Here's How Donald Trump Could Become President

[toubab]

Yet the only polls you quote are those that favor Trump. I can tell which side of the bread you're buttering.

I've made it as clear as humanly possible I'm anti-Hillary. I hope she loses, even if it's to Trump. I would prefer she lose to someone else, but the deck is stacked, so that won't happen, unfortunately.

 

[underguy1]

I've made it as clear as humanly possible I'm anti-Hillary. I hope she loses, even if it's to Trump. I would prefer she lose to someone else, but the deck is stacked, so that won't happen, unfortunately.

That dynamic is a lot stronger than Hillary's water carriers understand.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That dynamic is a lot stronger than Hillary's water carriers understand.

They understand, they just don't care.

 

[xbb]

T Brady pays a greater price for destroying ONE phone then GimpCuntClinton did for destroying 13!

 

[Wrong Element]

Well, you gonna enlighten us as to why Clinton is above the law???

Or are you just like the rest of the HRC cheer squad that's going to keep saying she's clear until you believe it?

Yes, I've never voted for her, but because I'm not in the He-Man Woman Haters Club, I must be in her "cheer squad."

Trump bought the Florida AG with an illegal payment from his charity. She then dropped the investigation into Trump U.

The quid pro quo could not be more obvious, but it's crickets crickets and more crickets-- including from our "liberal" news media.

 

[Adre]

I'm still looking for the law that prevents us from disposing of our phones because I've thrown several away. Was I supposed to give them to somebody?

 

[phrodeau]

Everyone should immediately send their used cellphones to busybody.

 

[Adre]

You'd think "real" libertarians would object to turning their phones over to the authorities.

 

[phrodeau]

You'd think "real" libertarians would object to turning their phones over to the authorities.

The NSA has all her phone info already, so what difference would it make?

 

[Conager]

It seems then that you have a much bigger problem: An entire jucidial system so thorougly feckless and broken that nobody within it can bring themselves to file that oh so obvious charge against her.

A Hillary presidency is over in four to eight years. (Or less, you never know.) That shit's forever.

That is the legacy of the Obama J7stice Department. It was Repoblican Nixon that first attempted to outrageously politcise the IRS, and finally the AG. Barry Goldwater, from his own party went and him to step down. Not because of Watergate but because of his corruption of the justice department. We're supposed to be a nation of laws and they're supposed to be no one above the law.

Bush is the one that paved the way with FISA courts deciding in secret when the administration is "allowed" to engage in extra illegal and unconstitutional acts against perceived enemies of the state.

Yet the only polls you quote are those that favor Trump. I can tell which side of the bread you're buttering.

He has been consistantly citing the same poll, and except for GOP convention bounce, and recently again, Clinton led in that poll. The poll didn't seem to bother you when it showed Clinton leading.

 

[Disgustipated]

http://i.imgur.com/ZI6AqeG.jpg

 

[phrodeau]

That is the legacy of the Obama J7stice Department. It was Repoblican Nixon that first attempted to outrageously politcise the IRS, and finally the AG. Barry Goldwater, from his own party went and him to step down. Not because of Watergate but because of his corruption of the justice department. We're supposed to be a nation of laws and they're supposed to be no one above the law.

Bush is the one that paved the way with FISA courts deciding in secret when the administration is "allowed" to engage in extra illegal and unconstitutional acts against perceived enemies of the state.




He has been consistantly citing the same poll, and except for GOP convention bounce, and recently again, Clinton led in that poll. The poll didn't seem to bother you when it showed Clinton leading.

It is the legacy of the 114th Congress that we have a Supreme Court with only eight members that can't make judgments any more.

 

[Conager]

I'm still looking for the law that prevents us from disposing of our phones because I've thrown several away. Was I supposed to give them to somebody?

Was the information on your phone part of work product from your official duties working for the US government? Was it covered under the official records act, as well as covering items that you knew, or should have known would be required for discovery for any of several investigations including congressional oversight or otherwise needed for anticipated judicial proceedings? Was any of it subject to the Freedom of Information Act?

If not, then you're just fine.

 

[Disgustipated]

Was the information on your phone part of work product from your official duties working for the US government? Was it covered under the official records act, as well as covering items that you knew, or should have known would be required for discovery for any of several investigations including congressional oversight or otherwise needed for anticipated judicial proceedings? Was any of it subject to the Freedom of Information Act?

If not, then you're just fine.

What happens if you simply & innocently lost the phone?

 

[Conager]

It is the legacy of the 114th Congress that we have a Supreme Court with only eight members that can't make judgments any more.

They couldn't censure Hillary's violation of several crimial statutes because the Supreme Court could not rule on the criminal prosecution and possible conviction that was not attempted?

I'm not sure how that follows.

As far as that being somehow their soiled legacy, to not rubberstamp the appointment (commonly called "Borking^) the offering of a President whose judicial philosophy tge completely disagree with, you do realize that every time we lose a SCOTUS Justice, we are down to eight (or less) for some interval of time, every single time a death or resignation occurs? Each and every time? Without fail?

Tell me all about the bitter legacy of the Democrats that served on the panel that, well Borked, Bork.

 

[Conager]

What happens if you simply & innocently lost the phone?

that seems like it would be sort of hard for me to do with my secret service detail picking up after me

 

[Disgustipated]

that seems like it would be sort of hard for me to do with my secret service detail picking up after me

Charge the SS in a court of federal law for a lost phone, then. Brilliant!

 

[phrodeau]

They couldn't censure Hillary's violation of several crimial statutes because the Supreme Court could not rule on the criminal prosecution and possible conviction that was not attempted?

I'm not sure how that follows.

As far as that being somehow their soiled legacy, to not rubberstamp the appointment (commonly called "Borking^) the offering of a President whose judicial philosophy tge completely disagree with, you do realize that every time we lose a SCOTUS Justice, we are down to eight (or less) for some interval of time, every single time a death or resignation occurs? Each and every time? Without fail?

Tell me all about the bitter legacy of the Democrats that served on the panel that, well Borked, Bork.

In the rare chance that Trump becomes President, we'll see how crucial having nine Justices is. They will not waste a single minute.

 

[Conager]

In the rare chance that Trump becomes President, we'll see how crucial having nine Justices is. They will not waste a single minute.

I'm still not following your train of thought. Your earlier response was in reference to my comments about Hillary's criminal activity. Now you're shifting focus to a Trump presidency. If Trump is elected and there's only 8 justices what difference does it make, other than to partisans of your stripe that would, understandably prefer to replace a conservative justice with a liberal one. Same partisans that would SCREAM at a hypothetical President Trump that replaces a hypothetically dead Ginsberg with a conservative.

If you are looking to place blame as far as your team's inability to tilt the court the direction you would like to see it tilt today, I wouldn't look towards blaming your opponents doing what your opponents are likely to do. I would blame the guy you elected for his inability to build consensus and use his bully pulpit wisely and well. He expended all of the political capital that he had on a failed Health Care Program and on personal attacks on the other side for doing their job in being in opposition to his policies as their constituents elected him them to do. His idea that he could shame them into going along with everyone of his wish list items by calling them the party of no and by his "my way or the highway" approach to governance has bit him in the ass as it obviously would any politician who is unable to build consensus.

The guy who famously said that elections have consequences failed to take into account the next 3 election cycles where he lost more and more power.

 

[Conager]

Charge the SS in a court of federal law for a lost phone, then. Brilliant!

Judges are fairly wise to the idea that parties with something to hide often come up with "the dog ate my homework" class excuses for failures to provide items that the cpurt orders them to produce. Judges don't buy those excuses.

Even if the other side hasn't filed suit or hasn't gotten around to asking for a particular discoverable items if you had it in your possession and you knew that it was likely that in the future someone would want it and you'd failed to safeguard such items, judges will come down hard on you.

My dog ate my homework before you even asked me to turn in my homework is not a valid excuse.

Our legal system is based on the idea that it is being run with the honor one usually used to assume gentlemen (and subsequently gentlewomen) all had. Actual lawyers as officers of the Court are expected to uphold the very highest standards when it comes to such critical things as discovery.

. . . even if it is harmful to one's position or the sort of thing that "everyone" routinely lies about.

 

[Disgustipated]

Judges are fairly wise to the idea that parties with something to hide often come up with "the dog ate my homework" class excuses for failures to provide items that the cpurt orders them to produce. Judges don't buy those excuses.

Even if the other side hasn't filed suit or hasn't gotten around to asking for a particular discoverable items if you had it in your possession and you knew that it was likely that in the future someone would want it and you'd failed to safeguard such items, judges will come down hard on you.

My dog ate my homework before you even asked me to turn in my homework is not a valid excuse.

Our legal system is based on the idea that it is being run with the honor one usually used to assume gentlemen (and subsequently gentlewomen) all had. Actual lawyers as officers of the Court are expected to uphold the very highest standards when it comes to such critical things as discovery.

. . . even if it is harmful to one's position or the sort of thing that "everyone" routinely lies about.

You didn't have to type that much. "I don't know" would have been enough.

You said nothing about the law which is what I am interested in. To be honest, I'm not sure how to even g00gle-fu that as a case myself.

 

[toubab]

Was the information on your phone part of work product from your official duties working for the US government? Was it covered under the official records act, as well as covering items that you knew, or should have known would be required for discovery for any of several investigations including congressional oversight or otherwise needed for anticipated judicial proceedings? Was any of it subject to the Freedom of Information Act?

If not, then you're just fine.

I wonder if people don't understand what you're saying, or if they just don't care about what you're saying. Probably the latter, I would say, because you've expressed your views rather clearly, seems to me.

 

[toubab]

USC/LA Times poll

http://cesrusc.org/election/

Trump 44.7

Clinton 42.7

 

[xbb]

I'm still looking for the law that prevents us from disposing of our phones because I've thrown several away. Was I supposed to give them to somebody?

she said she ONLY used ONE

she destroyed it after it became PUBLIC knowledge

ASK T BRADY

 

[xbb]

Spoliation of evidence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence

What is Tampering with Evidence?

A person commits the crime of tampering with evidence when he or she knowingly:

alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys
any record, document, or tangible object
with the intent to interfere with an investigation, possible investigation, or other proceeding by the federal government.
(18 U.S.C. § 1519.)

This crime includes making false entries in records or doctoring documents, such as by “cooking the books” of a business to hide illegal activity or avoid taxes or other required payments.

Tampering with evidence also includes destroying or altering documents or things “in contemplation of” an investigation or other proceeding that may occur in the future


she AND her lawyers erased the emails 3 weeks AFTER the TIMES published she had a PVT SERVER


I know, BLACK PASTOR LIED (maybe) about Army service