scrubbedexpat091

Trump was pulled off stage by security/law enforcement during a speech. Apparently someone has also been detained.

caretaker

Watching the "3 debates" on C-SPAN because I don't want to watch NASCAR or NFL.
If you could go back in time and kill baby Trump would you? Or do you think a really good shit-kicking when he was about 20 would be good enough? Clinton would be 20% more effective if she'd shut up instead of talking over the moderator when it's time.
Edit. When Donald interjects "Wrong", it's like he's doing an Alec Baldwin impersonation.

bats

I hope he shat his pants

BristolUK

When I first heard this on the news I thought it was a put-up-job to garner some sympathy votes as if he was being attacked by some nutter.

Turns out it was a Republican ashamed of Trump and carrying a "Republicans against Trump" placard. And apparently beaten up for his protest.

dave_j

Lucky he wasn't given both barrels at six inches and then asked why he was there... but then he was probably white.

Tangram

Best quote I heard was from Stevie Wonder " In an emergency would you want me driving you to the hospital ?"

BristolUK

Hang on...didn't he just suggest she might "get away with it"
Do they not have libel laws in the USA? Defamation of character and stuff like that?

Or is there some sort of right to say anything in an election campaign like the UK's Parliamentary privilege?

BristolUK

The lengths some people will go to...

That great bastion of objective news reporting, Fox News, says of the protester at the Trump rally:
Both his grandmothers are alive and "he has been a registered Republican since 2011, and was previously an independent. A fiscal conservative who is supporting other Republicans this election, he said he protested of his own volition because he believes Trump is “a textbook version of a dictator and a fascist”.

What does truth matter when there's an election to be won?

Davita

Good find Bristol and I agree with your assessment......anyway, soon enough, the fat lady will sing..and it'll be all over for a while...hopefully. Unfortunately, whoever wins, the GOP is going to have to go back to the drawing board and re-invent itself....otherwise they might become totally irrelevant....like the whigs of yore.

Ebonhawke

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be, but this is my understanding

The US does have libel laws, but the requirements to make a successful case can be challenging.

In this case, should Hillary sue Trump for libel, she would have to prove that Trump was incorrect, and that he knew he was incorrect. During this process, there is a discovery phase, whereby materials that may be pertinent (and it's a very liberal definition of pertinent) may be subpoened by the opposition to understand the basis for this argument. Of course, Trump's lawyers will subpoena all financial records of the Clintons, the Clinton foundation etc. He essentially only needs to prove that Clinton committed some form of criminal act, and he's won the case - and drags all the minutiae of the Clinton life through the media and the courts (which I don't think the Clintons want to go through)

For the same reason, it's highly unlikely that Trump will sue the women who accused him of sexual assault, or the NY Times. He would have to prove those accusations were false (and in the case of the NY Times, that the paper knew them to be false), which would be near-impossible in a 'he said / she said' situation. In the discovery phase, the lawyers for the accusers would subpoena communications within the Trump campaign, financial records of Trump and the Trump Foundation, as well as the cutting room floor tapes from the Apprentice, as well as subpoening any women who have alleged or settled any sexual harassment / assault cases to testify. Because this information was subpoenaed, all of the conditions of settlement and non-disclosure agreements are thrown out the window, and they can't be sued as a result of their testimony.

In both cases, material found in the discovery phase that isn't directly related to the libel case isn't simply swept back under the rug - it can be used as evidence for separate action. For example, if a search of Trump's financial records showed unusual activity with a foreign government, the lawyers wouldn't be able to use it in the lawsuit regarding the alleged sexual assaults, however, they could launch a separate investigation into those transactions. From what I recollect, this is how Bill Clinton was impeached, as the original impeachment charges went nowhere, but the investigating lawyers kept finding crumbs that led to other avenues.

scrubbedexpat091

There is defamation of character laws, here is one more recent example of a high profile case against Rolling Stones and a writer, they lost and have been ordered to pay 3 million.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/bu...lion.html?_r=0

BristolUK

I understand that there are risks on both sides but I'm not convinced that someone can simply go on that sort of fishing expedition. Can one simply get around all those privacy laws because one decides someone is guilty of something? I very much doubt it. There must surely be something concrete to justify whatever legal process is necessary.

In this case there has been an investigation into the emails and she has be cleared of anything illegal. And then there was a further investigation relating to the same thing and she was cleared once again.

Trump has taken issue specifically with this - he made statements about the emails - and within hours he says she's guilty of the crime when she's twice been cleared.

Maybe the FBI should be suing him for the suggestion they are either incompetent or similarly corrupt.

dave_j

I'm not sure that she's been cleared, all that has happened is than an official body has concluded that it's not worth proceding with a prosecution.

Given that so many governmental appointments are political, the swamp does tend to smell a little when you stir it up.

Novocastrian

Try to do better.

But a poll of UK folk recently reported in the Gruan found that 12% of Brits in the poll would vote for Drumpf if they had a vote.

49% of the same group would vote Clinton.

This is of course fluff, but that 12% are the lumpenprols who swung the EU referendum.

Draw you're own conclusions.

magnumpi

Recent polls say Trump leading Ohio, this is an important state he needs to win