It KEEPS On Coming......& COMING

1. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 7 years ago

   
   According to MSN & CBS news reports on July 8th, 2016, Florida Congressperson Corrine Brown, 69,  a  Democratic Representative from Florida who has served in Congress since 1993, & Elias Simmons, 50,  her Chief of Staff have been charge with using the political position to solicit over $800K in donations to a supposed charity fund which was discovered later to be a personal slush fund.  Congressperson Brown pleaded not guilty in the fraud case.  They have been indicted on 24-counts of fraud. & other violations including obstruction of justice & conspiracy.  Nancy Pelosi indicated that she was saddened by this, citing that the Congressperson was exemplary.  If convicted on all 24 charges, Brown could face 357 years in prison while Simmons could face 355 years in prison.  Well, they can use the Hillary defense(sarcasm).  Your thoughts on this?

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Arrest her and prosecute her for fraud, if the case is as you state.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         It's amazing, it keeps coming like a political tsunami.  When will it stop!  Well, I am going to sit back & make some hot dogs & buttered popcorn.   Can't wait to see what happens next!   Politics is.....LIKE A SOAP OPERA, in fact, it is MORE FUN, INTRIGUING than a SOAP OPERA........
         
         Wow, the political arena.................
         
         First it was Hillary, NOW THIS...........If all else fails, Brown can always plead the Hillary defense(coughs, coughs)
         

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            While secy Clinton is not my ideal choice, she has been absolved of wrong doing by the proper authorities. My issue is solely with this Congressperson Brown and her behavior

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               No she hasn't - she has most definitely been found to disobey the law about classified information on her private server.
               
               It was just found that there was insufficient evidence to prove either intent or gross negligence beyond a reasonable doubt.  Money and power talks just as it did for OJ.
               
               It continues to amaze me that people post that she is innocent of doing anything wrong when the FBI very plainly stated that she DID do something wrong.  And continued to do so by lying and hiding her wrongdoing.

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  +1,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!

                  replyreport
               2. 79

                  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Insuffient evidence is still just that. If you want to persecute her, than get sufficient evidence. otherwise, you have no case.

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     No case...case for what?  Criminal prosecution?  Or for showing her for someone that doesn't bother to follow the rules other people are forced to use?  For showing her as someone that doesn't care about security? 
                     
                     Now I understand that the liberal mind will take the information that she violated the law, and lied about it multiple times, as proof of her innocence, but that doesn't make it so.  That case (innocence) is certainly not proven!

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        And the conservative mind is rife hypocrisy and double standards. When moral and ethical questions surrounded  Trump, you are more than willing to accommodate. You people still have a burr in your saddle over O.J? If the rightwinger is anything, they are both stubborn and tenacious. You really are quite partisan, despite the fact that you say otherwise.
                        
                        who are you to determine what levels the offenses rise to, outside of your world renown and vaunted opinion?

                        replyreport
                        1. 96

                           wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Trump, OJ, "rightwinger", partisanship - what do any of these have to do with Clinton illegally using a private server to put classified documents on?  Or repeatedly lying about it?
                           
                           Be careful, Credence, your bias is showing badly.  You may be quite happy to give Clinton a "bye" on her illegal activities but neither the "rightwinger" nor the unbiased is willing to do so.

                           replyreport
                        2. 89

                           GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Hey Cred, I stumbled across this in my inbox.  It seems to offer some weight to Wilderness' perspective;
                           Comey’s FBI Helped Convict Navy Reservist
                           
                           Beyond criticism of the source, the details of the point are damning.
                           
                           - Comey, as Federal Prosecutor, prosecuted a similar case in 2015,  “unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials,”  against an enlisted man - guy admitted guilt
                           
                           
                           
                           Earlier in his career, relative to a question about his prosecution of Martha Stewart, (prior to the enlisted man case); ...then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said that if Stewart were Jane Doe she would have been prosecuted. “I thought of my hesitation about the case due to someone being rich and famous, and how it shouldn’t be that way,” Comey said. “I decided we had to do it.”
                           
                           One year ago he prosecutes an enlisted man for similar transgressions to what he said Hillary did.
                           
                           Hmm...
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
                           1. 85

                              gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              Mr. Anderson sir, hmmm indeed.  It seems to be TWO sets of laws, one for the influential & one for the rest of us.  FBI Director Comey acknowledged in his statement in so many words that Hillary did things that others were prosecuted for.    I knew from the beginning that Hillary wouldn't be indicted.  After all, she has friends in VERY HIGH places,  is a political insider, & a highly placed Democrat.  If inductive & deductive logic is applied, Hillary wasn't not about to be indicted.   After Obama endorsed Hillary to be the Democratic candidate for president, it is like an imprimatur was issued, technically absolving her of all wrongdoing.  Hillary has allies so no she wasn't about to be prosecuted  nor indicted.   One say aptly proclaim that Hillary is above the law.  The "investigation" of Hillary was simply pure orchestration to quell the public; every thinking person who is knowledgeable about political machinations will see that Hillary will be absolved & declared innocent.

                              replyreport
                           2. 79

                              Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              Alright, wilderness and GA, your points have been taken.
                              
                              GA, that reference site that you provided, I could not trust it, as it called Comer a liar and a fraud. Pretty brazen stuff for anything outside the mainstream. I saw their Judicial Watch 'mission' statement and I didnotlike it.They use those sorts of words to define Trump in the Huffington Post. So, I checked out more mainstream neutral media to corroborate the story beyond the link.
                              
                              I could not see any 'daylight' between the offense as committed by Secy cClinton and that of which the Navy reservist was found guilty. A charge of criminal negligence could be levied equally for both. But while the reservist received a penalty, Clinton did not.
                              
                              I would be a hypocrite if could not admit the disparity, as no one is above the law.
                              Consequently, a penalty that she should recieve for this infraction would be appropriate and fair.
                              
                              But, I will give it to you both this way, I begged the Democrats to produce a candidate with considerably    less baggage. But such was not the outcome.
                              
                              As it is, from my point of view, Donald Trump is so antagonistic a candidate for many of us, that we will pinch our noses while voting for her rather than even consider a Trump victory. Sitting it out just means a Trump victory and we can't have that.
                              
                              See my convincing linked source, below
                              
                              http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how … es-n604856

                              replyreport
                              1. 89

                                 GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 I don't distrust Judicialwatch, I just consider that their perspective is slanted right. But facts are still facts no matter how they are presented. I am glad you found a source you did trust that verified the details of the Nishimura, (the "Reservist") case.
                                 
                                 But there is still a disconnect. You concur that the compared cases were in fact comparable, then you speak of "infractions" and "penalties" regarding the Secretary;  yet the reservist was convicted of a crime, and sentenced.
                                 
                                 I am not pushing you to any further defense of your support for Hillary, I am making the point that it isn't just Conservatives or Right-wingers that will swallow a lot to hold onto their candidate. (Trump?) You just happened to walk into the cross-hairs with that "infraction and penalties" perspective.
                                 
                                 GA

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 79

                                    Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    Yes, let me clarify, whatever penalty the Navy reservist received for violations she should receive at least as much.
                                    
                                    I am more than accepting for an Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders as a substitute, if Clinton is to be arrested.
                                    
                                    It is just that right now my choice is between a seriously tainted Hillary Clinton and the 21st century version of George Wallace. Under those circumstance, it is not too hard to figure as to who I will support.

                                    replyreport
                     2. 81

                        Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        The onus is not on Hilary Clinton, or any person, to prove their innocence.
                        
                        The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is implied by the Fith Amendment, is a legal right in many states, and is enshrined in Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was ratified by the US in 1992.
                        
                        Hilary Clinton has neither been charged with, nor convicted of, a crime. So regardless of whether you believe she has a moral case to answer, by any legal standard, she is innocent.

                        replyreport
                        1. 96

                           wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Close; she is not guilty.  She has not been proven guilty in a court of law, but neither has 12 jurors found her innocent - not guilty is the proper term.
                           
                           But that refers to not guilty of the crime of intentionally and grossly negligent handling of classified documents beyond a reasonable doubt.  There is very little doubt that a jury would find her guilty of putting classified documents onto a private server in violation of the law - the FBI report has made that abundantly clear.  She is guilty of repeatedly lying about what she did.  She is guilty of removing some of those classified documents.  And whether she did so in sufficient numbers to warrant job repercussions remains to be seen.
                           
                           Was OJ guilty of murder?

                           replyreport
                           1. 79

                              Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              OJ was acquitted by a jury of his peers, isn't that the way the system is supposed to work or does that just apply to SOME people?

                              replyreport
                           2. 81

                              Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              I accept the correct technical term is "not guilty", but in common vernacular "innocent" and "not guilty" are synonymous. That's why the principle is called the presumption of innocence, i.e. people are presumed not guilty of a crime until they are proven guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt) in a court of law.
                              
                              Hillary Clinton is entitled to the same presumption of innocence as anyone else. Regardless of whether you think she lied, or was negligent, or removed classified documents, the fact remains she has not been charged or convicted of a crime, and she is therefore innocent, i.e. not guilty.
                              
                              OJ Simpson? We can opine on his guilt or innocence as much as we want, but that does not change the fact that he was found not guilty in a court of law. Likewise we can opine about the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman, but that does not change the fact that he too was found not guilty in a court of law. Like it or not, those were the decisions the jurors reached in those cases.
                              
                              If we believe the law is being applied inconsistently, we are entitled to campaign for reform, but we are not entitled to overturn individual cases on the grounds that we don't like the result. And we are not entitled to punish someone for a crime they have not been charged with or convicted of. That's the difference between mob rule, and the rule of law.

                              replyreport
                              1. 89

                                 GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Hello Don W., I hope you don't mind if I jump back into the thread...
                                 
                                 I noticed that when you spoke of the terms' use as being synonymous, you supported that referencing common usage, but when you spoke of Hillary Clinton's entitlement to the presumption of innocence, your perspective was the rule of law.
                                 
                                 Considering that the debate about her innocence is not one relative to a trial's verdict, but of people's perceptions of the "evidence as presented," would it be inaccurate to say that her innocence or guilt is in the eyes of people, rather than the eyes of the law - as you so patiently explained?
                                 
                                 Also, remaining in the vernacular, or common-use frame of mind, I don't find it hard at all to consider instances where the eyes of the law may not be involved, but a crime is confirmed, and a witness may certainly be valid in forming an innocent or guilty determination from their perspective.
                                 
                                 GA

                                 replyreport
                              2. 96

                                 wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 You misunderstood the reference to OJ as he was found guilty in a court of law.  Guilty.
                                 
                                 Of course that court used a different standard for defining guilt, as opposed to the criminal definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
                                 
                                 As far as Clinton - I'm not overly concerned with punishing her, unless you consider safeguarding the security of the US (by revoking her clearance) as a criminal punishment.  I'm far more concerned with electing a president guilty of ignoring security protocols for her convenience.  And here it becomes "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt", for it is not a criminal matter and does not carry a criminal penalty.  I understand as well that it is not a jury that will "convict" her, but the American voter.  If they are honest enough, anyway, and actually care about the attitudes and actions of who they will elect.
                                 
                                 Personally I find that Clinton has a very deep character flaw ("I'm better than anyone else and needn't follow the laws or rules they do") as well as a well-documented propensity for outright lying - she is "convicted" of both in my mind and this little episode has cost her any possibility of my vote regardless of my dislike for Trump.  It is quite plain that a "preponderance of the evidence" points directly to her guilt, IMHO.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 81

                                    Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    Simpson was not found guilty in the civil case either, he was found liable. But I take your point. Just because someone has not been found guilty (or charged in Clinton's case) that doesn't mean they have done nothing wrong.
                                    
                                    I think Clinton's actions were foolish and potentially dangerous, but I share the FBI view that there was no crime committed. And as usual voters are being asked to pick the least worst candidate. Between Clinton and Trump, I think many will consider Clinton the least worst of the two for various reasons. How many remains to be seen.
                                    
                                    I also think it's misleading for the opening poster to imply that a case where someone has been indicted on 24 counts of fraud, is comparable to a case where someone has been indicted on no counts of anything. It implies these situations are the same, which is false equivalence.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 96

                                       wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Umm...You do realize that an indictment is not a statement of guilt.  Only that the accuser thinks there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt.  No, they are not the same, but an indictment means almost nothing, either.  Particularly in the high stakes, monied world of the politically powerful.  It will be interesting to see, if there is a crime in Trump's case, if that crime is assigned to Trump personally or to the business he owns but does not personally run on a day to day basis.  We've come a ways in correcting this loophole, but have a long ways to go.
                                       
                                       Clinton may or may not have committed a crime in the eyes of the law, but others doing the same thing (putting classified information of personal devices) have been convicted of one, and even Comey made that clear.  It boils down to "can we get a conviction?" and part of the answer is coming from an acknowledgement of the political power of the defense.  Unfortunate, but a fact of life in our justice system; money and power talk, and with a very loud voice.
                                       
                                       A recent juror experience gave me a new appreciation of the difficulties a DA (or AG) faces.  A homeless man was found asleep at the wheel of a stolen car, keys in the ignition and parked in a secluded, covered area.  He said the car was given to him by his good friend James, last name and address unknown.  He ran, throwing the keys away.  To one juror, though, the case hinged on knowing his intent with the car; did he intend to give it back or not.  As intent cannot be determined it ended with a hung jury and no decision at all - that without clear admission intent can never be determined in any case didn't seem to matter.
                                       
                                       Considering that half the nation desperately wants Clinton as President, it doesn't seem possible to find a jury that would convict regardless of what she did and that must be entered into the calculation whether to indict or not.  If no conviction can be expected, why try the suspect at all?  Comey would almost have to have a video of Clinton chuckling and laughing as she said she was putting the stuff on an illegal, personal computer, and then find not 110 but a thousand clearly marked pieces.  And he'd still have trouble!

                                       report
                                       1. 94

                                          Solarasposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          90% of the Power Structure does NOT want Trump, so Clinton gets a hall pass, since her indictment would smooth the way for an incompetent Trump presidency.  The other option, Bernie Sanders, is perceived as too far out there to landslide over Trump.
                                          
                                          Her luck knows no bounds; she can commit crimes and even her enemies will let it pass as the alternative scenario would result in the USA abdicating its role as world leader (and then where would their power structure be). As one wise man noted, some people can fall into a barrel of sh!t and still come up with a gold ring.
                                          
                                          She is likely to become the next POTUS, simply because she believes it's her turn. She has waited long enough. No other part platform need be proferred.

                                          report
                                       2. 81

                                          Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          If we're talking about justice, then yes an indictment is meaningless (back to the presumption of innocence). If we're talking about politics, then it's not meaningless. It would be hugely politically damaging, especially for a presidential candidate.
                                          
                                          From what I can see, the GOPs interest in "justice" stems mainly from its desire to inflict political damage on Hillary Clinton. I fully expect the email saga to be strung out for as long as possible, just like the Benghazi investigations which have been strung out over seven separate investigations, and continues with the current eighth.
                                          
                                          More widely, it is clear that this area is the GOPs main attack vector on Clinton, and is likely what gave rise to Trump's "crooked Hillary" monicker. The GOP will seek every opportunity to reinforce that narrative.
                                          
                                          It's probably no coincidence that a conservative foundation, the so-called Judicialwatch, are calling for a deposition from Clinton in an FOIA lawsuit, even though the information needed can be found in the multitude of documents already available. Again, in legal terms, it's not an issue. Politically though it could/would be very damaging, which is the point. It reinforces the "crooked Hilary" narrative. This thread itself links someone indicted for fraud with Clinton, which I think represents a localized (and not-very-subtle) mimicking of the "crooked Hillary" messaging.
                                          
                                          No doubt some will argue the concern for justice is genuine, and if it just so happens to be damaging to a political opponent, so be it. I don't buy that. The farce of a committee looking at Benghazi should have (and could have) wrapped up a long while ago. Anyone who believes this latest investigation is for the sake of justice, is very naive. It's party politics. The further they can stretch it into the election proper, the better, and that is exactly what I predict will happen, along with an intensified push on the "crooked Hillary" narrative.
                                          
                                          So the GOP seem very interested in justice when it suits them politically, but where is the committee to investigate abuses of authority in law enforcement and the impact it has on people of color? Where is the committee to investigate the causes of gun violence? When will these be established? Justice that only extends as far as a political opponent isn't justice. It's political theater.
                                          
                                          And all people do is pick sides, cheer their heroes, and boo their opponents. Meanwhile in the real world no one even knows how many children in the country live in poverty, because poverty isn't measured properly(!) Yet here we are talking about Hillary Clinton's email server. Clinton's email arrangements were stupid and unnecessary. If you think that means she would be a worse President than Trump, don't vote for her. If not, do vote for her. That should be the end of the story. Anything that goes beyond that is just part of the show.
                                          
                                          In answer to the OPs question "when will it stop?" It will stop when people stop helping to pedal this garbage. And it will stop when people start holding their politicians and the media to account for not focusing on things that matter.

                                          report
                                          1. 96

                                             wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                             Agreed, it is mostly about politics.  But the other factor, that the powers-that-be won't talk much about regardless of party affiliation, is the double standard for the powerful and the man in the street.  In that vein Clinton should be prosecuted (as others have been) and it has nothing to do with politics, but actually does concern justice.
                                             
                                             "But where is the committee to investigate abuses of authority in law enforcement and the impact it has on people of color?"  We already have and the results, although not PC, are available.
                                             
                                             "Where is the committee to investigate the causes of gun violence?"  We won't do one - it is politically advantageous to placate the populace by removing rights from a minority whereas a real investigation into the causes of violence (not just gun violence - we know that to be a red herring, regardless of how popular it is) isn't something anybody wants to see.
                                             
                                             But then most major "Justice" questions is handled by political power rather than by the justice department.  And if you think that isn't the case in the Clinton matter, and in her getting off scot free, you truly need to rethink.  Yes, conservatives profess to be appalled (while applauding behind their back that one of their own got away with it), but the fact is that she should be prosecuted, and convicted if guilty.  Won't happen, though.

                                             report
   2. 71

      rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      This is why we need to clean house and enact term limits. To sit by and just re-elect these scum bags is our fault. I don't care what persuasion of politics you adhere to.

      replyreport
2. 78

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   Its a REAL reality show!

   replyreport
3. 56

   willmcwryterposted 7 years ago

   wow lady your forum title sounds like a p0rn0.  keep it clean why doncha and those pictures ain't helping.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      STOP THAT NOW, SHAME ON YOU!!!
      

      replyreport
      1. 93

         Dean Traylorposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Gmwilliams, not to get off topic but that obnoxious turd that made that last response has been trolling a lot lately. I guess he's mad because nobody wants to read his crappy, sophomoric poems about nuggets.

         replyreport
         1. 56

            willmcwryterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            wow everybody has the rite to express there concerns on the forum so why don't you go <snipped>

            replyreport
            1. 93

               Dean Traylorposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Right not rite. As in I have the right to flag you. I also have the right to block your misspelled comments and ponder if you're acting like this because you recently woke up and discovered you had hair down there and think you can do whatever you want. Btw if that's a picture of your unit you may want to go to the doctor and get it checked out.

               replyreport
               1. 92

                  SheilaMilneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  He is a troll.  He disappeared for a few months back but I see he is back.  Best to ignore him..

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     calculus-geometryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     I wander if he will at least right us anuther poim before he dissapeers into the missed.  Remember your fans, Will McNugget!

                     replyreport
                     1. 93

                        Dean Traylorposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        It will probably start of with wow.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           calculus-geometryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           wow he came threw, like mana from hevven

                           replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   Hillary's poll numbers are sliding essentially in most  important states , Florida , Ohio , Pennsylvanian  and more  , she and Trump are now  about equal in the polls.  Hillary's  trust level is tanked , The voting populace is JUST  beginning  to see her  major shortcomings . Honesty - integrity  -  honor ,  the trust factor , these very important factors are grossly missing from her campaigning personality  .
   
   New   books are being released , including  a movie -" Hillary's America  "by former staffers ,  campaign workers  and  Secret Service  people showing her and her husbands Mafia  style of leadership  past .  Everyone should simply Google up their  pasts  and judge for themselves , DO I TRUST HILLARY CLINTON ?
   
   The incredible amount of legalized graft , corruption and  'Hillary For Hire" , Or " Pay for Play" as a head of state dept.  using the Clinton Foundation and  Campaign funding donations is incredible  corrupted.   She needs to explain to my  satisfaction how............... "She Came out of the White House Broke ..........."    And  yet now ,  her and her husband are incredibly   and  even  "filthy  rich "?
   
   Democrats  didn't properly Vet - Sanders  and the Democrats  are willing to give Hillary a free ride  as well ?.   Got to get your house together  , I'd say !

   replyreport