The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Gordon Shumway**

And yet, that is exactly what you have been doing the last two months Whembly. Never run for office, you can't help yourself with " jumping into the pot". My dog once jumped into the pot...it was not pretty.

**whembly**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
And yet, that is exactly what you have been doing the last two months Whembly. Never run for office, you can't help yourself with " jumping into the pot". My dog once jumped into the pot...it was not pretty.

Hey... as the original author to these "political junkie" threads... it's sorta my hobby.

As a US citizen of this great nation, it is my solemn duty for me to "spread the good word" on how The Clinton's give politicians a bad name.

And there's no way in Nurgle's playground that I'm ever running for office.

No. FETHING. Way.

**Gordon Shumway**

So that's a yes?

**CptJake**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
And yet, that is exactly what you have been doing the last two months Whembly. Never run for office, you can't help yourself with " jumping into the pot". My dog once jumped into the pot...it was not pretty.

We took Tank, our adopted English Bulldog, out kayaking on the river for the first time yesterday. Big dummy bent over to try to drink the river and his big noggin pulled him over and he fell in. Bulldogs don't swim well. It also was not pretty. Thankfully he had a leash on.

**Grey Templar**

CptJake wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
And yet, that is exactly what you have been doing the last two months Whembly. Never run for office, you can't help yourself with " jumping into the pot". My dog once jumped into the pot...it was not pretty.

We took Tank, our adopted English Bulldog, out kayaking on the river for the first time yesterday. Big dummy bent over to try to drink the river and his big noggin pulled him over and he fell in. Bulldogs don't swim well. It also was not pretty. Thankfully he had a leash on.

Even the Rock will get wet to save his pets

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/dwayne-johnson-saves-puppy-012528761.html

**CptJake**

I graduated from Miami the year The Rock started playing for us.

**Jerram**

Grey Templar wrote:
I'm kinda surprised there isn't a permanent computer network for each of the various cabinet positions.

Seems like with each change it should be "Here's the password for the official X-position business computer and affiliated network"

You mean @state.gov, like some of the email addresses in the redacted emails linked above ? So while I cant speak for all the cabinet departments, I'm sure state like defense had an IT dept ready to bend over backboard to set her up with whatever she wanted on that network. Heck knowing how govt bureaucracies work it wouldn't surprise me if she didn't have an official email she just chose to never use.

**whembly**

Jebus she's changing her tune again... on the Ellen Show earlier:
She's flipping from “I’m sorry” to “I’m sorry you guys are so confused”...

Onset dementia?

Here is Clinton's full answer on emails to @TheEllenShow. pic.twitter.com/MxoFiqVSOc
—
Dan Merica (@danmericaCNN) September 8, 2015

**Ouze**

I'm not a big Hillary fan but if she does win, I'll be 20% happy because I support her political views and 80% happy because of what it will do to this thread.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
I'm not a big Hillary fan but if she does win, I'll be 20% happy because I support her political views and 80% happy because of what it will do to this thread.

I still think that'll likely happen...

**sebster**

Jihadin wrote:
<---is not Caucasian (White)

I will never, ever understand this weird thing so many internet posters have with pointing out they don't fit the general descriptor.

It just... I mean, yeah, if anyone on Earth thought that every single Republican voters was white, then the existence of a single non-white voter would totally change the opinions of those fictional people.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
It's probably a combination of a variety of things.

And, as I've said a bunch of times, if you have to write an essay to explain what she's done, and at the end of that people ask 'is that bad?' then it's pretty unlikely you'll get much outrage out of the general public, except those people who really want to be outraged about this.

**shasolenzabi**

She finally apologizes after she dropped behind Bernie in the NH and Iowa polls, Hmmmmm.

**dogma**

Jerram wrote:

Based on the redacted emails, the professionals disagree with you. Specifically 1.4 B and 1.4 D in the handful of redacted emails I've seen.

Certainly some of her emails could be classified, possibly even Top Secret, but not all of them; meaning they would not necessarily be classified at all. Whembly made it seem as though Clinton's emails would be classified Top Secret by virtue of being Clinton's emails, which the EO does not seem to support.

Jerram wrote:

In order to have an informed opinion as to whether the professionals are correct you would need to have seen the unredacted versions, surely you're not claiming you've done that are you ?

No, and you have no reason to suppose that I am. But then I also have no reason to defer to the professionals in this matter either. The only position I can reasonably take is one of relative indifference, as I do not have enough information to form a complete opinion on the entirety of situation.

**Gordon Shumway**

Oh but based upon the rumors, conjecture and smoke floating around out there, surely you can form a well reasoned opinion, right? This is the Internet, after all.

**Co'tor Shas**

I guess it's time for Biden 2016!

Oh, the fun we shall have.

**Frazzled**

Grey Templar wrote:
I'm kinda surprised there isn't a permanent computer network for each of the various cabinet positions.

Seems like with each change it should be "Here's the password for the official X-position business computer and affiliated network"

Indeed.

**whembly**

So... the next Republican debate on CNN next week.

I'm going to predict that Trump will finally be overtaken by either Carson or Fiorina.

**Ouze**

I think Trump is going to go all the way.

**d-usa**

Ouze wrote:
I think Trump is going to go all the way.

He's had a trump card up his sleeve, I'm sure of it.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
I think Trump is going to go all the way.

To the White House?

No.Freaking.Way.

Hillary beats him to a pulp in a likely landslide.

EDIT: heh... good find d. Is there one for Hillary?

**Ouze**

No, not to the White House. No way.

My guess is he goes to the primary, the establishment finds a way to screw him out of the nomination his polling numbers warrant, and then he runs as an independent.

That, or he flames out in some spectacular fashion beforehand. But I think that's unlikely, as he's run for president several times and if he was, like, flying to Thailand for a thing, it would have been exposed by now.

**Co'tor Shas**

That would be an interesting faceoff though. The bombastic idiot and the compulsive liar.

**whembly**

This caught my eye:
Senate Republicans want immunity for Clinton's former IT staffer

Two Senate chairmen want to give immunity to Hillary Clinton’s former top IT staffer, who’s planning to invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to answer incriminating questions from congressional investigators.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Homeland Security and Government Affairs Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) hope an immunity agreement would allow Bryan Pagliano to testify about the former secretary of state's unusual email server setup. They sent a letter to Pagliano and his lawyer this week asking him to “make yourself available to provide information.”

The committees need "the unique information you likely have in order to exercise their oversight functions under the Constitution, which are unrelated to any potential prosecution or criminal inquiry,” the joint letter says. “Thus, the committees have the authority to obtain an immunity order, to acquire the information they need, while also protecting your right against self-incrimination.”

The two senators also asked Pagliano’s attorney to “meet with the committees' staff to explore how to obtain the unique information you possess while respecting your constitutional rights, such as the possibility of a proffer session so that we can better understand what your testimony would be without any waiver of your rights.”

The 2008 Clinton campaign staffer, who followed Clinton to the State Department to oversee the special server, said through his lawyers that he would assert his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself when subpoenaed by the House Benghazi Committee. He’s refusing to answer the committee’s and FBI’s questions about what he knew of the technology.

But immunity could change all that and make it easier for him to answer the panels' questions. But it would also prevent any federal charges related to the email matter from being brought against him the future.

That’s what happened in the case of staffers involved in the Iran-Contra affair. Judges dropped charges against Oliver North, a key figure who opened up about the weapons scandal, because he had testified before Congress under immunity. When the Justice Department brought charges against him, officials were unable to prove that they did not use any of his testimony to make their case.

Since then, Congress has been leery of giving immunity to just anybody.

But both chairmen seem to think it would be worth the offer.

“My job is to get information,” was all Grassley would say to POLITICO when asked about the matter.

“I think it’s appropriate that we have those discussions” about immunity, Johnson said in a short interview off the Senate floor Tuesday evening. “He has information that we need to have, partly because of the national security implications of Secretary Clinton’s actions.”

What I didn't know, and I think this is extrodinary, that even if Pagliano refuses to cooperate... immunity can still be granted. Which would actually negate Pagliano’s use of the 5thamendment. Evidently, if a person is no longer at risk of self-incrimination, then he must testify fully when under subpoena. Refusal to testify can bring a contempt charge.

After that, the trick would be to get the DoJ to cooperate...

**Grey Templar**

Interesting. So if you are given immunity you can be forced to testify and you cannot refuse either the immunity or the requirement to testify.

**Frazzled**

Grey Templar wrote:
Interesting. So if you are given immunity you can be forced to testify and you cannot refuse either the immunity or the requirement to testify.

Correct.

I think Trump's hair will win the debate and decide its the best hair ever and will run without him, therefor leading to a brokered convention between Trump supporters and Trump's hair supporters.

**Ouze**

Grey Templar wrote:
Interesting. So if you are given immunity you can be forced to testify and you cannot refuse either the immunity or the requirement to testify.

It depends on what type of testimony, but yes. If you still refuse you can be found in contempt and jailed.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Interesting. So if you are given immunity you can be forced to testify and you cannot refuse either the immunity or the requirement to testify.

It depends on what type of testimony, but yes. If you still refuse you can be found in contempt and jailed.

Well... that's no bite. (ex AG Holder was held in contempt over Fast & Furious).

:shrugs:

I just thought that you "had to accept the immunity deal" in order for that to work. Meaning that if you don't what to play ball, you just don't accept the immunity deal and maintain your 5th.

Not... *shoves legal document* "Here... you now have Immunity... NOW TALK!".

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Not... *shoves legal document* "Here... you now have Immunity... NOW TALK!".

Pretty much, yeah.

**Grey Templar**

I wonder if the HC campaign just shat their pants a little.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
Not... *shoves legal document* "Here... you now have Immunity... NOW TALK!".

Pretty much, yeah.

Well damn... that's interesting.

I wonder how often this is done in high profile cases. (Oliver North is one famous one).

I guess it's not often employed due to the fact that... it's a guessing game. No one wants to give Immunity to a monster, nor waste it on a trivial matter. However, in this case, it might be worthwhile.

Furthermore, has it been truly considered for Lois Lerner over the IRS controversy?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
I wonder if the HC campaign just shat their pants a little.

I think she sharted already:

I swear, that gif and stills will be gold for a long time.