US Gen. Election Thread V: The Hunt for Red October Surprise

[Cymrea]

Not would, should.

And even then, what do you think will happen once Russia and other non-friendly Nuclear states find out we're using nuclear warheads on the battlefield blatantly? At least right now we get to pop the one-off and provide plausible deniability on it.

The same that always happens. Your president de jure will make some trite statement about (not) being sorry and we will move on again leaving only the deceased people's families to remember the event.

I don't recall that happening after Bush lied us into Iraq.

[Ebliania]

New Records Suggest Donald Trump Misled the Public About His Income
He says he made $694 million last year, but UK documents undercut that claim.

Trump caught in yet another lie.

Yeah, but Hillary, she had a KKK guy endorse her, so she's so racist

[The Romulan Republic]

Early Voting Could Hand Election to Hillary Clinton Well Before Nov. 8

Last night Hillary held a rally in Ohio that drew over 18,000.

Them's Bernie rally numbers.

[Yasuragi]

I'm confused though -- I thought Comey, the FBI Director, did a press conference where he essentially scolded Clinton for being irresponsible and violating protocols, but concluded that there was no malicious outcome or intent involved.... and thus decided not to recommend charges.

Essentially, "she screwed up, but she didn't do so intentionally, and nothing bad happened because of it."

Where does the AG even come into that assessment? If Comey had recommended charges and Lynch (or whoever the AG was at the time) said no, then THAT would be incredibly suspicious...but Comey didn't. Do people suspect Comey of being in the Democratic Party's pocket?

Yes, they do. Also, his statement seems to expressly a knowledge she violated 18 U.S.C. 793 (f). Which doesn't require intent, only knowledge. She did in fact *know* that that info wasn't supposed to be on that server. So when the FBI basically.a knowledges a crime was commited, giving specifics as to how many times and when, and then recommends no charges be pressed, people get suspicious.

Eh.. No offense, but US legal code is complicated and requires years of experience to understand fully. I'm going to trust Comey here on this -- if he were in the Democrats' pocket, he wouldn't have gone as far as scolding Clinton publicly (causing these conspiracies), and if he were in the Republicans' pocket, he would have recommended charges or co-operated with the Republican Congressional investigation.

I think the real focus should be on Clinton's irresponsibility and how we can a) avert that for future Secretaries of State, and b) ensure no further breaches occur while she is President if she wins.

[Khadgar]

New Records Suggest Donald Trump Misled the Public About His Income
He says he made $694 million last year, but UK documents undercut that claim.

Trump caught in yet another lie.

Given his penchant for failing to pay people it's entirely possible he pocked most of the money he stated.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm confused though -- I thought Comey, the FBI Director, did a press conference where he essentially scolded Clinton for being irresponsible and violating protocols, but concluded that there was no malicious outcome or intent involved.... and thus decided not to recommend charges.

Essentially, "she screwed up, but she didn't do so intentionally, and nothing bad happened because of it."

Where does the AG even come into that assessment? If Comey had recommended charges and Lynch (or whoever the AG was at the time) said no, then THAT would be incredibly suspicious...but Comey didn't. Do people suspect Comey of being in the Democratic Party's pocket?

Yes, they do. Also, his statement seems to expressly a knowledge she violated 18 U.S.C. 793 (f). Which doesn't require intent, only knowledge. She did in fact *know* that that info wasn't supposed to be on that server. So when the FBI basically.a knowledges a crime was commited, giving specifics as to how many times and when, and then recommends no charges be pressed, people get suspicious.

The problem here becomes "what is 'gross negligence in the era of digital information'?"

While Comey acknowledged that the security failed best practices, that doesn't necessarily mean she or her security team was "grossly negligent" in securing her server according to standards, or for that matter, that Clinton was grossly negligent in using the security team she used.

Under that particular light, it is easy to see why Comey didn't press charges, but the line that she committed a crime and Comey let her go easily cannot stick precisely because he slammed Clinton, but didn't find it to meet the standard of gross negligence, which does require laziness, and as it shows there wasn't necessarily a grossly negligent handling of the security on their servers.

A more direct line of attack that people keep forgetting is that Comey's statements left her wide open to criticize her on her poor decision making by hiring the security team which didn't explain to her why using outside servers was a bad idea. That's a more reasonable line of attack and it sticks far better than considering Clinton a criminal, which is a tired line used by Republicans for at least 30 years now and nobody who is not Republican and looks at Clinton as the origin of the Black Death would buy.

[New West Guiana]

Noted Former Cocaine User Carrie Fisher Says Donald Trump Was 'Absolutely' On Coke

[The Romulan Republic]

Or maybe he actually says it. "Kill Hillary!"

If he does that, he would probably be arrested by the secret service as soon as they find hi-

Oh wait.

Its a horrible thought, and I hope that nothing like it happens. We should all hope nothing like it ever happens. That is not a road we want to go down.

But I must admit I find the thought of Trump being detained by his own Secret Service detail darkly hilarious.

[Old Tyrannia]

Welcome to the modern Right.

Welcome to the moderation desk.

Given your recent record, I'm giving you a *** one day ban for using mods as weapons. *** We are not here to be used as threats against people.

[Ebliania]

If he does that, he would probably be arrested by the secret service as soon as they find hi-

Oh wait.

Its a horrible thought, and I hope that nothing like it happens. We should all hope nothing like it ever happens. That is not a road we want to go down.

But I must admit I find the thought of Trump being detained by his own Secret Service detail darkly hilarious.

While he brags about trolling everyone.

[Telconi]

Yes, they do. Also, his statement seems to expressly a knowledge she violated 18 U.S.C. 793 (f). Which doesn't require intent, only knowledge. She did in fact *know* that that info wasn't supposed to be on that server. So when the FBI basically.a knowledges a crime was commited, giving specifics as to how many times and when, and then recommends no charges be pressed, people get suspicious.

Eh.. No offense, but US legal code is complicated and requires years of experience to understand fully. I'm going to trust Comey here on this -- if he were in the Democrats' pocket, he wouldn't have gone as far as scolding Clinton publicly (causing these conspiracies), and if he were in the Republicans' pocket, he would have recommended charges or co-operated with the Republican Congressional investigation.

I think the real focus should be on Clinton's irresponsibility and how we can a) avert that for future Secretaries of State, and b) ensure no further breaches occur while she is President if she wins.

Not saying Comey is in Hillary/Dem's pocket. But given what happened is probably best outcome she could have hoped for, he certainly is biased, and likely in her favor. Lynch is almost certainly biased.on her favor. Petraeus was charged and convicted under that code for almost the same thing, to me that seems to mean that at the very least a Grand Jury was justified in Clinton's situation.

[Geilinor]

Eh.. No offense, but US legal code is complicated and requires years of experience to understand fully. I'm going to trust Comey here on this -- if he were in the Democrats' pocket, he wouldn't have gone as far as scolding Clinton publicly (causing these conspiracies), and if he were in the Republicans' pocket, he would have recommended charges or co-operated with the Republican Congressional investigation.

I think the real focus should be on Clinton's irresponsibility and how we can a) avert that for future Secretaries of State, and b) ensure no further breaches occur while she is President if she wins.

Not saying Comey is in Hillary/Dem's pocket. But given what happened is probably best outcome she could have hoped for, he certainly is biased, and likely in her favor. Lynch is almost certainly biased.on her favor. Petraeus was charged and convicted under that code for almost the same thing, to me that seems to mean that at the very least a Grand Jury was justified in Clinton's situation.

Petraeus did not do the same thing. He intentionally gave his girlfriend and biographer classified information and lied to the FBI about it. All he got was probation and a fine.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Eh.. No offense, but US legal code is complicated and requires years of experience to understand fully. I'm going to trust Comey here on this -- if he were in the Democrats' pocket, he wouldn't have gone as far as scolding Clinton publicly (causing these conspiracies), and if he were in the Republicans' pocket, he would have recommended charges or co-operated with the Republican Congressional investigation.

I think the real focus should be on Clinton's irresponsibility and how we can a) avert that for future Secretaries of State, and b) ensure no further breaches occur while she is President if she wins.

Not saying Comey is in Hillary/Dem's pocket. But given what happened is probably best outcome she could have hoped for, he certainly is biased, and likely in her favor. Lynch is almost certainly biased.on her favor. Petraeus was charged and convicted under that code for almost the same thing, to me that seems to mean that at the very least a Grand Jury was justified in Clinton's situation.

Petraeus wasn't convicted under that code for almost the same thing. He was told he'd be charged with it but in the end he guilt plead a misdemeanor for mishandling secret information. Also, the documents that were classified under Clinton's server in so far as to what Comey found, and what Petraeus admitted to mishandle were two entirely different things, as he shared with his mistress secret codes and other information which could cause "grave damage" to the United States and, as far as we know, there's no similar results on the Comey investigation.

[Khadgar]

Eh.. No offense, but US legal code is complicated and requires years of experience to understand fully. I'm going to trust Comey here on this -- if he were in the Democrats' pocket, he wouldn't have gone as far as scolding Clinton publicly (causing these conspiracies), and if he were in the Republicans' pocket, he would have recommended charges or co-operated with the Republican Congressional investigation.

I think the real focus should be on Clinton's irresponsibility and how we can a) avert that for future Secretaries of State, and b) ensure no further breaches occur while she is President if she wins.

Not saying Comey is in Hillary/Dem's pocket. But given what happened is probably best outcome she could have hoped for, he certainly is biased, and likely in her favor. Lynch is almost certainly biased.on her favor. Petraeus was charged and convicted under that code for almost the same thing, to me that seems to mean that at the very least a Grand Jury was justified in Clinton's situation.

Petraeus knowingly and deliberately leaked classified information to a reporter. Hillary had a private email server and there's no proof anything was ever compromised there. The intent matters when it comes to classified documents being leaked.

[New West Guiana]

Petraeus did not do the same thing. He intentionally gave his girlfriend and biographer classified information and lied to the FBI about it. All he got was probation and a fine.

And yet Hillary should be locked up.

[Gauthier]

He technically already has, by keep saying how the election will be rigged and enticing his supporters to do something about it if Hillary wins.

Or maybe he actually says it. "Kill Hillary!"

And then we have to put up with alt-right Kill Hill poster memes.

[Alvecia]

Perhaps you can try typing coherent sentences that actually make sense rather than keep proving us right that you don't understand tactical nuclear warfare.

If you mean to say that we should use weaponry less than 20 kilotons because it is less destructive then say that, but don't try to peg into it a definition which doesn't belong there.

Fine. You really need me to spell it out for you? I thought you were smarter than that, so another illusion shattered.

TACTICAL NUCLEAR WARFARE WOULD BE DONE WITH WEAPONS OF SMALLER YIELDS. IF YOUR TARGET IS AN ARMY OF TANKS THERE IS NO NEED TO DESTROY AN ENTIRE CITY TO GET TO THEM.

Better?

We're you not before arguing against using sub-optimal weapons? What makes "less than Nagasaki" the most optimal.

In the end it doesn't matter what the yield is, it just has to be nuclear and everyone joins in. Korea using nukes? Sure. Russia? Go ahead. I'm sure they'll give a detailed report on the yield of the warhead every time they use one.

[Galloism]

"Sometimes, I wonder that our Constitution is not only broken, but we need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country and bring back the rule of law because we've had eight years of a president, he's an autocrat, he just does it on his own, he ignores Congress and every single day, we're slipping into anarchy," LePage said on Maine radio station WVOM.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/politics/ ... ian-power/

What? We need an authoritarian to offset the autocrat? What?

[Genivaria]

"Sometimes, I wonder that our Constitution is not only broken, but we need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country and bring back the rule of law because we've had eight years of a president, he's an autocrat, he just does it on his own, he ignores Congress and every single day, we're slipping into anarchy," LePage said on Maine radio station WVOM.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/politics/ ... ian-power/

What? We need an authoritarian to offset the autocrat? What?

That's why I stopped listening to anyone who calls themselves a 'strict Constitutionalist'.

[Telconi]

Not saying Comey is in Hillary/Dem's pocket. But given what happened is probably best outcome she could have hoped for, he certainly is biased, and likely in her favor. Lynch is almost certainly biased.on her favor. Petraeus was charged and convicted under that code for almost the same thing, to me that seems to mean that at the very least a Grand Jury was justified in Clinton's situation.

Petraeus knowingly and deliberately leaked classified information to a reporter. Hillary had a private email server and there's no proof anything was ever compromised there. The intent matters when it comes to classified documents being leaked.

But it doesn't the word "intent" or a derivative thereof is used in many laws, the one in question is not one of them. You need not intend, only know, or show negligence in not knowing. Rather right or wrong, I do not know. I only say that the handling on the case by the FBI and the USAG appears biased. Had they charged her with violation and then reduced it via plea (as they did with Petraeus) or had they convened a Grand Jury and the Grand Jury had returned no endictment, or had the FBI released that no sensitive info was on the servers (As Hillary testified) it would have been a more acceptable outcome.

[Farnhamia]

"Sometimes, I wonder that our Constitution is not only broken, but we need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country and bring back the rule of law because we've had eight years of a president, he's an autocrat, he just does it on his own, he ignores Congress and every single day, we're slipping into anarchy," LePage said on Maine radio station WVOM.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/politics/ ... ian-power/

What? We need an authoritarian to offset the autocrat? What?

When did we trade Maine to the Somalis? And that's probably not fair to the Somalis.

[Genivaria]

The fact that we've reached the point that an American governor is openly calling for authoritarianism is highly disturbing.

[Khadgar]

Petraeus knowingly and deliberately leaked classified information to a reporter. Hillary had a private email server and there's no proof anything was ever compromised there. The intent matters when it comes to classified documents being leaked.

But it doesn't the word "intent" or a derivative thereof is used in many laws, the one in question is not one of them. You need not intend, only know, or show negligence in not knowing. Rather right or wrong, I do not know. I only say that the handling on the case by the FBI and the USAG appears biased. Had they charged her with violation and then reduced it via plea (as they did with Petraeus) or had they convened a Grand Jury and the Grand Jury had returned no endictment, or had the FBI released that no sensitive info was on the servers (As Hillary testified) it would have been a more acceptable outcome.

There have been cases before where materials have been accidentally leaked through alarmingly negligent behavior and no charges were filed. One putz invited a photographer into his office for a shoot, left a daily briefing with classified material on his desk while the photo was taken. That was grossly negligent but because the guy never showed any signs of intentionally leaking material and didn't try to obstruct investigators he got off with a stern talking to.

Intent matters.

[Farnhamia]

The fact that we've reached the point that an American governor is openly calling for authoritarianism is highly disturbing.

Consider which governor it is, though.

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

[Cymrea]

"Sometimes, I wonder that our Constitution is not only broken, but we need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country and bring back the rule of law because we've had eight years of a president, he's an autocrat, he just does it on his own, he ignores Congress and every single day, we're slipping into anarchy," LePage said on Maine radio station WVOM.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/politics/ ... ian-power/

What? We need an authoritarian to offset the autocrat? What?

Does what on his own? Ignores Congress...the Great Wall of Congress?