2016 Presidential Horse Race

[connor_in]

Agree. These people are ALL lawyers. They knew EXACTLY what this meant. Lynch, I believe didn't intend for this, but failed to prevent it. But I'd bet the farm this was calculated to have an impact.

It may well be that Ms. Lynch WAS doing what she says (letting the FBI do their thing)...and the Clintons didn't like their chances in a fair assessment...so being the Clintons, they decided to remove Lynch from the critical path timeline to a Hillary presidency. Knowing full well if she gets elected, the game is over.

I believe either or both of delay, and Lynch recusal was their motive here. They are going to get at least one if not both. They will have derailed any real chance Trump had....which was a Hillary indictment.

Lynch was never going to indict HRC

 

[connor_in]

If anyone can post that clip from Raleigh last week of Hillary reading off the teleprompter a bit too literally, it is hilarious.

So it said "sigh" and instead of sigh'ing she says "sigh" to cap off whatever pandering remarks she is regurgitating. And people wonder why Trump gets so much latitude for his buffoon off the cuff remarks - the level of programing of these charlatans is beyond offense and not lost on the "stupid" underclass.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/E_J1yRCLS2A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[phgreek]

Lynch was never going to indict HRC

Probably not...but, the Clintons don't pull stunts for attention...this was intended to do something...

 

[woolybug25]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGD8gJt7weU

This is a good way to handle the issue of choosing between evil and a con artist.

I wonder how Gary Johnson will progress going forward? Typically, the third party candidate has always been an extreme like Perot, Nader, etc. They have never had a message that speaks to anything but a minority voter bloc. I would vote for him under one of the following conditions:

1) He had a rat's ass chance of winning
2) I knew a vote for him hurt Trump. Voting against Trump without voting for Hilldog would be a win for me. I would vote for an unbuttered slice of white bread over Trump.

 

[ACamp1900]

State Department seeks 2-year-plus delay in suit for Clinton aides’ emails - POLITICO

Unreal... so Bill Clinton has a "chance" (lol) meeting with Loretta Lynch, then next thing you know the State Department is asking for a TWO YEAR DELAY in releasing the emails. Convenient.

Also, State Department has been for some time refusing to honor any FOI request pertaining to Clinton until after the election.

Can't wait to hear Eddy's spin on why this is totally OK and no big deal because she has a "D" next to her name.

Bush lied.

People died.

 

[drayer54]

I wonder how Gary Johnson will progress going forward? Typically, the third party candidate has always been an extreme like Perot, Nader, etc. They have never had a message that speaks to anything but a minority voter bloc. I would vote for him under one of the following conditions:

1) He had a rat's ass chance of winning
2) I knew a vote for him hurt Trump. Voting against Trump without voting for Hilldog would be a win for me. I would vote for an unbuttered slice of white bread over Trump.

I think he will wildly surpass his last performance, but I think he just needs to get his name out there. Trump isn't even close, so I think the protest vote at best in this environment of two awful choices is warranted. Plus, they have an excellent record. Especially, Weld.

 

[woolybug25]

I think he will wildly surpass his last performance, but I think he just needs to get his name out there. Trump isn't even close, so I think the protest vote at best in this environment of two awful choices is warranted. Plus, they have an excellent record. Especially, Weld.

Who in your opinion does a vote for him hurt more?

I ask, because as of now, I'm voting for Hilldog. Not because I like her, I think she'll be a disaster, but at least she won't be a tyrant. So my vote wouldn't be a "protest" vote. It would be a proxy vote for Trump.

 

[MJ12666]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/E_J1yRCLS2A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is really hilarious. What a phony. Just I haven't seen anything about this on the news. If it was Trump I would bet that it would be played on every network.

 

[MJ12666]

Probably not...but, the Clintons don't pull stunts for attention...this was intended to do something...

Actually from the report I saw last night it really was suppose to be a clandestine meeting. A local reporter was informed by a source at the airport that the meeting was taking place. I think he said the plane was in a hanger but I am not 100% sure of this as I was working at the time. This local reporter was the only one who reported the story initially or it would never have been reported.

 

[EddytoNow]

State Department seeks 2-year-plus delay in suit for Clinton aides’ emails - POLITICO

Unreal... so Bill Clinton has a "chance" (lol) meeting with Loretta Lynch, then next thing you know the State Department is asking for a TWO YEAR DELAY in releasing the emails. Convenient.

Also, State Department has been for some time refusing to honor any FOI request pertaining to Clinton until after the election.

Can't wait to hear Eddy's spin on why this is totally OK and no big deal because she has a "D" next to her name.

Wait no longer. Both sides have been dragging their feet for political reasons. Hillary Clinton left her job as Secretary of State following the 2012 election. She's admitted making a mistake in judgement by having a private e-mail server. The Republicans have had what, 8 or 9 investigations without finding anything substantial? Clinton faced 11 hours or so of hostile questioning last Fall on Benghazi and other issues. Both Clinton and the Republicans have dragged this out for four years. The Republicans want an election-year issue to hang around Hillary's neck. Hillary wants it to go away or at least to fade into the background until after the election. What exactly do the Republicans hope to find in the e-mails of Hillary's staff?

Let's face it. The Republicans have been on a fishing expedition for the past four years. Their latest committee on Benghazi found nothing criminal on Hillary's part, and that frustrates them. If anything, the Republicans share in the blame for having the embassy understaffed. It was they who cut the funding.

Searching through all the e-mails of Hillary's staff is just more of the same. Delaying the release of the staff e-mails prevents the Republicans from conducting their witch hunt full of unproven allegations prior to the fall election. Perhaps, the Democrats should ask for copies of all of Donald Trump's e-mails over the last four years. You know what he'd say to that. You wouldn't want your children within earshot of his response. He hasn't even released his income tax returns.

Hillary will get elected this fall. Before she's completed her first year in office, the Republicans will have an impeachment committee up and running. It won't matter if she is doing a good job as president or not. Her name is Clinton.

I'm not even a big Hillary supporter. I voted for Bernie in the Michigan primary, and my ideal Democratic ticket would have consisted of Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. But if I've got to have either Hillary or the Donald as my president, I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary. A Trump presidency is far too risky.

 

[MJ12666]

New story on Foxnews.com regarding recently released Clinton e-mails:

Hedge fund manager Marc Mezvinsky had friends in high places when he bet big on a Greek economic recovery, but even the keen interest of his mother-in-law, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, wasn't enough to spare him and his investors from financial tragedy.

In 2012, Mezvinski, the husband of Chelsea Clinton, created a $325 million basket of offshore funds under the Eaglevale Partners banner through a special arrangement with investment bank Goldman Sachs. The funds have lost tens of millions of dollars predicting that bailouts of the Greek banking system would pump up the value of the country’s distressed bonds. One fund, exclusively dedicated to Greek debt, suffered near-total losses.

Clinton stepped down as secretary of state in 2013 to run for president. But newly released emails from 2012 show that she and Clinton Foundation consultant, Sidney Blumenthal, shared classified information about how German leadership viewed the prospects for a Greek bailout. Clinton also shared “protected” State Department information about Greek bonds with her husband at the same time that her son-in-law aimed his hedge fund at Greece.

That America’s top diplomat kept a sharp eye on intelligence assessing the chances of a bailout of the Greek central bank is not a problem. However, sharing such sensitive information with friends and family would have been highly improper. Federal regulations prohibit the use of nonpublic information to further private interests or the interests of others. The mere perception of a conflict of interest is unacceptable.

 

[drayer54]

Who in your opinion does a vote for him hurt more?

I ask, because as of now, I'm voting for Hilldog. Not because I like her, I think she'll be a disaster, but at least she won't be a tyrant. So my vote wouldn't be a "protest" vote. It would be a proxy vote for Trump.

A vote for a libertarian hurts whoever your first choice is between Hilldog and Trumpers. In general, I think it will hurt Trump significantly more than Hillary overall. Trump's unfavorable ratings and performance where it matters is so far from competing that I think it's a matter of margin for Hillary. However, if picking the two best candidates for the job is something that interests you, I would go Johnson/Weld.

 

[ND NYC]

real campaign doesn't start until after Labor Day.

Everything before that is static.

 

[woolybug25]

A vote for a libertarian hurts whoever your first choice is between Hilldog and Trumpers. In general, I think it will hurt Trump significantly more than Hillary overall. Trump's unfavorable ratings and performance where it matters is so far from competing that I think it's a matter of margin for Hillary. However, if picking the two best candidates for the job is something that interests you, I would go Johnson/Weld.

I'll definitely keep an eye on it. There is no question that they would get my vote if polling showed that Republicans were voting for them more than Democrats. But if polling is showing the opposite at the time of the elections, I can't let my voice be one for Donald.

I really hope that they start making moves and I can have a candidate that I actually want as president vs the lesser of two evils. Even if they don't win, I would be pleased that my vote didn't contribute to Trump becoming President and that I didn't have to vote for Hilldog to do it.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

real campaign doesn't start until after Labor Day.

Everything before that is static.

Is this a general statement about the primaries? Because if so, I completely disagree. What transpired over this past primary season was anything but "static."

 

[drayer54]

New story on Foxnews.com regarding recently released Clinton e-mails:

Hedge fund manager Marc Mezvinsky had friends in high places when he bet big on a Greek economic recovery, but even the keen interest of his mother-in-law, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, wasn't enough to spare him and his investors from financial tragedy.

In 2012, Mezvinski, the husband of Chelsea Clinton, created a $325 million basket of offshore funds under the Eaglevale Partners banner through a special arrangement with investment bank Goldman Sachs. The funds have lost tens of millions of dollars predicting that bailouts of the Greek banking system would pump up the value of the country’s distressed bonds. One fund, exclusively dedicated to Greek debt, suffered near-total losses.

Clinton stepped down as secretary of state in 2013 to run for president. But newly released emails from 2012 show that she and Clinton Foundation consultant, Sidney Blumenthal, shared classified information about how German leadership viewed the prospects for a Greek bailout. Clinton also shared “protected” State Department information about Greek bonds with her husband at the same time that her son-in-law aimed his hedge fund at Greece.

That America’s top diplomat kept a sharp eye on intelligence assessing the chances of a bailout of the Greek central bank is not a problem. However, sharing such sensitive information with friends and family would have been highly improper. Federal regulations prohibit the use of nonpublic information to further private interests or the interests of others. The mere perception of a conflict of interest is unacceptable.

How is this not illegal? Using secret information and government offices for trading advantages? I wonder if this is what Bill was talking about on the runway with the attorney general?

 

[IrishLax]

Wait no longer. Both sides have been dragging their feet for political reasons. Hillary Clinton left her job as Secretary of State following the 2012 election. She's admitted making a mistake in judgement by having a private e-mail server. The Republicans have had what, 8 or 9 investigations without finding anything substantial? Clinton faced 11 hours or so of hostile questioning last Fall on Benghazi and other issues. Both Clinton and the Republicans have dragged this out for four years. The Republicans want an election-year issue to hang around Hillary's neck. Hillary wants it to go away or at least to fade into the background until after the election. What exactly do the Republicans hope to find in the e-mails of Hillary's staff?

Funny how you mistakenly replaced "the Federal Bureau of Investigation" with "Republicans."

Let's face it. The Republicans have been on a fishing expedition for the past four years. Their latest committee on Benghazi found nothing criminal on Hillary's part, and that frustrates them. If anything, the Republicans share in the blame for having the embassy understaffed. It was they who cut the funding.

Searching through all the e-mails of Hillary's staff is just more of the same. Delaying the release of the staff e-mails prevents the Republicans from conducting their witch hunt full of unproven allegations prior to the fall election. Perhaps, the Democrats should ask for copies of all of Donald Trump's e-mails over the last four years. You know what he'd say to that. You wouldn't want your children within earshot of his response. He hasn't even released his income tax returns.

Hillary will get elected this fall. Before she's completed her first year in office, the Republicans will have an impeachment committee up and running. It won't matter if she is doing a good job as president or not. Her name is Clinton.

I'm not even a big Hillary supporter. I voted for Bernie in the Michigan primary, and my ideal Democratic ticket would have consisted of Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. But if I've got to have either Hillary or the Donald as my president, I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary. A Trump presidency is far too risky.

Classic. You type four paragraphs and barely address at all what the actual issue we're talking about. Half your post is about Benghazi because...? You do know that an FBI investigation is not a "Republican witch hunt."

So here are two direct questions (I have little hope of you answering them, given your penchant for not ever answering straightforward questions with straightforward answers):
1. Do you support the ethics of Loretta Lynch's "chance" meeting with Bill Clinton? Do you take the cover story at face value?
2. Do you support the administration thumbing their nose at a federal court order for strictly political reasons?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

New story on Foxnews.com regarding recently released Clinton e-mails:

Hedge fund manager Marc Mezvinsky had friends in high places when he bet big on a Greek economic recovery, but even the keen interest of his mother-in-law, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, wasn't enough to spare him and his investors from financial tragedy.

In 2012, Mezvinski, the husband of Chelsea Clinton, created a $325 million basket of offshore funds under the Eaglevale Partners banner through a special arrangement with investment bank Goldman Sachs. The funds have lost tens of millions of dollars predicting that bailouts of the Greek banking system would pump up the value of the country’s distressed bonds. One fund, exclusively dedicated to Greek debt, suffered near-total losses.

Clinton stepped down as secretary of state in 2013 to run for president. But newly released emails from 2012 show that she and Clinton Foundation consultant, Sidney Blumenthal, shared classified information about how German leadership viewed the prospects for a Greek bailout. Clinton also shared “protected” State Department information about Greek bonds with her husband at the same time that her son-in-law aimed his hedge fund at Greece.

That America’s top diplomat kept a sharp eye on intelligence assessing the chances of a bailout of the Greek central bank is not a problem. However, sharing such sensitive information with friends and family would have been highly improper. Federal regulations prohibit the use of nonpublic information to further private interests or the interests of others. The mere perception of a conflict of interest is unacceptable.

Is FOX saying that Hillary gave this Bozo inside information about the situation and he still crashed and burned horribly?

Get the fuck out!

 

[Bubbles]

Insider trading laws deal with the sharing on non-public information, not the outcome of said sharing.

 

[RDU Irish]

Insider trading laws deal with the sharing on non-public information, not the outcome of said sharing.

Might be a convenient grey area - not US market based securities so maybe not illegal. Besides the fact it was likely one of a multitude of similar communications - the son-in-law probably sells his "fund" with the wink/wink, nod/nod of having Hilldog inside info to manipulate foreign markets. His comp is performance fees and AUM fees, might not have a dollar at risk! For a guy like that to be running $300-$400 million with a 1-2% fee plus 20% performance juice isn't bad living.

The morality of it is unquestionable though. Those folks are pros at turning politics in to personal profits, you really think they wouldn't set Chelsea up for a seat at the table?

Not to mention the outcome of losses - amongst the super rich, they know investments can go bad - nobody bats 1.000.

 

[ND NYC]

Is this a general statement about the primaries? Because if so, I completely disagree. What transpired over this past primary season was anything but "static."

no, just in terms of the actual presidential elections-not the food fight that (naturally) precedes it in the primaries.

the vast majority of the electorate will really begin to focus on their choice in the fall IMO.

(there's always the political junkies that live and breathe this shit since primaries began, but that is a small number of the overall voting population.)

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/OITNB?src=hash">#OITNB</a> <a href="https://t.co/juEhxkMjYo">pic.twitter.com/juEhxkMjYo</a></p>— Adam Baldwin (@AdamBaldwin) <a href="https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/748965650928852993">July 1, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish YJ]

 

[EddytoNow]

Funny how you mistakenly replaced "the Federal Bureau of Investigation" with "Republicans."



Classic. You type four paragraphs and barely address at all what the actual issue we're talking about. Half your post is about Benghazi because...? You do know that an FBI investigation is not a "Republican witch hunt."

So here are two direct questions (I have little hope of you answering them, given your penchant for not ever answering straightforward questions with straightforward answers):
1. Do you support the ethics of Loretta Lynch's "chance" meeting with Bill Clinton? Do you take the cover story at face value?
2. Do you support the administration thumbing their nose at a federal court order for strictly political reasons?

1. Yes, I believe it was a coincidental meeting. If Bill Clinton wanted to influence the decision of the Attorney General, he could have arranged a much more private setting for his meeting. The Clintons may be conniving, but they're not stupid. And Loretta Lynch handled the fall-out about as well as anyone could. She promised to follow the recommendations of the FBI personnel that are actually conducting the investigation. Nothing about her career suggests that she won't do just that.

2. No, I don't support any administration Democrat or Republican thumbing their nose at a court order. I won't remind you of all the times the Bush administration did something similar. The State Department should make every effort to produce the documents asked for as quickly as possible.

Now, my questions awaiting your answers.

1. What specifically do the Republicans think they will find in these e-mails? And before you say its the FBI and deny Republican culpability, who was it who demanded multiple investigations? Are the Republicans looking for something specific or are they looking for anything that offers political fodder?

2. Do you think that Hillary's e-mails while Secretary of State would even be an issue if Romney had won the 2012 election and the Clintons would have faded into the background? Would anyone even care about Hillary Clinton, if she didn't pose such a great obstacle to the Republicans regaining the Whitehouse?

I'll remind you again. I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton. But when the other choice is a self-centered egomaniac, Hillary Clinton looks pretty good in comparison.

 

[IrishLax]

Now, my questions awaiting your answers.

1. What specifically do the Republicans think they will find in these e-mails? And before you say its the FBI and deny Republican culpability, who was it who demanded multiple investigations? Are the Republicans looking for something specific or are they looking for anything that offers political fodder?

You want me to speak for the collective mind of Republicans? I would answer this question if it was possible, but I literally have no way of knowing what "Republicans" think they will find.

And, as much you seem to fight this distinction, it's not their investigation. That's just a fact. For contrast to the Benghazi investigation... where you had elected, registered Republican party members "investigating"... this is handled by the FBI and will be prosecuted by the (D) controlled branch of government.

2. Do you think that Hillary's e-mails while Secretary of State would even be an issue if Romney had won the 2012 election and the Clintons would have faded into the background? Would anyone even care about Hillary Clinton, if she didn't pose such a great obstacle to the Republicans regaining the Whitehouse?

It obviously wouldn't be national news if she wasn't a prominent figure running for the White House. It registers on the scale of news how it does not because it's an investigation into a truly heinous criminal offense, it's because of who is being investigated. So, again, I'm not really sure where you're going with this question? It basically answers itself, IMO. Same reason no one cares about the divorce of an average person but Kim Kardashian getting divorced would be national news. Same reason no one cares about strategic bankruptcies of other businessmen in this country, but everyone (rightfully) gives a shit about Trump's business record.

I'll remind you again. I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton. But when the other choice is a self-centered egomaniac, Hillary Clinton looks pretty good in comparison.

Sure, same reason I'm voting enthusiastically for Hillary. If you're "no fan of her", I'd argue you're at minimum incredibly loyal to Democrat party though.

 

[drayer54]

1. Yes, I believe it was a coincidental meeting. If Bill Clinton wanted to influence the decision of the Attorney General, he could have arranged a much more private setting for his meeting. The Clintons may be conniving, but they're not stupid. And Loretta Lynch handled the fall-out about as well as anyone could. She promised to follow the recommendations of the FBI personnel that are actually conducting the investigation. Nothing about her career suggests that she won't do just that..

Yes, they aren't stupid that is why this was a planned and public meeting... ohh wait, it was an accident that they got caught. Lynch wouldn't have given two shits about the meeting and cloud of skepticism had the one reporter not busted the stupid meeting. The Clinton's are capable of anything and this is a reminder that they are still a shady power couple who only want more power.

 

[woolybug25]

Take this with a grain of salt, as I am not a Trump guy whatsoever. But don't be fooled that the meeting wasn't intentional.

Both parties have extensive security details. Both of which, are not related by department. So a meeting between these people was allowed by probably a dozen security agents. It's not a "chance meeting" in the sense that both parties had to actively allow it to happen.

What I find interesting, is that she immediately recused herself of reversing any decision by a group of people that are simply put... No, excuse me... Specifically a group of lawyers. If this faceless, unaccountable group of lawyers agree that there is no wrongdoing, then it is her responsibility to either except or deny their findings. I find that interesting.

Love or hate them. The Clintons are expert politicians. Trump may be able to shoot someone in public and lose no voters, but I'm pretty sure the Clintons could do so and not even get prosecuted.

 

[connor_in]

Take this with a grain of salt, as I am not a Trump guy whatsoever. But don't be fooled that the meeting wasn't intentional.

Both parties have extensive security details. Both of which, are not related by department. So a meeting between these people was allowed by probably a dozen security agents. It's not a "chance meeting" in the sense that both parties had to actively allow it to happen.

What I find interesting, is that she immediately recused herself of reversing any decision by a group of people that are simply put... No, excuse me... Specifically a group of lawyers. If this faceless, unaccountable group of lawyers agree that there is no wrongdoing, then it is her responsibility to either except or deny their findings. I find that interesting.

Love or hate them. The Clintons are expert politicians. Trump may be able to shoot someone in public and lose no voters, but I'm pretty sure the Clintons could do so and not even get prosecuted.

This article's source puts the blame on Bill with Lynch taken off guard

EXCLUSIVE: Security Source Details Bill Clinton Maneuver to Meet Loretta Lynch | | Observer

However Lynch did not really recuse herself

Attorney general won’t recuse herself in Clinton email case

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Friday that she planned to take a step back in the case involving the handling of sensitive information stored on Hillary Clinton’s personal email server but would not flat-out recuse herself.

Lynch said she still intended to review the case but expected to accept the recommendation of investigators and prosecutors at the FBI and Justice Department.

“The recommendations will be reviewed by career supervisors in the Department of Justice and in the FBI, and by the FBI director, and then, as is the common process, they present it to me and I fully expect to accept their recommendations,” Lynch said while speaking at the Aspen Ideas Festival.

As others have put it, this is very Clintonian language. She may be genuine, but she did give herself an out since she didn't directly say I WILL accept their recommendations.


{Footnote, see "it depends on what your definition of is is" & "wipe? you mean like with a cloth"}

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

1. Yes, I believe it was a coincidental meeting. If Bill Clinton wanted to influence the decision of the Attorney General, he could have arranged a much more private setting for his meeting. The Clintons may be conniving, but they're not stupid. And Loretta Lynch handled the fall-out about as well as anyone could. She promised to follow the recommendations of the FBI personnel that are actually conducting the investigation. Nothing about her career suggests that she won't do just that.

2. No, I don't support any administration Democrat or Republican thumbing their nose at a court order. I won't remind you of all the times the Bush administration did something similar. The State Department should make every effort to produce the documents asked for as quickly as possible.

Now, my questions awaiting your answers.

1. What specifically do the Republicans think they will find in these e-mails? And before you say its the FBI and deny Republican culpability, who was it who demanded multiple investigations? Are the Republicans looking for something specific or are they looking for anything that offers political fodder?

2. Do you think that Hillary's e-mails while Secretary of State would even be an issue if Romney had won the 2012 election and the Clintons would have faded into the background? Would anyone even care about Hillary Clinton, if she didn't pose such a great obstacle to the Republicans regaining the Whitehouse?

I'll remind you again. I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton. But when the other choice is a self-centered egomaniac, Hillary Clinton looks pretty good in comparison.

So you really believe the meeting of the Attorney General and a former president whose wife is under FBI investigation is coincidental? The Democratic party LOVES voters like you haha.

 

[NorthDakota]

So you really believe the meeting of the Attorney General and a former president whose wife is under FBI investigation is coincidental? The Democratic party LOVES voters like you haha.

Yeah....uh.... coincidence....lol