a way to prevent forensic recovery
.. Astounding
Surely there’s no inference of intent to be drawn from this.
.
Intent to what?
-
If he makes Scott Walker his running mate and promises to quit after the election, I'm all in!
If he promises to quit if he wins, he can nominate my left sock.
If he attends the presidential debates as suggested today, 2 of them are long format (15 minutes per topic!!). He was a targically silent figure when the debates turned substantive in the home forum of the Republican debates. Can you imagine him staring at a mic for 7 minutes and trying to talk sensibly?
-
Trump is the idiot's idiot. He toys with the idea of quitting if elected.
WTF?
Presented in a recent interview with a scenario, floating around the political ether, in which the presumptive Republican nominee proves all the naysayers wrong, beats Hillary Clinton and wins the presidency, only to forgo the office as the ultimate walk-off winner, Mr. Trump flashed a mischievous smile.“I’ll let you know how I feel about it after it happens,” he said, minutes before leaving his Trump Tower office to fly to a campaign rally in New Hampshire. -
Interesting to review the statutes in the context of a criminal investigation.
Statute 1: 18 U.S.C.A. § 1924(a)
“Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. “
Here none of the documents were actually classified when she used the server. Even if they were later deemed classified, she had no knowledge of their classified designation when removed.
Statute 2: 18 U.S.C.A § 793(f)
“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
This is the espionage statute. It requires--as interpreted by the Supreme Court--intent to harm the US:
The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.Comey hit the right target, and carefully worded his statement. What Hillary did was wrong, reckless, and probably would get anyone in that position fired or sanctioned. But it was not criminal at least according to the FBI. And that's the only thing he could say given the statutes he had to work with.
Now, I'm not sure why she wouldn't be charged with obstruction or some other crime based on her complete dishonesty in the investigation but that's not the question Comey could answer. That's something for the AG to decide.
-
Glad that's settled.
-
Safe to say Messi has no idea who Kelly is!
-
Trump is only 2 pts back in the latest Quinnipiac poll, even though he's spent just about nothing compared to Clinton.
6 points according to most polls and the RCP average. The Fox polling is usually the best and has him at 6.
And in the battleground states, he's getting shellacked. It's early but it ain't looking pretty.
Hillary is a flat criminal but she controls her soundbytes.
-
How is this woman still a serious candidate for President of the United States! What is wrong with you people
She's a disaster but wait until you see the guy she's running against!
-
Hussein is as Hussein does.
A friend of mine moved here from India to go to grad school on September 10th. He met his roommate on September 11. The roommate's name: Osama Hussein.
Apparently a great guy but tough draw on the naming.
-
Don't you have a prostate exam or two to give, or need to put in orders to give some grandma a program of progressively stronger morphine injections or something? Maybe you should get back on your Midol drip, or at leas have a Snickers.
Attacking a guy for his profession? Like being a doctor is a bad thing?
Imagine a board where we stuck to issues.
-
Right, not a binding referendum. Like if Remain had won, that would not have been endorsed immediately by Parliament as the will of the people
If REMAIN had won, no action would have been needed by Parliament if it wanted to follow the referendum. REMAIN is a vote for no change.
-
Sure, but you can be a fascist without being a Nazi. I was just curious for clarification.
You've obviously missed his white power posts. (No, I'm not kidding although I accused him of being a second hogboy.)
-
In a Representative Democracy, yes. Representatives are elected to vote on issues on the constituents behalf
However a referendum is Direct Democracy. Elected representatives are bypassed and the issue is voted on directly by the voters
You don't understand the Brexit referendum. It's not binding on the representatives. That's why I asked the question.
-
I think you misunderstand how the Brits select their Prime Minister. The voters do not pick the PM.
Parliament not enacting the Brexit would be like an American states Electoral College members not casting their vote for the winner of their state. Just cuz, well they know better than the great unwashed masses
If you were an elected official and were anti-abortion, but your discrict was pro-choice, how would you vote when pro-choice legislation arrived at your desk?
Your conscience that got you elected? Against your conscience and following the masses?
Elected officials should do the former and the electorate can vote them out if they don't like it.
-
Define "a meaningful way." I'm guessing you mean "Amnesty."
Not necessarily. It's a thorny issue. You can't boot everyone out. You can't just waive a magic wand and grant amnesty. But tackling it in an honest way requires some decision to set up an achievable way to let productive members of our society, including illegals, join it.
The left and right need to find a way to work together to tackle this (and so many other) problems. The tenor of both sides is division but division accomplishes dick.
-
I'm not here to comment on what Bman implied with his statement but the Brexit vote was not a "conservative" vote. It was a vote against the status quo, a vote against free trade, a vote against more immigration and a vote of frustration for the middle class.
Their anxieties are well-placed but I'm not so sure that their votes were. To be honest, I haven't read enough of the pros and cons to form a sound opinion on whether or not the vote will be a net positive but I'd venture to guess that it won't be.
Also, I'm not sure that I've heard the term "elites" as often as I've had to describe the opposition as much as I've heard over these past few days.
Is that the new populist parroted term that the cool kids are saying now a days?
The Brexit vote is not cleanly conservative, but it's interesting that US conservatives are mostly supporting the LEAVE result, despite it being a vote against free trade. Conservatives were once the party of free trade and now have become protectionists who don't believe in open trade. It's a curious turn to find them in bed with trade unions and the left.
That conservatives (the current crop of them) vote anti immigration is no shock. There was a moment here where it seemed the right in the US might tackle immigration reform in a meaningful way, but the Trump ascendency ensures that won't happen.
Is John Kerry on Something...?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Why are you promoting a relationship between Iran and the Orlando shooter?
And the world is safer today than at nearly any time in human history, histrionics about mass shootings, BLM, and terrorism notwithstanding.
Our species-narcissism forces us to always think we're in the worst time but not many humans in our past would trade backwards, and if they did, I'll have what they're smoking.