|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11997868)
Leslie, Leslie, peace. I enjoy your posts at least as much as Zargof's and the Right Hon. sir_eckles', perhaps even more. I would never specifically seek to insult you and please pardon me for inadvertently offending you with my drivel. :o
Perhaps a deal could be done, Dems dump crooked, GOP dumps trump, win win. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11997468)
Periodically I look in here - kind of like visiting the funhouse at the Great Allentown Fair. I see the Comey stuff was off the table in a bit under 48 hours and Trey Gowdy's appearance is the topic of the moment. Not what he brought out from Comey...no, his appearance.
I am resigned to a Clinton presidency, with all that means for the Supreme Court. Trump self-destructs EVERY time he gets off the teleprompter. He'll probably take the Senate and maybe even the House down with him.
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11997508)
What's the point? This is not a serious thread. The Trey Gowdy thing is symptomatic of what happens when just about everyone who is not left or centre-left (with the exception of Boiler) has abandoned it for the reason that we don't feel like being abused with ugly ad hominem attacks when we do post.
For a thread with interesting posts and reasoned and cogent analysis, take a look at the Brexit thread. No, sorry, don't go there. Please don't go there.
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11997868)
Leslie, Leslie, peace. I enjoy your posts at least as much as Zargof's and the Right Hon. sir_eckles', perhaps even more. I would never specifically seek to insult you and please pardon me for inadvertently offending you with my drivel. :o
Peace Out. |
Re: 2016 Election
All together now...group hug.
((((((HUGS)))))) |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11997876)
If you want to have a cordial relationship, don't single out my posts for your insults.
Peace Out. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Jerseygirl
(Post 11997877)
All together now...group hug.
((((((HUGS)))))) |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 11997878)
You want a relationship with Flavius? :thumbdown:
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11997881)
Not so much. :whistle:
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11997468)
Periodically I look in here - kind of like visiting the funhouse at the Great Allentown Fair. I see the Comey stuff was off the table in a bit under 48 hours and Trey Gowdy's appearance is the topic of the moment. Not what he brought out from Comey...no, his appearance.
It seemed to boil down to 'you should have prosecuted her' against 'no reasonable person would have brought a prosecution'. Gowdy has a political motive and pushed his narrative for five straight hours - quite unsuccessfully if the public indifference is to be judged. Gowdy also appeared to be desperately saving face coming off the back of his disastrous performance of the inquisition of Hillary. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by username.exe
(Post 11997948)
So what exactly did Gowdy get off of Comey?
It seemed to boil down to 'you should have prosecuted her' against 'no reasonable person would have brought a prosecution'. Gowdy has a political motive and pushed his narrative for five straight hours - quite unsuccessfully if the public indifference is to be judged. Gowdy also appeared to be desperately saving face coming off the back of his disastrous performance of the inquisition of Hillary. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 11997873)
:goodpost:
Perhaps a deal could be done, Dems dump crooked, GOP dumps trump, win win. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by username.exe
(Post 11997948)
So what exactly did Gowdy get off of Comey?
It seemed to boil down to 'you should have prosecuted her' against 'no reasonable person would have brought a prosecution'. Gowdy has a political motive and pushed his narrative for five straight hours - quite unsuccessfully if the public indifference is to be judged. Gowdy also appeared to be desperately saving face coming off the back of his disastrous performance of the inquisition of Hillary. To a lawyer, the highlights of Gowdy's questioning of Comey and Comey's admissions were significant. Gowdy's dismantling of the "intent" defence posited by Comey was excellent. None of it matters because of public indifference. For the highlights: Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent' Comey also acknowledged to another questioner that her email system was less secure than a gmail account and that he could not state that her system had not been hacked by a foreign intelligence agency, thus at least potentially - and probably - exposing our most important secrets (including the identities of our intelligence assets) to our adversaries. But most people could care less about that sort of boring stuff and will still vote for her in sufficient numbers for her to win. |
Re: 2016 Election
Gowdy would be more successful if he actually let the witness give answers instead of continually lecturing them. And, really, I am going to give a lot more credence to a (Republican) FBI director than someone who is essentially a political hack.... eight Benghazi hearings and counting and people wonder why the public is indifferent? Lol.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius
(Post 11997985)
You touched on the public indifference factor and that is the key. She could probably shoot and kill a black police officer in front of the White House and would most likely still win the election.
To a lawyer, the highlights of Gowdy's questioning of Comey and Comey's admissions were significant. Gowdy's dismantling of the "intent" defence posited by Comey was excellent. None of it matters because of public indifference. For the highlights: Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent' Comey also acknowledged to another questioner that her email system was less secure than a gmail account and that he could not state that her system had not been hacked by a foreign intelligence agency, thus at least potentially - and probably - exposing our most important secrets (including the identities of our intelligence assets) to our adversaries. But most people could care less about that sort of boring stuff and will still vote for her in sufficient numbers for her to win. Trump Says He Could 'Shoot Somebody' and Still Maintain Support - NBC News Comey also clarified that hacker dude was lying about hacking her server. Comey: Hacker 'Guccifer' Lied About Accessing Clinton's Emails | Fox News Insider Many of the GOP talking points just keep melting away. |
Re: 2016 Election
The problem for republicans is that they have completely blown this opportunity to attack Clinton on her email. If they had been disciplined and made the case that how can you trust her with the country when you can't even trust her with her email, then I think you would see some traction with voters. But all the screaming about criminal and rigged means the voters don't care as it's Benghazi again.
For me the major issue has always been Clinton's cavalier attitude to security, and as someone who has worked in the defence industry I know for a fact if a low level employee had done what Clinton did, they would be fired and would never have any sort of security clearance ever again. Not only that the hypocrisy of how Clinton talked about the danger to national security Manning and Snowden posed is disgraceful. But yeah, it's her or Trump, so whatever. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 11998290)
I believe Trump actually claimed he could shoot someone and get away with it.
Trump Says He Could 'Shoot Somebody' and Still Maintain Support - NBC News Comey also clarified that hacker dude was lying about hacking her server. Comey: Hacker 'Guccifer' Lied About Accessing Clinton's Emails | Fox News Insider Many of the GOP talking points just keep melting away. I'm not concerned about GOP talking points, but with what Comey laid out. Zargof is 100% correct in his assessment. He worked in the defence field and I was in the Army Counterintelligence Corps in the '60s and we both see the danger of what she did and how anyone not named "Hillary Clinton" would have been prosecuted. The main GOP talking point in this area will probably be how she is deceitful and above the law - and no one should be above the law. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 5:22 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.