4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 25, 2016 14:10:23 GMT
I thought it was crooked... Figured he was looking in a mirror. The Dumb Clown. (He got a mention in School of Rock last night, to many titters from the audience) Heh. Have Avenue Q finally found a replacement for the 'George Bush' line? |
|
1,320 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Oct 26, 2016 16:09:52 GMT
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Oct 26, 2016 17:36:45 GMT
Heh. Have Avenue Q finally found a replacement for the 'George Bush' line? Has anyone recently seen Avenue Q on Broadway? Do they actually say "Donald Trump is only for now!"? |
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Oct 28, 2016 6:07:11 GMT
Maybe I'm the only one, but the more I see and hear from Michelle Obama, the more I think she'd be a better president than Hillary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 28, 2016 19:17:21 GMT
Maybe I'm the only one, but the more I see and hear from Michelle Obama, the more I think she'd be a better president than Hillary. Almost anyone would be. Almost. I see the FBI have re-opened their inquiry into her, about time. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 8:54:38 GMT
Almost anyone would be. Almost. I see the FBI have re-opened their inquiry into her, about time. The news report says that it's a new inquiry into another batch of emails, so no inquiry has been re-opened. |
|
950 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Oct 29, 2016 9:04:52 GMT
None of the emails are to or from Clinton, they weren't on her private server and they may just be duplicates of one's they've already seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 10:25:36 GMT
The FBI guy appears to be in a lot of trouble having done this; just checking up on US news sites and it's more likely naivety on his part rather than corruption intended to affect the election but he should have realised how a lack of detail meant that it would be blown up out of all proportion and mischaracterised. There is only a tiny sliver of a chance it will affect matters but he's probably sweating nervously now that it won't.
As a side issue it's scary to see how the global economy is tied to the election, the Dow Jones started to tank as this was mentioned. Imagine what freefall we'll be put into if Trump did somehow win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 10:29:55 GMT
Almost anyone would be. Almost. I see the FBI have re-opened their inquiry into her, about time. The news report says that it's a new inquiry into another batch of emails, so no inquiry has been re-opened. In fact they are now suggesting that they are likely to be duplicates of ones already known about and that they haven't actually checked. That's a pretty shocking admission, given where we are. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 29, 2016 11:16:10 GMT
It is useful to translate what we know from the leaked emails into UK political terms. This is from emails which have already been admitted to be genuine and as reported in the Wall Street Journal.
Boris Johnson is Foreign Secretary. Let's say he also has a charity. Someone employed by that charity approaches British Airways and asks them to donate £3 million to the charity and separately but at the same time directly employ Boris' wife as a consultant for a personal payment to her of £3 million. British Airways then pays both of those amounts.
What would you think of that ? What would BA shareholders and competitors think of that - what were BA expecting in return (if anything) ? What would Jeremy Corbyn think of that ?
Substitute Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Coca Cola and that is exactly what happened. It happened with other companies too. Do you think Boris would a) Have to resign immediately or b) Become Prime Minister anyway ?
To be fair the single voice raised against this inside the Clinton machine was by Chelsea Clinton who characterised it as "hustling" and drew a lot of negative comments as a result.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 11:23:17 GMT
Almost anyone would be. Almost. I see the FBI have re-opened their inquiry into her, about time. The news report says that it's a new inquiry into another batch of emails, so no inquiry has been re-opened. Oh good, because yet another new investigation sounds a lot better |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 11:24:10 GMT
None of the emails are to or from Clinton, they weren't on her private server and they may just be duplicates of one's they've already seen. The FBI are not morons. They're not going to open an investigation into duplicates. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 11:27:25 GMT
Fine as long as firms making such donations aren't prioritised. That's normal politics (for the US especially), I don't like lobbying myself but it's the whole system that is an issue not any individual.
On the other hand you have Trump whose business dealings are so murky that we are onto something very different and very dark indeed. There is no equivalence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 11:32:10 GMT
The FBI guy appears to be in a lot of trouble having done this; just checking up on US news sites and it's more likely naivety on his part rather than corruption intended to affect the election but he should have realised how a lack of detail meant that it would be blown up out of all proportion and mischaracterised. There is only a tiny sliver of a chance it will affect matters but he's probably sweating nervously now that it won't. As a side issue it's scary to see how the global economy is tied to the election, the Dow Jones started to tank as this was mentioned. Imagine what freefall we'll be put into if Trump did somehow win. The FBI isn't trying to influence the election. At least not against Clinton. If that was the case they would have recommended an indictment a few months ago, when they clearly should have. They listed a bunch of things she had done wrong. They confirmed that some of those e-mails contained classified information, which means Clinton had committed a crime. And then at the end of that speech they said despite all of that they were not going to indict her. They were extremely generous to her by not indicting her then. They could have ended her campaign right then and there. Why would you assume that that person is against Clinton when he basically gave her a get out of jail free card a few months ago? Either because he genuinely believes this new information needs further investigation, or because the Clinton campaign had something on him then to leverage him into letting her off the hook, but now he has something more serious on her. I know the last one sound like a conspiracy theory, which is why I still believe that it's the first and James Comey genuinely thinks the new information is serious enough to justify reopening the investigation. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 11:34:42 GMT
None of the emails are to or from Clinton, they weren't on her private server and they may just be duplicates of one's they've already seen. The FBI are not morons. They're not going to open an investigation into duplicates. "Officials familiar with the inquiry said it was too early to assess the significance of the newly discovered emails. It is possible, they said, that some or all of the correspondence is duplicative of the emails that were already turned over and examined by the FBI. Comey made a similar point in his letter, sent to congressional committee chairmen, saying that the FBI “cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant.” They are obligated to report this but they don't know what is in them themselves, as they haven't studied them. If you think that they are investigating because of what is in them then you have been misled. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-to-conduct-new-investigation-of-emails-from-clintons-private-server/2016/10/28/0b1e9468-9d31-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 11:41:56 GMT
The FBI are not morons. They're not going to open an investigation into duplicates. "Officials familiar with the inquiry said it was too early to assess the significance of the newly discovered emails. It is possible, they said, that some or all of the correspondence is duplicative of the emails that were already turned over and examined by the FBI. Comey made a similar point in his letter, sent to congressional committee chairmen, saying that the FBI “cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant.” They are obligated to report this but they don't know what is in them themselves, as they haven't studied them. If you think that they are investigating because of what is in them then you have been misled. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-to-conduct-new-investigation-of-emails-from-clintons-private-server/2016/10/28/0b1e9468-9d31-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.htmlYes, some of it may be duplicates. But I find it hard to believe they'd reopen the investigation if there wasn't any new material. It may not be significant, but why would they reopen an investigation without there being any new material? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 11:48:15 GMT
Yes, some of it may be duplicates. But I find it hard to believe they'd reopen the investigation if there wasn't any new material. It may not be significant, but why would they reopen an investigation without there being any new material? Because he is obligated to report to congress, the problem has come in that he said 'we don't know what they are', now eleven days before an election then he sure as hell has to make clear 'what they are' and it's naive to think they can just put that out there with no detail. There is a suggestion that they are from an email account already investigated, in which case it would be a quick answer but otherwise it's a lot of work for someone (it's suggested there about a thousand emails to check through). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 11:52:18 GMT
Yes, some of it may be duplicates. But I find it hard to believe they'd reopen the investigation if there wasn't any new material. It may not be significant, but why would they reopen an investigation without there being any new material? Because he is obligated to report to congress, the problem has come in that he said 'we don't know what they are', now eleven days before an election then he sure as hell has to make clear 'what they are' and it's naive to think they can just put that out there with no detail. There is a suggestion that they are from an email account already investigated, in which case it would be a quick answer but otherwise it's a lot of work for someone (it's suggested there about a thousand emails to check through). On the Young Turks they said Comey would clarify on Monday or Tuesday. As you said, he's obligated to report it to Congress and he probably wanted to do that asap to prevent perjury charges or whatever because he said under oath that the investigation had been closed. If they somehow found out the case had been reopened and he hadn't reported it to Congress, he could be in trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 29, 2016 13:01:05 GMT
Fine as long as firms making such donations aren't prioritised. That's normal politics (for the US especially), I don't like lobbying myself but it's the whole system that is an issue not any individual. On the other hand you have Trump whose business dealings are so murky that we are onto something very different and very dark indeed. There is no equivalence. There is no equivalence because Trump has never held public office. While Clinton was Secretary of State her employees were soliciting personal payments of millions to her husband co-mingled with donations to her charity. You think that's fine, to me it looks corrupt. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 13:05:03 GMT
The democrats should have picked Bernie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 29, 2016 13:05:28 GMT
None of the emails are to or from Clinton, they weren't on her private server and they may just be duplicates of one's they've already seen. None of the WiliLeaked Podesta emails are to or from Clinton either. Assange is releasing those next week. You Hillary fans must be quite worried by that. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 29, 2016 13:07:37 GMT
The democrats should have picked Bernie. "That doofus" according Hillary's campaign manager Podesta. Two really terrible candidates, both side should have chosen more wisely. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 13:31:25 GMT
All should be treated the same under the eyes of the law, no different for someone cowering in a foreign embassy or another whose business practices look likely to warrant much closer investigation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 13:33:20 GMT
The democrats should have picked Bernie. "That doofus" according Hillary's campaign manager Podesta. Two really terrible candidates, both side should have chosen more wisely. Bernie would have destroyed Trump. A "reasonable" Republican, if any exist, would have destroyed Clinton. These are the two worst candidates they could have picked. If Hillary wins, it's only because her opponent is a complete idiot. I wish they'd have given Bernie a fair shot. He would have won the nomination, and Trump wouldn't stand a chance. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 14:45:49 GMT
"Should" "Should" "Should" ?
The USA has picked its candidates in accordance with its culture and who're we to say they "should"'ve done otherwise?
|
|
