Trump to win?

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?


We may get a partial answer before the election:

LA TIMES TUESDAY: FBI Investigators had planned to conduct new email review over several weeks. It now hopes to complete 'preliminary assessment' in coming days, but agency officials have not decided how, or whether, they will disclose results publicly... Developing...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...re-just-one-pr

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

And it's just getting worse for him today. Dems are turning up the heat and talking about the possibility that he violated the Hatch Act. Since he works for Lynch it wouldn't surprise me if he "resigns" soon after the election.

Comey is not what's at issue here. What's at issue is the many infirmities of the Democratic nominee. The fact that she and her enterprise are under multiple criminal investigations by the FBI. That these investigations are being stymied by political appointees compromised by the Clintons.

What's at issue is that the Democratic candidate is under threat of indictment and if elected, impeachment. No wonder they want to change the subject and demonize Comey.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

The conspiracy nutcases are coming out this Halloween!

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/c...p-kgb-cahoots/

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

quote of the day, from charles blow [sic] in the ny times:

Who would have thought that the final leg of this election cycle would be dominated by crowing about violating vaginas and by probes into penis pictures?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

And it's just getting worse for him today. Dems are turning up the heat and talking about the possibility that he violated the Hatch Act. Since he works for Lynch it wouldn't surprise me if he "resigns" soon after the election.

given all the heat and the no-win position he's been put in, it wouldn't surprise me if he'd be happy and eager to resign as soon as it's not going to create a storm of its own. he'll do just fine back in the private sector.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

No, at least I've tried not to do that. He seems to be treading water for dear life amid a perfect storm and I empathize.

And it's just getting worse for him today. Dems are turning up the heat and talking about the possibility that he violated the Hatch Act. Since he works for Lynch it wouldn't surprise me if he "resigns" soon after the election.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Trump to win?

Absolutely not



Was he truly unexpected? Trump looked strong from the getgo. He led the polls from the getgo too, despite the whining and protestation of the pundits. Methinks the lady doth protest too much...

Trump was couth enough to play golf with and go to weddings with and invite to Whitehouse dinners nary a year or two ago.

Now one side would have me believe he's such an unexpected, unplanned outsider that he'd rock the whole system, while the other side would have me believe he's an uncultured lowbrow swine, who just happens to own tailored white tie tuxedos and be invited to all the most exclusive events in the world.

Too much cognitive dissonance for me. Neither narrative adds up.

My guess is Trump is exactly what he appears to be. Maybe the 50th richest guy in America who makes most of his money off real estate, and who grew up with a silver spoon, became a socialite, and who is friendly and comfortable hanging out with all the inner-circles of media and political power and always has been. My guess is Hillary is exactly what she appears to be. One half of a team that has used the Whitehouse to achieve unprecedented personal wealth for themselves, and who cares very little about anyone but her and hers.

The best pro-Trump argument going is the foreign policy one. But even there, as I don't like the idea of Clinton taunting Russia into a fight, and the media dutifully following as they have been, I also worry about Trump's more boots on the ground, double budgets strategy for the middle east.

This is really a gross understatement when you consider the damage that she has done. She has burned the bridge with Russia entirely , now so much so that even Trump might have to engage in theater to distance himself. She has used a nuclear power as a scape goat for political purposes in the most reckless way.
Its also not as if Russia does not pull on a larger thread. Iran is now diplomatically compromised without Russia. Another diplomatic hot spot is Israel and Palestine. I don't think talking about rigging election is going to do mcuh for her possible role there.
Add to the ring around China in the midst of the Philippine revolt , its getting difficult for me to wonder what diplomatic problem is she equipped to solve. Working with the Saudis has the opposite problem. The first thing we have to wonder is if its the result of a bribe.

I think Trump easily wins this with his clean slate. i suppose there is some risk of economic or trade disputes , but I think this just pales in comparison to HRC.

As far a civil rights are concerned , its really all about the 1st and 2nd amendment. There is just no comparison here. HRC seems to think many of our problems are the direct result of the 1st and 2nd amendment. For all of these years the United States has been suffering under them apparently.

She is simply an impossible vote for the freedom of anything.

The way I see it, we're stuck with a choice between two candidates, each of which wants the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer, each of which wants more soldiers and more war, each of which wants a larger debt and greater deficits, and both of which feel more at home in a penthouse in downtown Manhattan than anywhere else in the world.

It's another choice between rule by Brookings or rule by Heritage.

The veneers and the narratives we have over the meat this time are particularly juicy and egregious.

But I really don't sense anything too original, or too outrageous, for that matter.

Here is where I do not see a lot of hope with Trump. He operates in the same economic mythologies as usual. What we need to real infrastructure to help productivity while keeping real estate prices down. I have no seen anything that will get us there from anyone. The only one working to balance this out are rentiers in China and India.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

So how did they know what was on there before this afternoon then? Am I misunderstanding something about how the US legal system is supposed to work?

The way I understand it is, the FBI had a warrant for information on Weiner's computer pertaining to interstate/internet messages dealing with solicitation of a minor or child pornography.

In the course of the investigation they found emails leading to evidence of another crime, so they have to stop and obtain another search warrant or get permission of the computer owner.

It would be like conducting a search warrant on a house for drugs and finding a currency counterfeiting operation next to a pile of cocaine.

That's the way I understand it at least, but I'm not lawyer.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Beware the rage of frustrated, angry citizens. While the political lions are focused on the wildebeast, the shadow of a looming T-Rex is falling over the lions.

Democrats and Republicans are treating the FBI like a political ping-pong ball with the result that people are losing all respect for authority. Our government is behaving like a banana republic. The breakdown of the Rule of Law is the final step needed for the breakdown of society.

Add to this the fact that Comey had a total conflict of interest in the Clinton investigation, being on Goldman's board of directors. Thus the pathetic wrist slap this summer. For that he became a pariah in the FBI, as he deserved.

Charles Hugh Smith is thinking that the sudden change is coming from the Deep State, not the Republicans. Since I think both parties are actually puppets of the Deep State, I'm willing to give some credence to his theory. :

these theories are:
1. too easy to construct. they can explain or predict ANYTHING, especially when you posit conflicting subgroups within "the deep state."
2. too hard to disprove. they are about hidden, conspiratorial actions. if you can't see them, that's proof of their secrecy instead of their non-existence.

such a theory may be true, in theory or in fact, but it has no explanatory value. it is created post-hoc to explain what has already happened.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

I think both of you are trying to make sense of a political feeding frenzy. Someone(s) important on the Republican side got enough information to put Comey in a position where he felt he had to say something or face the end of his career as he knows it. Over the weekend it appears there's not much there, there and the Dems are skinning him alive. When the lions are hungry a wildebeest is going down.

Beware the rage of frustrated, angry citizens. While the political lions are focused on the wildebeast, the shadow of a looming T-Rex is falling over the lions.

Democrats and Republicans are treating the FBI like a political ping-pong ball with the result that people are losing all respect for authority. Our government is behaving like a banana republic. The breakdown of the Rule of Law is the final step needed for the breakdown of society.

Add to this the fact that Comey had a total conflict of interest in the Clinton investigation, being on Goldman's board of directors. Thus the pathetic wrist slap this summer. For that he became a pariah in the FBI, as he deserved.

Charles Hugh Smith is thinking that the sudden change is coming from the Deep State, not the Republicans. Since I think both parties are actually puppets of the Deep State, I'm willing to give some credence to his theory. :

These Blast Points on Hillary's Campaign... Only The Deep State Is So Precise
October 31, 2016

The Deep State's most prescient elements must derail Hillary's campaign to clear a path to Trump's executive team.

Back in August, I asked Could the Deep State Be Sabotaging Hillary? I think we now have a definitive answer: "These blast points on Hillary's campaign... too accurate for the Mainstream Media. Only the forces of the Imperial Deep State are so precise."

The Mainstream Media is presenting the FBI investigation as a "lose-lose" situation for embattled FBI Director Comey. If Comey remained quiet until after the election, he would be accused of colluding with the Clinton campaign and its allies in the Department of Justice (sic).

But in going public, he stands accused by Democrats of "intervening in an election," i.e. raising doubts about Hillary's judgement and veracity days before Americans go to the polls.

Another narrative has Comey's hand forced by the threat of disgusted FBI agents leaking information that would show the FBI caved into political pressure from the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign to keep relevant material out of the public eye until after the election.

I submit another much more powerful dynamic is in play: the upper ranks of the Deep State now view Hillary as an unacceptable liability. The word came down to Comey to act whether he wanted to or not, i.e. take one for the good of the nation/Deep State/Imperial Project.

As a refresher: the Deep State is the unelected government (also called the invisible or shadow government) that is not as monolithic as generally assumed.

The neo-conservative globalists who want Hillary to continue pushing their agenda are the more visible camp, but another less visible but highly motivated camp realizes Hillary and her neo-con agenda would severely damage the nation's security and its global influence. It is this camp that is arranging for Hillary to lose.

The consensus view seems to be that the Establishment and the Deep State see Trump as a loose cannon who might upset the neo-con apple cart by refusing to toe the neo-con line.

This view overlooks the reality that significant segments of the Deep State view the neo-con strategy as an irredeemable failure. To these elements of the Deep State, Hillary is a threat precisely because she embraces the failed neo-con strategy and those who cling to it. From this point of view, Hillary as president would be an unmitigated disaster for the Deep State and the nation/Imperial Project it governs.

Whatever else emerges from the emails being leaked or officially released, one conclusion is inescapable: Hillary's judgement is hopelessly flawed. Combine her lack of judgement with her 24 years of accumulated baggage and her potential to push the neo-con agenda to the point of global disaster, and you get a potent need for the Deep State's most prescient elements to derail her campaign and clear a path to Trump's executive team.

Once this path is clear, the management of Trump's executive team can begin in earnest, a management process aimed at disengaging the nation and its global Empire from neo-con overreach.

If you think this scenario is "impossible," let's see how the election plays out before deciding what's "impossible" and what's inevitable.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

Is this some kind of pro-monarchy nonsense? 240 years later and the "British kept-a-comin"

With the greatest of respects, you did not understand what I meant. What we have here in the UK is independent of monarchy, it is a system of law that is independent of every outside influence, particularly political influence. I had placed up this detail http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...284#post307284 elsewhere but repeat it here.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-t...ind/jud-appts/

Independence

Independence from whom and what?

It is vitally important in a democracy that individual judges and the judiciary as a whole are impartial and independent of all external pressures and of each other so that those who appear before them and the wider public can have confidence that their cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law. When carrying out their judicial function they must be free of any improper influence. Such influence could come from any number of sources. It could arise from improper pressure by the executive or the legislature, by individual litigants, particular pressure groups, the media, self-interest or other judges, in particular more senior judges.
Why is independence important?

It is vital that each judge is able to decide cases solely on the evidence presented in court by the parties and in accordance with the law. Only relevant facts and law should form the basis of a judge’s decision. Only in this way can judges discharge their constitutional responsibility to provide fair and impartial justice; to do justice as Lord Brougham, a 19th Century Lord Chancellor, put it ‘between man and man’ or as Lord Clarke, former Master of the Rolls put it more recently in 2005, ‘between citizen and citizen or between citizen and the state’.
The responsibilities of judges in disputes between the citizen and the state have increased together with the growth in governmental functions over the last century. The responsibility of the judiciary to protect citizens against unlawful acts of government has thus increased, and with it the need for the judiciary to be independent of government.
Independence and the appearance of independence

As well as in fact being independent in this way, it is of vital importance that judges are seen to be both independent and impartial. Justice must not only be done – it must be seen to be done. It was for this reason that the House of Lords in the Pinochet case in 1999 held that a decision it had given had to be set aside and the appeal before it heard again by a panel of different Law Lords. It had come to light after the original decision that one of the Law Lords might have given an appearance that he was not independent and impartial because of a connection with a campaigning organisation which was involved in the case. In those circumstances, and even though there was no suggestion that the Law Lord was not in fact independent or impartial, the decision could not stand. Justice demanded that the appeal be heard again before a panel of Law Lords who had and gave the appearance to reasonable well-informed observers that they were independent and impartial.
The ways in which independence is protected and its limits

Whilst an independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, the practical ways in which this is given effect are often treated with suspicion. For example, judges are given immunity from prosecution for any acts they carry out in performance of their judicial function. They also benefit from immunity from being sued for defamation for the things they say about parties or witnesses in the course of hearing cases. These principles have led some people to suggest that Judges are somehow ‘above the law’.
However, it is not right to say that Judges are above the law. Judges are subject to the law in the same way as any other citizen. The Lord Chief Justice or Lord Chancellor may refer a judge to the Judicial Complaints Investigations Office in order to establish whether it would be appropriate to remove them from office in circumstances where they have been found to have committed a criminal offence.
Judicial independence does, however, mean that judges must be free to exercise their judicial powers without interference from litigants, the State, the media or powerful individuals or entities, such as large companies. This is an important principle because judges often decide matters between the citizen and the state and between citizens and powerful entities. For example, it is clearly inappropriate for the judge in charge of a criminal trial against an individual citizen to be influenced by the state. It would be unacceptable for the judge to come under pressure to admit or not admit certain evidence, how to direct the jury, or to pass a particular sentence. Decisions must be made on the basis of the facts of the case and the law alone.
Judicial independence is important whether the judge is dealing with a civil or a criminal case. Individuals involved in any kind of case before the courts need to be sure that the judge dealing with their case cannot be influenced by an outside party or by the judge’s own personal interests, such as a fear of being sued for defamation by litigants about whom the judge is required in the course of proceedings or judgment to make adverse comment. This requirement that judges be free from any improper influence also underpins the duty placed on them to declare personal interests in any case before it starts, to ensure that there is neither any bias or partiality, or any appearance of such.
A practical example of the importance of judicial independence is where a high profile matter, which has generated a great deal of media interest comes before the court. Such matters range from the criminal trial of a person accused of a shocking murder, the divorce of celebrities, and challenges to the legality of government policy, for example the availability of a new and expensive drug to NHS patients. In the 24 hour media age in which we live, it stands to reason that the judge hearing the case will often be under intense scrutiny, with decisions open to intense debate. It is right that this is so. But it is important that decisions in the courts are made in accordance with the law and are not influenced by such external factors. It is also important however to observe one or two points which will have an impact on the outcome of the trial and our understanding of it:

1. In a Crown Court criminal trial in England and Wales:
   • The judge does not decide guilt or innocence. That decision is made by the jury, which is made up of resident citizens and registered electors selected at random.
   • If the jury decides that the defendant is guilty, it is then the task of the judge to pass sentence. In doing so the judge will have to take into account the sentencing scheme which has been enacted in legislation by Parliament, and the various sentencing guidelines which have been agreed and published by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. The Guidelines and the decisions of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) set out key considerations which must be taken into account by the judge when determining any sentence and provide a framework of appropriate sentences for the judge to apply. The judge is entitled to depart from the guidelines or a decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) only when the interests of justice require such a departure.
   • Any sentence that is unduly harsh or in the case of more serious offences is unduly lenient may be corrected by the Court of Appeal, on an appeal by the convicted person or a reference to the Court of Appeal by the Attorney General.
   
   
   
2. In civil cases any errors by the trial judge may also be corrected by the Court of Appeal and
3. In cases raising important points of law, the decisions of the Court of Appeal may be appealed to the Supreme Court
4. It is important to recognise that, in both civil and criminal cases, what we read in the papers and see on the news will often only cover a fraction of what has been heard in court. This is not a criticism of journalists. They only have a certain amount of space or time to cover a particular story. It is worth bearing in mind that, for instance, in a criminal case there are often many mitigating or aggravating circumstances surrounding the offence and the offender. These will have had a direct bearing on the sentence handed down and are often difficult for the media to report in full. A good example of this is where a defendant pleads guilty to a crime. In such circumstances Parliament has directed that judges must significantly reduce the sentence.

The purpose of the above examples is not to suggest that judges never get it wrong, or that in criminal cases they have no say in the sentence handed down, but to give an idea of the factors they must consider when making decisions.
Further reading:

International resolutions

The protection of judicial independence has been the focus of international resolutions, the most prominent of which are:

1. The ‘United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and the role of lawyers’. These were endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 1985 and 1990
2. The ‘Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct’. They were endorsed in 2003 and set out a code of judicial conduct. They are intended to complement the UN’s Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and the role of lawyers. The first of its principles states that“Judicial independence is a prerequisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects

Other bodies have endorsed judicial independence. For instance, in 1995, the group of Asian – Pacific Chief Justices adopted a common set of standards for the promotion and protection of their judicial institutions, which included judicial independence. These are known as the ‘Beijing Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA region’
In 1998, a similar statement of principle (“the Latimer House Principles”) was also agreed by representatives from over 20 Commonwealth countries at a conference held at Latimer House, Buckinghamshire, UK.
The essence of the commitment to judicial independence can be found in the oath that all judges in England and Wales have to swear when they take up their office.
Historical background:

The fundamental concept of judicial independence came into being in England and Wales in 1701 with the enactment of the Act of Settlement. This statute formally recognised the principles of security of judicial tenure by establishing that High Court Judges and Lords Justice of Appeal hold office during good behaviour. Appropriate and formal mechanisms had to be in place before a judge could be removed.
Before 1701 senior judges held office at the sovereign’s pleasure and there are many examples of judges being removed from office for failing to decide cases in accordance with the wishes of the King or Queen. Since the Act of Settlement it has only been possible to remove a senior judge from office through an Address to the Queen agreed by both Houses of Parliament.
Selected lectures, articles and books on judicial independence:

1. Judicial Independence – the 1996 Judicial Studies Board Lecture given by Lord Bingham, Lord Chief Justice
2. Judicial Independence – a lecture given by Lord Phillips, Lord Chief Justice at the Commonwealth Law Conference, Kenya, September 2007
   Judicial Independence
3. The Position of the Judiciaries of the United Kingdom in the Constitutional Changes – Lord Justice Thomas, Address to the Scottish Sheriff’s Association, 8 March 2008: Peebles
   The Position of the Judiciaries of the United Kingdom in the Constitutional Changes
4. Judicial Independence and Accountability: Pressures and Opportunities – a lecture given by Sir Jack Beatson FBA at Nottingham Trent University, April 2008
   Judicial Independence and Accountability: Pressures and Opportunities
5. Judicial Independence – Its History in England and Wales, a lecture given by Sir Henry Brooke (former Lord Justice of Appeal and Vice – President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division))
   Judicial Independence – Its History in England and Wales
6. The Constitutional Position of the Judiciary – a monograph by John Sorabji, Legal Secretary to the Master of the Rolls
7. Chapter 9 of The Politics of the Judiciary, a book by John Griffith (Fontana 1981)
8. The Independence of the Judiciary – the view from the Lord Chancellor’s Office, a book by Robert Stevens (OUP, 1993)
9. The English Judges – Their Role in the Changing Constitution, a book by Robert Stevens, (Hart Publishing, 2002).
10. Independence, Accountability and the Judiciary, a collection of essays edited by Canivet, Andeanas and Fairgrieve (BIICL, 2006)
11. Judicial Independence and Parliaments, Dame Mary Arden DBE, in Ziegler, Baranger & Bradley, Constitutionalism and the Role of Parliaments (Hart Publishing, 2007)

[DSpencer]

Re: Trump to win?

Perhaps the most important aspect of this whole farrago is that the entire law agency framework within the USA has at long last started to recognise the force of the argument for the creation of law that is completely independent of any political influence. Here in the UK we worked that one out many years ago, as I have already shown elsewhere within itulip recently. How you overcome your now seen to be deeply flawed Constitution in that respect is the great challenge facing the USA. I wish you well. You will not regain your self respect until you make that desperately needed change.

Is this some kind of pro-monarchy nonsense? 240 years later and the "British kept-a-comin"

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

No, at least I've tried not to do that. He seems to be treading water for dear life amid a perfect storm and I empathize.

And I don't blame you as a partisan for hoping it's a weak case, but it's clear the WSJ story points to a massive and wide-scale investigation against Clinton, her entourage and the foundation that enables her corruption. It details an epic internal struggle at the highest levels of government among the four FBI field offices—New York, Los Angeles, Washington and Little Rock, Ark - investigating the Clinton Foundation for evidence of financial crimes or influence-peddling and the senior-most political appointees in the Bureau and the DOJ wanting to avoid the political fallout and willing to look the other way during the election.

Far from "nothing" the Bureau is probing several matters related, directly or indirectly, to Mrs. Clinton and her inner circle. The agents investigating the case are frustrated that the Bureau's deputy director - whose wife received nearly half a million dollars in campaign donations from longtime Clinton ally and foundation board member Terry McAuliffe - and his counterpart in the DOJ ordered them to limit their more than year long probe of the foundation investigating financial crimes and influence peddling related to the charity.

The agents in the field complain that from the start, that these Justice Department officials were stern, icy and dismissive of their case, telling them they wouldn’t authorize subpoenas, formal witness interviews, or grand-jury activity. But the FBI officials believed they were well within their authority to pursue the leads and methods already under way. The Los Angeles field office picked up information about the Clinton Foundation from an unrelated public-corruption case and had issued some subpoenas for bank records related to the foundation and in September, agents on the foundation case asked to see the emails contained on nongovernment laptops that had been searched as part of the Clinton email case, but that request was rejected by prosecutors at the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn. Those emails were given to the FBI based on grants of partial immunity and limited-use agreements, meaning agents could only use them for the purpose of investigating possible mishandling of classified information.

Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors in Manhattan, according to people familiar with the matter. The Bureau's top deputy told them no and added that they couldn’t “go prosecutor-shopping.” Not long after that discussion, FBI agents informed the bureau’s leaders about the Weiner laptop, prompting Comey’s disclosure to Congress and setting off the shitstorm Comey finds himself in. And whatever happens to him is a sideshow now, compared to the increasing likelihood that HRC and those closest to her are facing further investigation and potential indictment.

Like it or not, Clinton is tainted by this and it will follow her until election day and beyond. Voters now have to decide if they want to elect a candidate who has been under intense legal scrutiny by the highest criminal investigative agency in the land, in full expectation that should she be elected, she will surely face a special prosecutor and eventual impeachment. Couldn't happen to a nicer gal.

Perhaps the most important aspect of this whole farrago is that the entire law agency framework within the USA has at long last started to recognise the force of the argument for the creation of law that is completely independent of any political influence. Here in the UK we worked that one out many years ago, as I have already shown elsewhere within itulip recently. How you overcome your now seen to be deeply flawed Constitution in that respect is the great challenge facing the USA. I wish you well. You will not regain your self respect until you make that desperately needed change.

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

Had Obama truly repaired the economy, the next president wouldn't be taking the baton that's actually a stick of dynamite.

I don't think Obama or anyone has the power to repair the economy, you can't have your cake and eat it as well, somebody will have to be sacrificed and it won't be the bankers who need the cash to fund political activities and sabotages all over the world. It will have to be ordinary Americans. At the end of the day, MONEY = POWER.

All Obama can do is to scheme to prevent the US from spending a couple more trillions in sand games - by messing up the Middle East into something toxic and "uninterferable" for at least his term and the next term.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely and causes insanity at the end. Hitler won't be the last one.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...ace-extinction