The Clinton Thread II - Part 2

[MagnarTheGreat]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-probably-finished-off-trump-last-night/

 

[Dark Raven]

How Trump made Clinton relatable:

“Nasty woman" becomes the feminist rallying cry Hillary Clinton was waiting for

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...y-woman-feminist-rallying-cry-hillary-clinton

 

[Pink Ranger]

People have noticed that Clinton's debate wardrobe, red at the first, blue at the second, and white yesterday.

She's secretly French!

 

[SV Fan]

How Trump made Clinton relatable:

“Nasty woman" becomes the feminist rallying cry Hillary Clinton was waiting for

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...y-woman-feminist-rallying-cry-hillary-clinton

[YT]2zY9Oa5DZj4[/YT]

 

[2kt09]

FBI director James Comey says Donald Trump has it flipped; Petraeus case was worse than Clinton's

2kt09 on that last one it comes from Politifact which is a Pulitzer prize winning non-biased fact checking site, in case you were wondering. Not sure where you've been getting your info.

I never once brought up Petraeus. That fact-check refers back to the pivotal hearing after the public announcement he made in which Comey stated he needed criminal intent AND gross negligence to recommend a prosecution.
A lot happened in these 3 months and Politifact barely even covered anything.

The C-SPAN hearings would be the closest to primary sources of what later gets reported in the news and I've watched those hearings. This seems to stem from the subpoenas that apparently haven't been upheld and the most discernible obstruction of justice case with Clinton and Comey giving different under oath "yes or no" responses to the exact same inquiries. Oh and the "cover-up" thereafter (with more subpoenas added to the list) of these emails she was supposed to turn in either being deleted/wiped by supposedly unauthorized personnel as well as various physical drives & even just printed copies that keep getting lost.
That's how this scandal snowballed.

----------------------------------------------

Oh man, these celebrities are trying way too hard to reach out for Hillary
Anyone hear of Madonna's offer?

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

At no point would anyone ever claim you need criminal intent and gross negligence. I have already explained to you (as has Matt) that you are incorrect on the matter. The two are mutually exclusive.

 

[mclay18]

Republicans again promise criminal investigations on Clinton

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ry-prize-congressional-investigations-n672926

Again with the witch hunts on the Clintons. More incentive to vote more GOPs out of office if they don't want to work together.

 

[summerteeth]

Republicans again promise criminal investigations on Clinton

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ry-prize-congressional-investigations-n672926

Again with the witch hunts on the Clintons. More incentive to vote more GOPs out of office if they don't want to work together.

You don't think there should be an investigation when an FBI official offered to change classifications of e-mails on her private server in exchange for more favorable terms for the FBI in more countries. A "quid pro quo". I mean honestly, you don't think that should be investigated? I don't think there is anything there, but to say that the House Oversight Committee shouldn't investigate it is another thing entirely. I don't like how the oversight committee has conducted all these investigations, but I don't have a problem with the things they've investigated. Benghazi, the IRS targeting conservative groups, the VA, Clinton's private e-mail servers, this FBI quid quo pro are all worthy of looking into and some of them found corruption and fraud and others have found incompetence and others have found nothing.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

You don't think there should be an investigation when an FBI official offered to change classifications of e-mails on her private server in exchange for more favorable terms for the FBI in more countries. A "quid pro quo". I mean honestly, you don't think that should be investigated? I don't think there is anything there, but to say that the House Oversight Committee shouldn't investigate it is another thing entirely. I don't like how the oversight committee has conducted all these investigations, but I don't have a problem with the things they've investigated. Benghazi, the IRS targeting conservative groups, the VA, Clinton's private e-mail servers, this FBI quid quo pro are all worthy of looking into and some of them found corruption and fraud and others have found incompetence and others have found nothing.

How many millions of dollars did they waste doing I believe 8 Benghazi investigations to find nothing? The IRS targeted nobody any differently which was only brought up by right wing media to use as a fear tactic. Clinton's emails were investigated by a man touted by the GOP as fair and just and when he found no wrongdoing they condemned him as a moron. I could go on but for a party saying they are all for cutting out pork with government spending they sure don't have a problem spending money like it's going out of style when it's unwarranted if they can score some political points in the process.

 

[SV Fan]

You don't think there should be an investigation when an FBI official offered to change classifications of e-mails on her private server in exchange for more favorable terms for the FBI in more countries. A "quid pro quo". I mean honestly, you don't think that should be investigated? I don't think there is anything there, but to say that the House Oversight Committee shouldn't investigate it is another thing entirely. I don't like how the oversight committee has conducted all these investigations, but I don't have a problem with the things they've investigated. Benghazi, the IRS targeting conservative groups, the VA, Clinton's private e-mail servers, this FBI quid quo pro are all worthy of looking into and some of them found corruption and fraud and others have found incompetence and others have found nothing.

To often when it comes to Republicans is they seem to go overboard with investigating things. It's as if they want to try show the base they are actually doing something productive investigating things many times over that gets the base panties wet

 

[Boom]

The Republican Party is just a huge dumpster fire now.

 

[SV Fan]

The Republican Party is just a huge dumpster fire now.

But if their is one that that can hold the party together it's non stop investigations

 

[Boom]

It really exposes a rather disheartening flaw in our democracy. Republicans threatening to veto everything presented by Democratic presidents just out of spite. That's not how this is supposed to work. It feels like there isn't a healthy discussion among our country leaders anymore.

I'm honestly curious what things would be like if people could divorce their personal feelings from politics, actually engage in healthy debate, and express a willingness to work together and at least meet half way. It's like politicians refuse to have their minds changed. Constantly stone-walling each other out of spite and principle helps absolutely no one. And it's perhaps why people have become so exasperated by our government. It's all self-serving now.

 

[SV Fan]

I'm honestly curious what things would be like if people could divorce their personal feelings from politics, actually engage in healthy debate, and express a willingness to work together and at least meet half way. It's like politicians refuse to have their minds changed. Constantly stone-walling each other out of spite and principle helps absolutely no one. And it's perhaps why people have become so exasperated by our government. It's all self-serving now.

I think the big problem is we have a majority of congressional districts that is pays to be hyper partisan. I am a fan of the California and Louisiana system where they basically throw all candidates into a jungle primary and the top 2 face of against eachother. This basically means we can get districts where we get a hyper partisan person from one party vs a more moderate person from the same party

 

[Marvolo]

This Could Be The Beginning Of The End Of The Supreme Court As We Know It

Conservatives lay the groundwork for blocking all of Hillary Clinton’s nominees.

Maybe Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had the right idea after all. Maybe Republicans are willing to trigger a constitutional crisis over the Supreme Court.

Some conservatives certainly seem to be warming up to McCain’s controversial suggestion last week that Senate Republicans should dig in their heels and block any and all Supreme Court nominees put forth by a future President Hillary Clinton.

Who needs a fully functioning Supreme Court after all?

“As a matter of constitutional law, the Senate is fully within its powers to let the Supreme Court die out, literally,” wrote the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro in a column Wednesday on The Federalist.

Shapiro is well-versed in constitutional issues, and his argument has a legal, if contorted, basis. Nothing in the Constitution explicitly stands in the way of senators who would be willing to destroy the nation’s highest court ― if not an entire branch of the federal government ― to stop Clinton from selecting judges who share her views.

But McCain’s comments suggesting a total blockade initially faced opposition, even from some members of his own party. “We can’t just simply stonewall” those hypothetical Clinton nominees, said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

Of course, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley is doing exactly that to Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s choice to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

To Shapiro, there’s nothing wrong with even more Senate obstructionism because “the Constitution is completely silent” on how the upper chamber provides its “advice and consent” on the president’s nominees.

Legal scholars across the ideological spectrum have agreed that’s true. But they’ve also concluded that the Republicans’ no-hearings-no-votes posture on Garland is unprecedented in American history. And many deplore the partisanship that has overwhelmed the judicial confirmation process over the last few decades.

Not Shapiro. “I simply can’t blame politicians who follow their convictions,” he wrote. “If you truly believe that a particular nominee would wreak havoc on America, why not do everything you can to stop him?”

Shapiro noted that senators may pay a political price for refusing to work with a president from the other party. More importantly, the justice system pays a price.

Even those now on the Supreme Court have lamented that a shorthanded court can’t operate as it should.

“It’s much more difficult for us to do our job if we are not what we’re intended to be ― a court of nine,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor during a recent appearance in Minnesota. She added that 4-to-4 rulings can leave the law unsettled and justice across the country “administered in an unequal way.”

In other words, when lower courts disagree on how to interpret a particular law or how to apply the Constitution to new problems ― and they do regularly ― the justices are supposed to step in and resolve that disagreement. When an equally divided Supreme Court can’t do that, the meaning of congressional statutes and the Constitution may vary from state to state ― which isn’t just or fair.

This didn’t seem to be a concern to Shapiro.

“So when you get past the gotcha headlines, breathless reportage, and Inauguration Day, if Hillary Clinton is president it would be completely decent, honorable, and in keeping with the Senate’s constitutional duty to vote against essentially every judicial nominee she names,” he concluded.

If Clinton wins and the Republicans retain control of the Senate, this argument could serve as the groundwork for their next play in Congress — even though they’ve spent most of 2016 insisting that the people’s choice for the next president should get to pick Scalia’s replacement.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) signaled on Wednesday that he may be a convert to this vision of a new normal — a Supreme Court not at full steam for a very long time:

Dave Weigel
@daveweigel

I asked Cruz if there should be votes on Clinton court nominees if GOP holds Senate. He said there's plenty of precedent for <9 justices.

Of course, none of this likely matters if Democrats regain the Senate, which HuffPost Pollster projections say is not beyond the realm of the possible.

The Constitution may give the president the power to nominate justices and the Senate the power to vote them up or down. But in the end it’s the voters who choose.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-clinton-nominees_us_580fed9ae4b08582f88cb00c

 

[samsnee]

You don't think there should be an investigation when an FBI official offered to change classifications of e-mails on her private server in exchange for more favorable terms for the FBI in more countries. A "quid pro quo". I mean honestly, you don't think that should be investigated? I don't think there is anything there, but to say that the House Oversight Committee shouldn't investigate it is another thing entirely. I don't like how the oversight committee has conducted all these investigations, but I don't have a problem with the things they've investigated. Benghazi, the IRS targeting conservative groups, the VA, Clinton's private e-mail servers, this FBI quid quo pro are all worthy of looking into and some of them found corruption and fraud and others have found incompetence and others have found nothing.

No one in the state department offered any quid pro quo. The FBI official did.

 

[Dark Raven]

I was thinking if you stuck Ming Na Wen in a short blonde wig, she could play Hillary Clinton.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Major party candidate first place popular vote earners (%) - past 100 years

Biggest share
1. 1964 L. Johnson (incumbent) (D) 61.05%
2. 1936 F. Roosevelt (incumbent) (D) 60.80%
3. 1972 Nixon (incumbent) (R) 60.67%
4. 1920 Harding (R) 60.35%
5. 1984 Reagan (incumbent) (R) 58.77%
6. 1928 Hoover (R) 58.22%
7. 1932 F. Roosevelt (D) 57.41%
8. 1956 Eisenhower (incumbent) (R) 57.37%
9. 1952 Eisenhower (R) 55.18%
10. 1940 F. Roosevelt (incumbent) (D) 54.72%
11. 1924 Coolidge (incumbent) (R) 54.03%
12. 1944 F. Roosevelt (incumbent) (D) 53.39%
13. 1988 G. H. W. Bush (R) 53.37%
14. 2008 Obama (D) 52.86%
15. 2012 Obama (incumbent) (D) 51.01%
16. 1980 Reagan (R) 50.75%
17. 2004 G. W. Bush (incumbent) (R) 50.73%
18. 1976 Carter (D) 50.08%
19. 1960 Kennedy (D) 49.72%
20. 1948 Truman (incumbent) (D) 49.55%
21. 1916 Wilson (incumbent) (D) 49.25%
22. 1996 W. Clinton (incumbent) (D) 49.23%
23. 2000 Gore (D) 48.38%
24. 1968 Nixon (R) 43.42%
25. 1992 W. Clinton (D) 43.01%
Smallest share

Hillary Clinton would be #21 on the list according to FiveThirtyEight.com as of this posting, but if the election is like 2008 and 2012 her support level is somewhat understated in opinion polling.

See also: Biggest margins of victory/lead - electoral and popular vote

 

[MadVillainy]

Eric Garner&#8217;s daughter assails Clinton campaign for contemplating naming her dad in an op-ed on gun violence

As Hillary Clinton and her aides went through final drafts of a gun violence op-ed they would submit to the New York Daily News, a question came up: Should the campaign include a reference to Eric Garner?

Garner, who died in 2014, was not killed by gun violence; he died after being placed in a choke-hold by a New York police officer.

In emails obtained and posted by WikiLeaks, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill wrote that the campaign should consider mentioning Garner.

"I know we have Erica Garner issues, but we don't want to mention Eric at all? I can see her coming after us for leaving him out of the piece," Merrill wrote in a March email, referring to Garner&#8217;s daughter, Erica, who was a supporter of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during the primary.

In response, Karen Finney, a senior Clinton adviser, mentioned that Eric Garner "wasn't killed by a gun it was police violence."

Erica Garner used Twitter on Thursday to castigate the Clinton campaign.

"These people will co opt anything to push their agenda. Police violence is not the same as gun violence," Erica Garner tweeted.
Follow
officialERICA GARNER &#10004; @es_snipes
These people will co opt anything to push their agenda. Police violence is not the same as gun violence.
10:31 AM - 27 Oct 2016
83 83 Retweets 125 125 likes
She added, "I'm troubled by the revelation" that "this campaign actually discussed 'using' Eric Garner ... Why would you want to 'use' my dad?"

Though the aides debated mentioning Eric Garner in the essay, none made a reference to "using" his death.

Gwen Carr, the mother of Eric Garner, is supporting Clinton and has appeared at several rallies supporting the Democratic presidential nominee in recent months.

Jill Stein isn't that good either tho...

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

This Could Be The Beginning Of The End Of The Supreme Court As We Know It

Conservatives lay the groundwork for blocking all of Hillary Clinton&#8217;s nominees.

So here's the funny thing about this and I was thinking about this a while back and there was an article or series of tweets recently that seemed to agree with me. It likely wouldn't happen before the Election, but here's how this could play out.

1. The President appoints SCOTUS justices with the advise and consent of the Senate.
2. However in the current mess, the Senate hasnt even taken a vote.
3. So Obama may be fully in his power to say "OK, you've now had a more than reasonable amount of time to review Garland (avg review time for SCOTUS is like 50 days).
4. And in failing to do anything in that time BO can only assume that they're either abstaining or approving by their silence.
5. So he can just go and announce the appointment of Garland and cite the above.
6. This in effect puts Garland on the SCOTUS now.
7. The GOP backed Senate would then of course file suit against Obama citing the move as unconstitutional
8. Guess who would decide that case? Yup, you guessed it, the SCOTUS.
9. Now Garland would likely recuse himself from the decision so you'd be back down to the Court of 8 for this.
10. You really just need to flip one justice to the side of Obama, which given the Constitution he'd appear to be in the right.
11. This precedent would prevent any future Senates from sitting on their hands with judicial appointments.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I was thinking if you stuck Ming Na Wen in a short blonde wig, she could play Hillary Clinton.

That's Asianwashing!

Emma Stone can play Michelle Obama.

 

[Iceman]

FBI reopening Clinton email investigation.

 

[Schlosser85]

Oh for the love of God...

 

[Greens]

It doesn't really mean anything. People are already spinning it, though.

 

[Orba]

FBI reopening Clinton email investigation.

As I understand it its not even really a reopening, its just the FBI have heard of some new e-mails and they are going to give them a look to see if they have anything to do with the investigation. They have no idea about what is in any of the e-mails or anything like that.