I have a very lefty friend, who is pointing out that France has a nuclear deterrent but that hasn't stopped them been attacked twice this year.
How do I rebut his argument? (Is there a rebuttal?)
Tell your friend (if he exists, which I doubt; I think you are just trolling) that weapons systems exist for different purposes. France also has an air force and a navy as well as a largeish army equipped with tanks and artillery none of which are of much use in deterring an act by a bunch of criminals with guns. However that doesn't mean that France should scrap its armed forces.
I'm not trolling, he's annoying me no end and I want to rebut his argument and wanted to use the collective wisdom of PB in that endeavour.
Anti terror success is delivered by proportionality and rarely is it delivered purely by militarily destructive means. Anti-terror is is not a war of pure elimination. Your enemy is mobile, they are not static and not organised on conventional means, in conventional formations. To that end, you have to use measures that are proportional and designed for the enemy in question.
I'd point to Northern Ireland as how to prosecute an anti terror operation successfully. There were no armoured divisions driving tanks here for 30 years, no jet fighters and the forefront of the fight ended up being civilian, not military agencies.
If they claim it wasn't successful, point out that the counter terror story of NI is one of the most frequently cited examples within Western agencies about how to do it well.
This is the thing that doesn't help. No choice given one way just imposed. A change of supplier only but it's the complete disregard for the parents views.
Leanne Poxon, 28, a warehouse worker, from Bilborough, sends her four children to the school. She added: 'I think it's disgusting that my children haven't been given the option.
'Muslim children would never be forced to eat non-Halal meat, so why are my children being forced to eat halal meat?
It might be of interest to consider that both Hindus and Sikhs can regard being made to eat halal food as imposing a religion on them.
When Brighton Pavilion was used as a hospital for Indian soldiers injured on the Western Front during WWI it has no less than nine kitchens to ensure that no religious or cast restrictions on food were broken. Somehow I don't think the UK schools take religious sensibilities as far as did the wicked old Raj but one religion seems to be specially favoured.
This is the thing that doesn't help. No choice given one way just imposed. A change of supplier only but it's the complete disregard for the parents views.
Leanne Poxon, 28, a warehouse worker, from Bilborough, sends her four children to the school. She added: 'I think it's disgusting that my children haven't been given the option.
'Muslim children would never be forced to eat non-Halal meat, so why are my children being forced to eat halal meat?
I have a very lefty friend, who is pointing out that France has a nuclear deterrent but that hasn't stopped them been attacked twice this year.
How do I rebut his argument? (Is there a rebuttal?)
Your friend is an idiot with a sh*t argument. Try that.
Yes. 'change your friends'. Well don't. I have lefty leaning friends so I can sympathise. The nuclear deterrent is of course a deterrent from nuclear attack. Unfortunately we cannot uninvent nuclear weapons. If they were dismantled then as soon as it was thought that someone was reinventing them, it would ferment a war not stop one.
I have a very lefty friend, who is pointing out that France has a nuclear deterrent but that hasn't stopped them been attacked twice this year.
How do I rebut his argument? (Is there a rebuttal?)
Tell your friend (if he exists, which I doubt; I think you are just trolling) that weapons systems exist for different purposes. France also has an air force and a navy as well as a largeish army equipped with tanks and artillery none of which are of much use in deterring an act by a bunch of criminals with guns. However that doesn't mean that France should scrap its armed forces.
I'm not trolling, he's annoying me no end and I want to rebut his argument and wanted to use the collective wisdom of PB in that endeavour.
If I may say so, it sounds as though rebutting his argument won't help to stop the annoyance. What you need is some kind of witty (dare-I say?) put-down that will remove his enjoyment of sticking that particular pin in you.
Sadly, the sort of thing I can never come up with!
This is the thing that doesn't help. No choice given one way just imposed. A change of supplier only but it's the complete disregard for the parents views.
Leanne Poxon, 28, a warehouse worker, from Bilborough, sends her four children to the school. She added: 'I think it's disgusting that my children haven't been given the option.
'Muslim children would never be forced to eat non-Halal meat, so why are my children being forced to eat halal meat?
Early Christians also objected to the consumption of meat sacrificed to false idols, something that brought them considerable persecution .
In practice a lot of meat served in the UK is unlabelled Halal meat. If you want to avoid it then best be veggie, or eat pork.
A good example of unlabelled Halal meat is New Zealand lamb. The huge percentage of it is halal as for cost / business reasons, they decided to just make their slaughter halal so they could export to both the West and the Middle East from the same facility.
I have a very lefty friend, who is pointing out that France has a nuclear deterrent but that hasn't stopped them been attacked twice this year.
How do I rebut his argument? (Is there a rebuttal?)
Tell your friend (if he exists, which I doubt; I think you are just trolling) that weapons systems exist for different purposes. France also has an air force and a navy as well as a largeish army equipped with tanks and artillery none of which are of much use in deterring an act by a bunch of criminals with guns. However that doesn't mean that France should scrap its armed forces.
I'm not trolling, he's annoying me no end and I want to rebut his argument and wanted to use the collective wisdom of PB in that endeavour.
If I may say so, it sounds as though rebutting his argument won't help to stop the annoyance. What you need is some kind of witty (dare-I say?) put-down that will remove his enjoyment of sticking that particular pin in you.
Sadly, the sort of thing I can never come up with!
I have a very lefty friend, who is pointing out that France has a nuclear deterrent but that hasn't stopped them been attacked twice this year.
How do I rebut his argument? (Is there a rebuttal?)
Tell your friend (if he exists, which I doubt; I think you are just trolling) that weapons systems exist for different purposes. France also has an air force and a navy as well as a largeish army equipped with tanks and artillery none of which are of much use in deterring an act by a bunch of criminals with guns. However that doesn't mean that France should scrap its armed forces.
I'm not trolling, he's annoying me no end and I want to rebut his argument and wanted to use the collective wisdom of PB in that endeavour.
Anti terror success is delivered by proportionality and rarely is it delivered purely by militarily destructive means. Anti-terror is is not a war of pure elimination. Your enemy is mobile, they are not static and not organised on conventional means, in conventional formations. To that end, you have to use measures that are proportional and designed for the enemy in question.
I'd point to Northern Ireland as how to prosecute an anti terror operation successfully. There were no armoured divisions driving tanks here for 30 years, no jet fighters and the forefront of the fight ended up being civilian, not military agencies.
If they claim it wasn't successful, point out that the counter terror story of NI is one of the most frequently cited examples within Western agencies about how to do it well.
Also, an anti-terror campaign is psychological as much as military; a point that Bush jnr never got. You win when you convince the other side it's not worth it.
@blackburn63 How do you fancy a pact with Corbyn and Bennett ?
But it's not a pact. It;s an agreement to stand on the basis of no policy and delivering a PR based system (most likely AMS).
Additionally, countries do well when governments don't deliver policies. The longer there is no policy enacting government the better, so it;s a full 6 months with no government (effectively) which can only help everyone.
Sometimes events force you to have a policy. Like how to react to the Paris attacks, for example.
Hmm, what positive policy do you foresee Cameron enacting?
This is the thing that doesn't help. No choice given one way just imposed. A change of supplier only but it's the complete disregard for the parents views.
Leanne Poxon, 28, a warehouse worker, from Bilborough, sends her four children to the school. She added: 'I think it's disgusting that my children haven't been given the option.
'Muslim children would never be forced to eat non-Halal meat, so why are my children being forced to eat halal meat?
Early Christians also objected to the consumption of meat sacrificed to false idols, something that brought them considerable persecution .
In practice a lot of meat served in the UK is unlabelled Halal meat. If you want to avoid it then best be veggie, or eat pork.
I did read that a lot if not most meat sold by supermarkets was halal. I lived in the Middle East for a while so I am less concerned than some but the point is there is no choice for other faiths. It's simply get on with it your concerns or your views really don't matter as in this school.
This is unhelpful and stirs the increasing anger in this country. When schools arbitrarily do this without consultation they entrench this feeling with those that have been here for generations. Their way of life is being changed. It doesn't stop with schools it is increasing daily and of course we are now in the silly season where we won't be able to say Christmas but officials and others use wintervall .
A pox on all their heads because we address this imbalance first, have the decency to stand up for our beliefs and seek to protect our own customs why should any other faith.
This is the thing that doesn't help. No choice given one way just imposed. A change of supplier only but it's the complete disregard for the parents views.
Leanne Poxon, 28, a warehouse worker, from Bilborough, sends her four children to the school. She added: 'I think it's disgusting that my children haven't been given the option.
'Muslim children would never be forced to eat non-Halal meat, so why are my children being forced to eat halal meat?
Early Christians also objected to the consumption of meat sacrificed to false idols, something that brought them considerable persecution .
In practice a lot of meat served in the UK is unlabelled Halal meat. If you want to avoid it then best be veggie, or eat pork.
A good example of unlabelled Halal meat is New Zealand lamb. The huge percentage of it is halal as for cost / business reasons, they decided to just make their slaughter halal so they could export to both the West and the Middle East from the same facility.
One reason why I will not buy or knowingly eat New Zealand lamb. The other is that English lamb, particularly the stuff from the Danny Estate just down the road, is so much better.
If Halal labelling, as suggested earlier on this site, was made mandatory it would be a big boost to UK farmers, as would banning imports of meat from countries that do not have the same animal welfare standards as our farmers comply with. On which point I haven't seen the Red Tractor mark in Tescos for a long time now, I wonder why.
@blackburn63 How do you fancy a pact with Corbyn and Bennett ?
But it's not a pact. It;s an agreement to stand on the basis of no policy and delivering a PR based system (most likely AMS).
Additionally, countries do well when governments don't deliver policies. The longer there is no policy enacting government the better, so it;s a full 6 months with no government (effectively) which can only help everyone.
Sometimes events force you to have a policy. Like how to react to the Paris attacks, for example.
Hmm, what positive policy do you foresee Cameron enacting?
Basically it is people not paying for the accommodation through AirBnB, and I suspect many are doing so in order to avoid fees / enticed with a cheaper deal. Do these people not wonder why the letter is asking to try and bypass the system? Or is it a case of you can't con an honest man.
I have a very lefty friend, who is pointing out that France has a nuclear deterrent but that hasn't stopped them been attacked twice this year.
How do I rebut his argument? (Is there a rebuttal?)
Tell your friend (if he exists, which I doubt; I think you are just trolling) that weapons systems exist for different purposes. France also has an air force and a navy as well as a largeish army equipped with tanks and artillery none of which are of much use in deterring an act by a bunch of criminals with guns. However that doesn't mean that France should scrap its armed forces.
I have a friend, a blind, one legged unicyclist juggler with Parkinsons, who thinks the same thing. Should I try your argument with him?
I have a very lefty friend, who is pointing out that France has a nuclear deterrent but that hasn't stopped them been attacked twice this year.
How do I rebut his argument? (Is there a rebuttal?)
Tell your friend (if he exists, which I doubt; I think you are just trolling) that weapons systems exist for different purposes. France also has an air force and a navy as well as a largeish army equipped with tanks and artillery none of which are of much use in deterring an act by a bunch of criminals with guns. However that doesn't mean that France should scrap its armed forces.
I'm not trolling, he's annoying me no end and I want to rebut his argument and wanted to use the collective wisdom of PB in that endeavour.
Anti terror success is delivered by proportionality and rarely is it delivered purely by militarily destructive means. Anti-terror is is not a war of pure elimination. Your enemy is mobile, they are not static and not organised on conventional means, in conventional formations. To that end, you have to use measures that are proportional and designed for the enemy in question.
I'd point to Northern Ireland as how to prosecute an anti terror operation successfully. There were no armoured divisions driving tanks here for 30 years, no jet fighters and the forefront of the fight ended up being civilian, not military agencies.
If they claim it wasn't successful, point out that the counter terror story of NI is one of the most frequently cited examples within Western agencies about how to do it well.
Also, an anti-terror campaign is psychological as much as military; a point that Bush jnr never got. You win when you convince the other side it's not worth it.
In short, its about stubbornness and in Ian Dowie language 'stickability', something many Western governments now lack. In retrospect, its no surprise that the side with the most Ulstermen won out....
This is the thing that doesn't help. No choice given one way just imposed. A change of supplier only but it's the complete disregard for the parents views.
Leanne Poxon, 28, a warehouse worker, from Bilborough, sends her four children to the school. She added: 'I think it's disgusting that my children haven't been given the option.
'Muslim children would never be forced to eat non-Halal meat, so why are my children being forced to eat halal meat?
Early Christians also objected to the consumption of meat sacrificed to false idols, something that brought them considerable persecution .
In practice a lot of meat served in the UK is unlabelled Halal meat. If you want to avoid it then best be veggie, or eat pork.
A good example of unlabelled Halal meat is New Zealand lamb. The huge percentage of it is halal as for cost / business reasons, they decided to just make their slaughter halal so they could export to both the West and the Middle East from the same facility.
One reason why I will not buy or knowingly eat New Zealand lamb. The other is that English lamb, particularly the stuff from the Danny Estate just down the road, is so much better.
If Halal labelling, as suggested earlier on this site, was made mandatory it would be a big boost to UK farmers, as would banning imports of meat from countries that do not have the same animal welfare standards as our farmers comply with. On which point I haven't seen the Red Tractor mark in Tescos for a long time now, I wonder why.
Morrisons is going down the tubes rapidly. During the horsemeat scandal it was revealed that they were the only supermarket that could tell you exactly where all their came from, the whole chain of events etc, and they don't pull of any of the dodgy practices that the other supermarkets have engaged in. Some how the idiots who run Morrisons managed to get negatively affected by that scandal, when they actually had a positive story to tell.
I have a very lefty friend, who is pointing out that France has a nuclear deterrent but that hasn't stopped them been attacked twice this year.
How do I rebut his argument? (Is there a rebuttal?)
Tell your friend (if he exists, which I doubt; I think you are just trolling) that weapons systems exist for different purposes. France also has an air force and a navy as well as a largeish army equipped with tanks and artillery none of which are of much use in deterring an act by a bunch of criminals with guns. However that doesn't mean that France should scrap its armed forces.
I have a friend, a blind, one legged unicyclist juggler with Parkinsons, who thinks the same thing. Should I try your argument with him?
This is the thing that doesn't help. No choice given one way just imposed. A change of supplier only but it's the complete disregard for the parents views.
Leanne Poxon, 28, a warehouse worker, from Bilborough, sends her four children to the school. She added: 'I think it's disgusting that my children haven't been given the option.
'Muslim children would never be forced to eat non-Halal meat, so why are my children being forced to eat halal meat?
Early Christians also objected to the consumption of meat sacrificed to false idols, something that brought them considerable persecution .
In practice a lot of meat served in the UK is unlabelled Halal meat. If you want to avoid it then best be veggie, or eat pork.
A good example of unlabelled Halal meat is New Zealand lamb. The huge percentage of it is halal as for cost / business reasons, they decided to just make their slaughter halal so they could export to both the West and the Middle East from the same facility.
One reason why I will not buy or knowingly eat New Zealand lamb. The other is that English lamb, particularly the stuff from the Danny Estate just down the road, is so much better.
If Halal labelling, as suggested earlier on this site, was made mandatory it would be a big boost to UK farmers, as would banning imports of meat from countries that do not have the same animal welfare standards as our farmers comply with. On which point I haven't seen the Red Tractor mark in Tescos for a long time now, I wonder why.
Morrisons is going down the tubes rapidly. During the horsemeat scandal it was revealed that they were the only supermarket that could tell you exactly where all their came from, the whole chain of events etc, and they don't pull of any of the dodgy practices that the other supermarkets have engaged in. Some how the idiots who run Morrisons managed to get negatively affected by that scandal, when they actually had a positive story to tell.
@blackburn63 How do you fancy a pact with Corbyn and Bennett ?
But it's not a pact. It;s an agreement to stand on the basis of no policy and delivering a PR based system (most likely AMS).
Additionally, countries do well when governments don't deliver policies. The longer there is no policy enacting government the better, so it;s a full 6 months with no government (effectively) which can only help everyone.
Sometimes events force you to have a policy. Like how to react to the Paris attacks, for example.
Hmm, what positive policy do you foresee Cameron enacting?
This is the thing that doesn't help. No choice given one way just imposed. A change of supplier only but it's the complete disregard for the parents views.
Leanne Poxon, 28, a warehouse worker, from Bilborough, sends her four children to the school. She added: 'I think it's disgusting that my children haven't been given the option.
'Muslim children would never be forced to eat non-Halal meat, so why are my children being forced to eat halal meat?
This is the thing that doesn't help. No choice given one way just imposed. A change of supplier only but it's the complete disregard for the parents views.
Leanne Poxon, 28, a warehouse worker, from Bilborough, sends her four children to the school. She added: 'I think it's disgusting that my children haven't been given the option.
'Muslim children would never be forced to eat non-Halal meat, so why are my children being forced to eat halal meat?
Early Christians also objected to the consumption of meat sacrificed to false idols, something that brought them considerable persecution .
In practice a lot of meat served in the UK is unlabelled Halal meat. If you want to avoid it then best be veggie, or eat pork.
A good example of unlabelled Halal meat is New Zealand lamb. The huge percentage of it is halal as for cost / business reasons, they decided to just make their slaughter halal so they could export to both the West and the Middle East from the same facility.
One reason why I will not buy or knowingly eat New Zealand lamb. The other is that English lamb, particularly the stuff from the Danny Estate just down the road, is so much better.
If Halal labelling, as suggested earlier on this site, was made mandatory it would be a big boost to UK farmers, as would banning imports of meat from countries that do not have the same animal welfare standards as our farmers comply with. On which point I haven't seen the Red Tractor mark in Tescos for a long time now, I wonder why.
"If Halal labelling, as suggested earlier on this site, was made mandatory "
That's the issue really. They don't need to do that because most is halal.What they need to do is mark it non-halal. You would not see too many labels if that was the case.
Basically The deed is done your way of life has been changed for ever and no one, not a single person gave you or anyone else the respect to even ask. Just like the lady and her children in this school. They don't matter, no one cares a flying feck what they think or their rights religious or otherwise. It's as simple as that.
Sky News: now believed at least 2 of the attackers transitted through Greece earlier this year.
When this all pans out we have the guy arrested just over a week ago in Bavaria headed for Paris with hidden weapons, and the 3 arrested near Brussels today. As for the cell, Where did they live? who gave them money, weapons, explosives, support? It's not just 7 or 8 people holed up in an apartment.
When they left Syria for Greece did they intend to get jobs at Morrisons or B&Q and were later persuaded otherwise? I seriously doubt it. The intel folks will be all over it.
One of the most startling statistics from the general election is that the combined Lab/LD vote was just 39%. In 1983 it was 53%.
Mind you several members of the Tory Cabinet used to be members of the SDP, including Greg Clarke, Chris Grayling and Anna Soubry
Plus Liz Truss who used to be a Lib Dem and, indeed, proposed a motion at an annual conference in the mid-90s calling for the monarchy to be abolished. She's got even more "form" on this than Mr. Corbyn.
It's on CBS at 9pm eastern I believe. Hillary, leftie and a box of rocks. Hardly compelling viewing. She's wrapped up the nomination so it's pointless.
When they left Syria for Greece did they intend to get jobs at Morrisons or B&Q and were later persuaded otherwise? I seriously doubt it. The intel folks will be all over it.
I predict we hear from some berk that was exactly the case. That they came to Europe with only good intentions, but they were treated so badly that they became disenfranchised etc etc etc. To admit otherwise, would admit that the likes of Farage / Daily Mail were in this case correct.
I have a very lefty friend, who is pointing out that France has a nuclear deterrent but that hasn't stopped them been attacked twice this year.
How do I rebut his argument? (Is there a rebuttal?)
Tell your friend (if he exists, which I doubt; I think you are just trolling) that weapons systems exist for different purposes. France also has an air force and a navy as well as a largeish army equipped with tanks and artillery none of which are of much use in deterring an act by a bunch of criminals with guns. However that doesn't mean that France should scrap its armed forces.
I have a friend, a blind, one legged unicyclist juggler with Parkinsons, who thinks the same thing. Should I try your argument with him?
Morrisons is going down the tubes rapidly. During the horsemeat scandal it was revealed that they were the only supermarket that could tell you exactly where all their came from, the whole chain of events etc, and they don't pull of any of the dodgy practices that the other supermarkets have engaged in. Some how the idiots who run Morrisons managed to get negatively affected by that scandal, when they actually had a positive story to tell.
Absolute stupidity from the Morrison's management there then.
I have to confess that I just will not buy meat for human consumption (roasted chickens for the cat are another matter) from any supermarket. I used to but not since I could not be sure where the stuff came from and how it was killed. Now I only buy from the local butcher and, scottish beef steaks aside, only meat from local farms. It is a bit more expensive but if I have a problem with, say, a bit of pork I can tell the farmer himself all about it in the pub on Sundays.
It's on CBS at 9pm eastern I believe. Hillary, leftie and a box of rocks. Hardly compelling viewing. She's wrapped up the nomination so it's pointless.
Another depressing line up for the most powerful job in the world and one that will require some very tough / difficult decisions to be made in the coming years.
The article is all about ridiculing a suggestion which has been made by someone that nobody has ever heard of, on a website that nobody has ever read, proposing an idea that nobody has ever wanted.
It's on CBS at 9pm eastern I believe. Hillary, leftie and a box of rocks. Hardly compelling viewing. She's wrapped up the nomination so it's pointless.
I still think Sanders will at least win New Hampshire even if Hillary is nominee. Hillary will be aiming to position herself between Sanders on the pacifist left and Trump to the populist right, she will also need to try and look statesmanlike
Morrisons is going down the tubes rapidly. During the horsemeat scandal it was revealed that they were the only supermarket that could tell you exactly where all their came from, the whole chain of events etc, and they don't pull of any of the dodgy practices that the other supermarkets have engaged in. Some how the idiots who run Morrisons managed to get negatively affected by that scandal, when they actually had a positive story to tell.
Absolute stupidity from the Morrison's management there then.
I have to confess that I just will not buy meat for human consumption (roasted chickens for the cat are another matter) from any supermarket. I used to but not since I could not be sure where the stuff came from and how it was killed. Now I only buy from the local butcher and, scottish beef steaks aside, only meat from local farms. It is a bit more expensive but if I have a problem with, say, a bit of pork I can tell the farmer himself all about it in the pub on Sundays.
Restaurants? Eating out might be an issue. Perhaps it's a fish dish then and probably makes sense.
Interesting that all the talk is about some of the perpetrators entering the EU in recent times but two have been identified as travelling through Turkey some two years ago. I wonder if its the same people? If so, what were they doing in bewteen?
Interesting that all the talk is about some of the perpetrators entering the EU in recent times but two have been identified as travelling through Turkey some two years ago. I wonder if its the same people? If so, what were they doing in bewteen?
So you are saying in addition to these two individuals who arrived in August and October, that two of the others came 2 years ago? As refugees or illegals or ?
A typically well presented piece. I'm not a fan of the anti-Tory majority argument, not least because although I've never voted for them, I do not share the instinctive antipathy for them some do, and that even recognising they have had a bigger brand problem than others, that is not the same as a reliable anti-Tory progressive force.
The Tories (and Labour in 2005) are approaching NDSAP levels of support for their "majorities".
Morrisons is going down the tubes rapidly. During the horsemeat scandal it was revealed that they were the only supermarket that could tell you exactly where all their came from, the whole chain of events etc, and they don't pull of any of the dodgy practices that the other supermarkets have engaged in. Some how the idiots who run Morrisons managed to get negatively affected by that scandal, when they actually had a positive story to tell.
Absolute stupidity from the Morrison's management there then.
I have to confess that I just will not buy meat for human consumption (roasted chickens for the cat are another matter) from any supermarket. I used to but not since I could not be sure where the stuff came from and how it was killed. Now I only buy from the local butcher and, scottish beef steaks aside, only meat from local farms. It is a bit more expensive but if I have a problem with, say, a bit of pork I can tell the farmer himself all about it in the pub on Sundays.
Restaurants? Eating out might be an issue. Perhaps it's a fish dish then and probably makes sense.
Not really, Mr. Moses, If I am in a strange town I will now generally go for fish and if I am eating locally then I know the restaurant and I know where they buy their meat from.
Morrisons is going down the tubes rapidly. During the horsemeat scandal it was revealed that they were the only supermarket that could tell you exactly where all their came from, the whole chain of events etc, and they don't pull of any of the dodgy practices that the other supermarkets have engaged in. Some how the idiots who run Morrisons managed to get negatively affected by that scandal, when they actually had a positive story to tell.
Absolute stupidity from the Morrison's management there then.
I have to confess that I just will not buy meat for human consumption (roasted chickens for the cat are another matter) from any supermarket. I used to but not since I could not be sure where the stuff came from and how it was killed. Now I only buy from the local butcher and, scottish beef steaks aside, only meat from local farms. It is a bit more expensive but if I have a problem with, say, a bit of pork I can tell the farmer himself all about it in the pub on Sundays.
I too buy all my meat from the butcher too and very good meat it is too.
However, Mr Llama, you spoil that cat, I have to say. Roast chicken, I ask you. What is wrong with cat food?
Well the leftie comedian I went to see last night might be having a difficult time this evening if he tries to repeat his set. Not sure doing 45 mins on how racial profiling of muslims at airports is totally wrong and that the current government is a disgrace in relation to their response to the migrant crisis will work out too well for him.
This is the thing that doesn't help. No choice given one way just imposed. A change of supplier only but it's the complete disregard for the parents views.
Leanne Poxon, 28, a warehouse worker, from Bilborough, sends her four children to the school. She added: 'I think it's disgusting that my children haven't been given the option.
'Muslim children would never be forced to eat non-Halal meat, so why are my children being forced to eat halal meat?
It might be of interest to consider that both Hindus and Sikhs can regard being made to eat halal food as imposing a religion on them.
When Brighton Pavilion was used as a hospital for Indian soldiers injured on the Western Front during WWI it has no less than nine kitchens to ensure that no religious or cast restrictions on food were broken. Somehow I don't think the UK schools take religious sensibilities as far as did the wicked old Raj but one religion seems to be specially favoured.
Perhaps that had more to do with the Indian Rebellion of 1857.
It's on CBS at 9pm eastern I believe. Hillary, leftie and a box of rocks. Hardly compelling viewing. She's wrapped up the nomination so it's pointless.
I still think Sanders will at least win New Hampshire even if Hillary is nominee. Hillary will be aiming to position herself between Sanders on the pacifist left and Trump to the populist right, she will also need to try and look statesmanlike
Does any of it matter? The threat to her candidacy is not political. Her fate will be decided by Loretta Lynch, who as US Attorney oversaw the FIFA case before becoming Attorney General. Unlike liberal and racist Holder she's such a straight arrow even Rudi Giuliani supported her.
Who does or doesn't win this or that debate or primary doesn't matter. Short of indictment she's home free.
Right now she's so far left of Sanders she's hardly visible. That's a huge pivot to the center for the general.
Compared to the other folks on stage it won't be hard for her to look statesman like.
Interesting that all the talk is about some of the perpetrators entering the EU in recent times but two have been identified as travelling through Turkey some two years ago. I wonder if its the same people? If so, what were they doing in bewteen?
So you are saying in addition to these two individuals who arrived in August and October, that two of the others came 2 years ago? As refugees or illegals or ?
I don't know. My initial understanding was its the same two that the Greeks identified and the French are aware of the Turkish link but what I'm unclear about is:
1. Is it the same two? 2. If they went through Turkey in 2013, did they transit the country to somewhere in Europe fairly quickly, or hang about for a bit before moving on or leave Turkey for elsewhere in the Middle East?
Morrisons is going down the tubes rapidly. During the horsemeat scandal it was revealed that they were the only supermarket that could tell you exactly where all their came from, the whole chain of events etc, and they don't pull of any of the dodgy practices that the other supermarkets have engaged in. Some how the idiots who run Morrisons managed to get negatively affected by that scandal, when they actually had a positive story to tell.
Absolute stupidity from the Morrison's management there then.
I have to confess that I just will not buy meat for human consumption (roasted chickens for the cat are another matter) from any supermarket. I used to but not since I could not be sure where the stuff came from and how it was killed. Now I only buy from the local butcher and, scottish beef steaks aside, only meat from local farms. It is a bit more expensive but if I have a problem with, say, a bit of pork I can tell the farmer himself all about it in the pub on Sundays.
I too buy all my meat from the butcher too and very good meat it is too.
However, Mr Llama, you spoil that cat, I have to say. Roast chicken, I ask you. What is wrong with cat food?
A typically well presented piece. I'm not a fan of the anti-Tory majority argument, not least because although I've never voted for them, I do not share the instinctive antipathy for them some do, and that even recognising they have had a bigger brand problem than others, that is not the same as a reliable anti-Tory progressive force.
The Tories (and Labour in 2005) are approaching NDSAP levels of support for their "majorities".
I don't really see how that has any connection to what I wrote. I am well aware of your dislike of our electoral system, and I think it could be improved too. My point was merely that the Tories are certainly not hugely popular - in fact although I don't have the numbers I would not be surprised if they retain a higher 'dislike' rating than other parties - and yet that does not translate into a stable, majority of voters who want to be treated as some mass homogenised anti-tory force, as some occasionally pretend exists. There are people who despise the Tories whole heartedly but would not dream of working in concert with Labour to beat them, or at least might set such a high price on such cooperation to make it unworkable.
The same arguments on anti-Labour majorities have never seem to take hold quite as effectively, perhaps due to previously being better liked, comparitively.
Well the leftie comedian I went to see last night might be having a difficult time this evening if he tries to repeat his set. Not sure doing 45 mins on how racial profiling of muslims at airports is totally wrong and that the current government is a disgrace in relation to their response to the migrant crisis will work out too well for him.
The trendy liberal progressive types have been unusually quiet.
@blackburn63 How do you fancy a pact with Corbyn and Bennett ?
But it's not a pact. It;s an agreement to stand on the basis of no policy and delivering a PR based system (most likely AMS).
Additionally, countries do well when governments don't deliver policies. The longer there is no policy enacting government the better, so it;s a full 6 months with no government (effectively) which can only help everyone.
Sometimes events force you to have a policy. Like how to react to the Paris attacks, for example.
Hmm, what positive policy do you foresee Cameron enacting?
Morrisons is going down the tubes rapidly. During the horsemeat scandal it was revealed that they were the only supermarket that could tell you exactly where all their came from, the whole chain of events etc, and they don't pull of any of the dodgy practices that the other supermarkets have engaged in. Some how the idiots who run Morrisons managed to get negatively affected by that scandal, when they actually had a positive story to tell.
Absolute stupidity from the Morrison's management there then.
I have to confess that I just will not buy meat for human consumption (roasted chickens for the cat are another matter) from any supermarket. I used to but not since I could not be sure where the stuff came from and how it was killed. Now I only buy from the local butcher and, scottish beef steaks aside, only meat from local farms. It is a bit more expensive but if I have a problem with, say, a bit of pork I can tell the farmer himself all about it in the pub on Sundays.
I too buy all my meat from the butcher too and very good meat it is too.
However, Mr Llama, you spoil that cat, I have to say. Roast chicken, I ask you. What is wrong with cat food?
He prefers roast chicken (and prawns etc - his latest is salmon flakes from Waitrose) and it really isn't that much more expensive. A roasted chicken in Waitrose costs about a fiver but a tiny tin of cat food enough, just, for one meal is 45p.
Mind you Herself is now firmly of the opinion that Thomas doesn't like the chicken from Sainsburys. She came home from shopping early one evening and carved him a plateful of the Sainsburys chicken she had just bought and he turned his nose up. What she didn't know, and I have yet to confess, is that I had given him a dish of prawns just half an hour earlier. So now he can only have chicken from Waitrose or, at a push, Tesco.
The article is all about ridiculing a suggestion which has been made by someone that nobody has ever heard of, on a website that nobody has ever read, proposing an idea that nobody has ever wanted.
If one nobody has written about it, many more will have thought about it. And the crazier fringe ideas are often more fun to talk about anyway of course, as I am sure you know.
Morrisons is going down the tubes rapidly. During the horsemeat scandal it was revealed that they were the only supermarket that could tell you exactly where all their came from, the whole chain of events etc, and they don't pull of any of the dodgy practices that the other supermarkets have engaged in. Some how the idiots who run Morrisons managed to get negatively affected by that scandal, when they actually had a positive story to tell.
Absolute stupidity from the Morrison's management there then.
I have to confess that I just will not buy meat for human consumption (roasted chickens for the cat are another matter) from any supermarket. I used to but not since I could not be sure where the stuff came from and how it was killed. Now I only buy from the local butcher and, scottish beef steaks aside, only meat from local farms. It is a bit more expensive but if I have a problem with, say, a bit of pork I can tell the farmer himself all about it in the pub on Sundays.
I too buy all my meat from the butcher too and very good meat it is too.
However, Mr Llama, you spoil that cat, I have to say. Roast chicken, I ask you. What is wrong with cat food?
I note Mr Llama didn't mention it is also served with a tarragon-Merlot demi-glace and wild mushroom reduction.....
Morrisons is going down the tubes rapidly. During the horsemeat scandal it was revealed that they were the only supermarket that could tell you exactly where all their came from, the whole chain of events etc, and they don't pull of any of the dodgy practices that the other supermarkets have engaged in. Some how the idiots who run Morrisons managed to get negatively affected by that scandal, when they actually had a positive story to tell.
Absolute stupidity from the Morrison's management there then.
I have to confess that I just will not buy meat for human consumption (roasted chickens for the cat are another matter) from any supermarket. I used to but not since I could not be sure where the stuff came from and how it was killed. Now I only buy from the local butcher and, scottish beef steaks aside, only meat from local farms. It is a bit more expensive but if I have a problem with, say, a bit of pork I can tell the farmer himself all about it in the pub on Sundays.
I too buy all my meat from the butcher too and very good meat it is too.
However, Mr Llama, you spoil that cat, I have to say. Roast chicken, I ask you. What is wrong with cat food?
I note you didn't mention it is also served with a tarragon-Merlot demi-glace and wild mushroom reduction.....
Well the leftie comedian I went to see last night might be having a difficult time this evening if he tries to repeat his set. Not sure doing 45 mins on how racial profiling of muslims at airports is totally wrong and that the current government is a disgrace in relation to their response to the migrant crisis will work out too well for him.
The trendy liberal progressive types have been unusually quiet.
TBH, it wont be a great loss if that material never sees the light of day again, it wasn't exactly big, funny or clever before last nights events. But then his day job is writing the "gags" for most Radio4 "comedy" shows.
Morrisons is going down the tubes rapidly. During the horsemeat scandal it was revealed that they were the only supermarket that could tell you exactly where all their came from, the whole chain of events etc, and they don't pull of any of the dodgy practices that the other supermarkets have engaged in. Some how the idiots who run Morrisons managed to get negatively affected by that scandal, when they actually had a positive story to tell.
Absolute stupidity from the Morrison's management there then.
I have to confess that I just will not buy meat for human consumption (roasted chickens for the cat are another matter) from any supermarket. I used to but not since I could not be sure where the stuff came from and how it was killed. Now I only buy from the local butcher and, scottish beef steaks aside, only meat from local farms. It is a bit more expensive but if I have a problem with, say, a bit of pork I can tell the farmer himself all about it in the pub on Sundays.
I too buy all my meat from the butcher too and very good meat it is too.
However, Mr Llama, you spoil that cat, I have to say. Roast chicken, I ask you. What is wrong with cat food?
He prefers roast chicken (and prawns etc - his latest is salmon flakes from Waitrose) and it really isn't that much more expensive. A roasted chicken in Waitrose costs about a fiver but a tiny tin of cat food enough, just, for one meal is 45p.
Mind you Herself is now firmly of the opinion that Thomas doesn't like the chicken from Sainsburys. She came home from shopping early one evening and carved him a plateful of the Sainsburys chicken she had just bought and he turned his nose up. What she didn't know, and I have yet to confess, is that I had given him a dish of prawns just half an hour earlier. So now he can only have chicken from Waitrose or, at a push, Tesco.
Bags of dry cat food are the answer, deliverable by Amazon. Last for ages. Cats go mad for it. No smell.
I will have to keep my cats away from PB. If they were to find out about Thomas's fantastic diet, my life would become quite impossible.
Morrisons is going down the tubes rapidly. During the horsemeat scandal it was revealed that they were the only supermarket that could tell you exactly where all their came from, the whole chain of events etc, and they don't pull of any of the dodgy practices that the other supermarkets have engaged in. Some how the idiots who run Morrisons managed to get negatively affected by that scandal, when they actually had a positive story to tell.
Absolute stupidity from the Morrison's management there then.
I have to confess that I just will not buy meat for human consumption (roasted chickens for the cat are another matter) from any supermarket. I used to but not since I could not be sure where the stuff came from and how it was killed. Now I only buy from the local butcher and, scottish beef steaks aside, only meat from local farms. It is a bit more expensive but if I have a problem with, say, a bit of pork I can tell the farmer himself all about it in the pub on Sundays.
I too buy all my meat from the butcher too and very good meat it is too.
However, Mr Llama, you spoil that cat, I have to say. Roast chicken, I ask you. What is wrong with cat food?
He prefers roast chicken (and prawns etc - his latest is salmon flakes from Waitrose) and it really isn't that much more expensive. A roasted chicken in Waitrose costs about a fiver but a tiny tin of cat food enough, just, for one meal is 45p.
Mind you Herself is now firmly of the opinion that Thomas doesn't like the chicken from Sainsburys. She came home from shopping early one evening and carved him a plateful of the Sainsburys chicken she had just bought and he turned his nose up. What she didn't know, and I have yet to confess, is that I had given him a dish of prawns just half an hour earlier. So now he can only have chicken from Waitrose or, at a push, Tesco.
Thomas eats better than Heidi!! Although Heidi does tend to be spoiled with biscuits, and it's not my fault.
Morrisons is going down the tubes rapidly. During the horsemeat scandal it was revealed that they were the only supermarket that could tell you exactly where all their came from, the whole chain of events etc, and they don't pull of any of the dodgy practices that the other supermarkets have engaged in. Some how the idiots who run Morrisons managed to get negatively affected by that scandal, when they actually had a positive story to tell.
Absolute stupidity from the Morrison's management there then.
I have to confess that I just will not buy meat for human consumption (roasted chickens for the cat are another matter) from any supermarket. I used to but not since I could not be sure where the stuff came from and how it was killed. Now I only buy from the local butcher and, scottish beef steaks aside, only meat from local farms. It is a bit more expensive but if I have a problem with, say, a bit of pork I can tell the farmer himself all about it in the pub on Sundays.
I too buy all my meat from the butcher too and very good meat it is too.
However, Mr Llama, you spoil that cat, I have to say. Roast chicken, I ask you. What is wrong with cat food?
I note Mr Llama didn't mention it is also served with a tarragon-Merlot demi-glace and wild mushroom reduction.....
Don't be silly, Mr. Moses, no sane person would do that for his cat, anyway merlot and mushrooms wouldn't be good for a moggie (though Thomas does like the gravy when we have a roast lunch).
I don't suppose Mr. B., who I see is also chipping in, feeds his dogs on rubbish either.
It's on CBS at 9pm eastern I believe. Hillary, leftie and a box of rocks. Hardly compelling viewing. She's wrapped up the nomination so it's pointless.
I still think Sanders will at least win New Hampshire even if Hillary is nominee. Hillary will be aiming to position herself between Sanders on the pacifist left and Trump to the populist right, she will also need to try and look statesmanlike
Does any of it matter? The threat to her candidacy is not political. Her fate will be decided by Loretta Lynch, who as US Attorney oversaw the FIFA case before becoming Attorney General. Unlike liberal and racist Holder she's such a straight arrow even Rudi Giuliani supported her.
Who does or doesn't win this or that debate or primary doesn't matter. Short of indictment she's home free.
Right now she's so far left of Sanders she's hardly visible. That's a huge pivot to the center for the general.
Compared to the other folks on stage it won't be hard for her to look statesman like.
I think the US public have already made up their minds about her emails, if they disliked what she did they will not be voting for her anyway and short of being sent to jail she will still run and even then she might yet run, as I previously pointed out felons can still run for president unless convicted of high treason Your Sanders point is ridiculous, she is right of him on economics, as she made clear in the last debate when she disputed his assertion the US should be more like Denmark and on foreign policy, she will be the centrist in the Democratic race, on present polling it looks like the GOP is rejecting its centrists so that would make her task easier
It's on CBS at 9pm eastern I believe. Hillary, leftie and a box of rocks. Hardly compelling viewing. She's wrapped up the nomination so it's pointless.
I still think Sanders will at least win New Hampshire even if Hillary is nominee. Hillary will be aiming to position herself between Sanders on the pacifist left and Trump to the populist right, she will also need to try and look statesmanlike
Does any of it matter? The threat to her candidacy is not political. Her fate will be decided by Loretta Lynch, who as US Attorney oversaw the FIFA case before becoming Attorney General. Unlike liberal and racist Holder she's such a straight arrow even Rudi Giuliani supported her.
Who does or doesn't win this or that debate or primary doesn't matter. Short of indictment she's home free.
Right now she's so far left of Sanders she's hardly visible. That's a huge pivot to the center for the general.
Compared to the other folks on stage it won't be hard for her to look statesman like.
I think the US public have already made up their minds about her emails, if they disliked what she did they will not be voting for her anyway and short of being sent to jail she will still run and even then she might still run, as I previously pointed out felons can still run for president unless convicted of high treason
That's bonkers that you can run for president as a felon, but you might not be eligible to vote.
It's on CBS at 9pm eastern I believe. Hillary, leftie and a box of rocks. Hardly compelling viewing. She's wrapped up the nomination so it's pointless.
I still think Sanders will at least win New Hampshire even if Hillary is nominee. Hillary will be aiming to position herself between Sanders on the pacifist left and Trump to the populist right, she will also need to try and look statesmanlike
Does any of it matter? The threat to her candidacy is not political. Her fate will be decided by Loretta Lynch, who as US Attorney oversaw the FIFA case before becoming Attorney General. Unlike liberal and racist Holder she's such a straight arrow even Rudi Giuliani supported her.
Who does or doesn't win this or that debate or primary doesn't matter. Short of indictment she's home free.
Right now she's so far left of Sanders she's hardly visible. That's a huge pivot to the center for the general.
Compared to the other folks on stage it won't be hard for her to look statesman like.
I think the US public have already made up their minds about her emails, if they disliked what she did they will not be voting for her anyway and short of being sent to jail she will still run and even then she might still run, as I previously pointed out felons can still run for president unless convicted of high treason
The FBI is not like the local county court - unless they have a 100% watertight case they will not indict. Their conviction rate is truly impressive. I've been involved in an FBI investigation, and it is unlike anything else - and I was not a suspect or person of interest.
If they indict then she will be convicted and going to jail. Loretta Lynch is not going to pull any punches.
Whether the public have made their minds up about her emails is irrelevant - this is a legal and criminal process not a political one.
Plus they are investigating her under the Espionage Act - close enough to treason for you?
BBC latest: now possible one of the 3 teams may have escaped.
Beeb are a bit slow, the French have been searching for what they believe to be 2-4 individuals since last night. Problem is, they have limited info on who those 2-4 are and cannot say, 100% they were actual shooters at all.
It's on CBS at 9pm eastern I believe. Hillary, leftie and a box of rocks. Hardly compelling viewing. She's wrapped up the nomination so it's pointless.
I still think Sanders will at least win New Hampshire even if Hillary is nominee. Hillary will be aiming to position herself between Sanders on the pacifist left and Trump to the populist right, she will also need to try and look statesmanlike
Does any of it matter? The threat to her candidacy is not political. Her fate will be decided by Loretta Lynch, who as US Attorney oversaw the FIFA case before becoming Attorney General. Unlike liberal and racist Holder she's such a straight arrow even Rudi Giuliani supported her.
Who does or doesn't win this or that debate or primary doesn't matter. Short of indictment she's home free.
Right now she's so far left of Sanders she's hardly visible. That's a huge pivot to the center for the general.
Compared to the other folks on stage it won't be hard for her to look statesman like.
...felons can still run for president unless convicted of high treason
What about if they are convicted of regular treason?
It's on CBS at 9pm eastern I believe. Hillary, leftie and a box of rocks. Hardly compelling viewing. She's wrapped up the nomination so it's pointless.
I still think Sanders will at least win New Hampshire even if Hillary is nominee. Hillary will be aiming to position herself between Sanders on the pacifist left and Trump to the populist right, she will also need to try and look statesmanlike
Does any of it matter? The threat to her candidacy is not political. Her fate will be decided by Loretta Lynch, who as US Attorney oversaw the FIFA case before becoming Attorney General. Unlike liberal and racist Holder she's such a straight arrow even Rudi Giuliani supported her.
Who does or doesn't win this or that debate or primary doesn't matter. Short of indictment she's home free.
Right now she's so far left of Sanders she's hardly visible. That's a huge pivot to the center for the general.
Compared to the other folks on stage it won't be hard for her to look statesman like.
I think the US public have already made up their minds about her emails, if they disliked what she did they will not be voting for her anyway and short of being sent to jail she will still run and even then she might still run, as I previously pointed out felons can still run for president unless convicted of high treason
The FBI is not like the local county court - unless they have a 100% watertight case they will not indict. Their conviction rate is truly impressive. I've been involved in an FBI investigation, and it is unlike anything else - and I was not a suspect or person of interest.
If they indict then she will be convicted and going to jail. Loretta Lynch is not going to pull any punches.
Whether the public have made their minds up about her emails is irrelevant - this is a legal and criminal process not a political one.
Isn't their conviction rate something bonkers like 95%
It's on CBS at 9pm eastern I believe. Hillary, leftie and a box of rocks. Hardly compelling viewing. She's wrapped up the nomination so it's pointless.
I still think Sanders will at least win New Hampshire even if Hillary is nominee. Hillary will be aiming to position herself between Sanders on the pacifist left and Trump to the populist right, she will also need to try and look statesmanlike
Does any of it matter? The threat to her candidacy is not political. Her fate will be decided by Loretta Lynch, who as US Attorney oversaw the FIFA case before becoming Attorney General. Unlike liberal and racist Holder she's such a straight arrow even Rudi Giuliani supported her.
Who does or doesn't win this or that debate or primary doesn't matter. Short of indictment she's home free.
Right now she's so far left of Sanders she's hardly visible. That's a huge pivot to the center for the general.
Compared to the other folks on stage it won't be hard for her to look statesman like.
I think the US public have already made up their minds about her emails, if they disliked what she did they will not be voting for her anyway and short of being sent to jail she will still run and even then she might still run, as I previously pointed out felons can still run for president unless convicted of high treason
That's bonkers that you can run for president as a felon, but you might not be eligible to vote.
What is truly bonkers that such a ghastly woman as La Clinton should be in the race at all. With all the scandals that have attended her for so many years, over here she wouldn't even get a look in as a candidate in a no hoper seat.
Like the peace of God, American politics passes all understanding.
It's on CBS at 9pm eastern I believe. Hillary, leftie and a box of rocks. Hardly compelling viewing. She's wrapped up the nomination so it's pointless.
I still think Sanders will at least win New Hampshire even if Hillary is nominee. Hillary will be aiming to position herself between Sanders on the pacifist left and Trump to the populist right, she will also need to try and look statesmanlike
Does any of it matter? The threat to her candidacy is not political. Her fate will be decided by Loretta Lynch, who as US Attorney oversaw the FIFA case before becoming Attorney General. Unlike liberal and racist Holder she's such a straight arrow even Rudi Giuliani supported her.
Who does or doesn't win this or that debate or primary doesn't matter. Short of indictment she's home free.
Right now she's so far left of Sanders she's hardly visible. That's a huge pivot to the center for the general.
Compared to the other folks on stage it won't be hard for her to look statesman like.
I think the US public have already made up their minds about her emails, if they disliked what she did they will not be voti
The FBI is not like the local county court - unless they have a 100% watertight case they will not indict. Their conviction rate is truly impressive. I've been involved in an FBI investigation, and it is unlike a
Plus they are investigating her under the Espionage Act - close enough to treason for you?
Which makes it unlikely they will indict, even Nixon did not end up in jail over Watergate and this is not yet in that league. Of course the public views remain key, what happens if she is jailed and made a martyr and still wins the nomination and Trump is GOP nominee and something just as dodgy is found on him? Technically she could remain on the ballot from jail and still become president as US law only prohibits her running if she is convicted of high treason. The Espionage Act is unlikely to qualify unless she basically personally sent all her emails to the Chinese Embassy and Raqqa!
Morrisons is going down the tubes rapidly. During the horsemeat scandal it was revealed that they were the only supermarket that could tell you exactly where all their came from, the whole chain of events etc, and they don't pull of any of the dodgy practices that the other supermarkets have engaged in. Some how the idiots who run Morrisons managed to get negatively affected by that scandal, when they actually had a positive story to tell.
Absolute stupidity from the Morrison's management there then.
I have to confess that I just will not buy meat for human consumption (roasted chickens for the cat are another matter) from any supermarket. I used to but not since I could not be sure where the stuff came from and how it was killed. Now I only buy from the local butcher and, scottish beef steaks aside, only meat from local farms. It is a bit more expensive but if I have a problem with, say, a bit of pork I can tell the farmer himself all about it in the pub on Sundays.
I too buy all my meat from the butcher too and very good meat it is too.
However, Mr Llama, you spoil that cat, I have to say. Roast chicken, I ask you. What is wrong with cat food?
I note you didn't mention it is also served with a tarragon-Merlot demi-glace and wild mushroom reduction.....
Does any of it matter? The threat to her candidacy is not political. Her fate will be decided by Loretta Lynch, who as US Attorney oversaw the FIFA case before becoming Attorney General. Unlike liberal and racist Holder she's such a straight arrow even Rudi Giuliani supported her.
Who does or doesn't win this or that debate or primary doesn't matter. Short of indictment she's home free.
Right now she's so far left of Sanders she's hardly visible. That's a huge pivot to the center for the general.
Compared to the other folks on stage it won't be hard for her to look statesman like.
I think the US public have already made up their minds about her emails, if they disliked what she did they will not be voting for her anyway and short of being sent to jail she will still run and even then she might still run, as I previously pointed out felons can still run for president unless convicted of high treason
The FBI is not like the local county court - unless they have a 100% watertight case they will not indict. Their conviction rate is truly impressive. I've been involved in an FBI investigation, and it is unlike anything else - and I was not a suspect or person of interest.
If they indict then she will be convicted and going to jail. Loretta Lynch is not going to pull any punches.
Whether the public have made their minds up about her emails is irrelevant - this is a legal and criminal process not a political one.
Isn't their conviction rate something bonkers like 95%
It's fairly bonkers - they have to do this as they take their time, with limitless time, personnel and resources, meaning if they don't convict the media will dig up the cost of the case and hit them with it. They don't like that. In addition in this case Obama said in a TV interview that there was nothing criminal involved, which absolutely infuriated the FBI.
Now they've expanded the investigation to include false statements and starting their own classification exercise on her emails, going straight to the intel folks. What we don't know is whose false statements they are looking at - Clinton or her aides.
She can claim that the Benghazi committee is a witch hunt, but not this.
It's on CBS at 9pm eastern I believe. Hillary, leftie and a box of rocks. Hardly compelling viewing. She's wrapped up the nomination so it's pointless.
I still think Sanders will at least win New Hampshire even if Hillary is nominee. Hillary will be aiming to position herself between Sanders on the pacifist left and Trump to the populist right, she will also need to try and look statesmanlike
Does any of it matter? The threat to her candidacy is not political. Her fate will be decided by Loretta Lynch, who as US Attorney oversaw the FIFA case before becoming Attorney General. Unlike liberal and racist Holder she's such a straight arrow even Rudi Giuliani supported her.
Who does or doesn't win this or that debate or primary doesn't matter. Short of indictment she's home free.
Right now she's so far left of Sanders she's hardly visible. That's a huge pivot to the center for the general.
Compared to the other folks on stage it won't be hard for her to look statesman like.
...felons can still run for president unless convicted of high treason
What about if they are convicted of regular treason?
It's on CBS at 9pm eastern I believe. Hillary, leftie and a box of rocks. Hardly compelling viewing. She's wrapped up the nomination so it's pointless.
I still think Sanders will at least win New Hampshire even if Hillary is nominee. Hillary will be aiming to position herself between Sanders on the pacifist left and Trump to the populist right, she will also need to try and look statesmanlike
Does any of it matter? The threat to her candidacy is not political. Her fate will be decided by Loretta Lynch, who as US Attorney oversaw the FIFA case before becoming Attorney General. Unlike liberal and racist Holder she's such a straight arrow even Rudi Giuliani supported her.
Who does or doesn't win this or that debate or primary doesn't matter. Short of indictment she's home free.
Right now she's so far left of Sanders she's hardly visible. That's a huge pivot to the center for the general.
Compared to the other folks on stage it won't be hard for her to look statesman like.
I think the US public have already made up their minds about her emails, if they disliked what she did they will not be voti
The FBI is not like the local county court - unless they have a 100% watertight case they will not indict. Their conviction rate is truly impressive. I've been involved in an FBI investigation, and it is unlike a
Plus they are investigating her under the Espionage Act - close enough to treason for you?
Which makes it unlikely they will indict, even Nixon did not end up in jail over Watergate and this is not yet in that league. Of course the public views remain key, what happens if she is jailed and made a martyr and still wins the nomination and Trump is GOP nominee and something just as dodgy is found on him? Technically she could remain on the ballot from jail and still become president as US law only prohibits her running if she is convicted of high treason. The Espionage Act is unlikely to qualify unless she basically personally sent all her emails to the Chinese Embassy and Raqqa!
I think you need to start following the case. You clearly are not aware of her peril under that act. They have 700 emails that look like they are in breach. That's the reason they have stopped using State releases and are working directly with intel folks. They want to be 100% certain.
It's on CBS at 9pm eastern I believe. Hillary, leftie and a box of rocks. Hardly compelling viewing. She's wrapped up the nomination so it's pointless.
I still think Sanders will at least win New Hampshire even if Hillary is nominee. Hillary will be aiming to position herself between Sanders on the pacifist left and Trump to the populist right, she will also need to try and look statesmanlike
Does any of it matter? The threat to her candidacy is not political. Her fate will be decided by Loretta Lynch, who as US Attorney oversaw the FIFA case before becoming Attorney General. Unlike liberal and racist Holder she's such a straight arrow even Rudi Giuliani supported her.
Who does or doesn't win this or that debate or primary doesn't matter. Short of indictment she's home free.
Right now she's so far left of Sanders she's hardly visible. That's a huge pivot to the center for the general.
Compared to the other folks on stage it won't be hard for her to look statesman like.
I think the US public have already made up their minds about her emails, if they disliked what she did they will not be voting for her anyway and short of being sent to jail she will still run and even then she might still run, as I previously pointed out felons can still run for president unless convicted of high treason
That's bonkers that you can run for president as a felon, but you might not be eligible to vote.
Indeed but it is so, the vote eligibility varies from state to state
Morrisons is going down the tubes rapidly. During the horsemeat scandal it was revealed that they were the only supermarket that could tell you exactly where all their came from, the whole chain of events etc, and they don't pull of any of the dodgy practices that the other supermarkets have engaged in. Some how the idiots who run Morrisons managed to get negatively affected by that scandal, when they actually had a positive story to tell.
Absolute stupidity from the Morrison's management there then.
I have to confess that I just will not buy meat for human consumption (roasted chickens for the cat are another matter) from any supermarket. I used to but not since I could not be sure where the stuff came from and how it was killed. Now I only buy from the local butcher and, scottish beef steaks aside, only meat from local farms. It is a bit more expensive but if I have a problem with, say, a bit of pork I can tell the farmer himself all about it in the pub on Sundays.
I too buy all my meat from the butcher too and very good meat it is too.
However, Mr Llama, you spoil that cat, I have to say. Roast chicken, I ask you. What is wrong with cat food?
After my sister and I had moved out my mother got a dog and I swear it had better food (and almost certainly better cooked) than we ever had.
It's on CBS at 9pm eastern I believe. Hillary, leftie and a box of rocks. Hardly compelling viewing. She's wrapped up the nomination so it's pointless.
I still think Sanders will at least win New Hampshire even if Hillary is nominee. Hillary will be aiming to position herself between Sanders on the pacifist left and Trump to the populist right, she will also need to try and look statesmanlike
Does any of it matter? The threat to her candidacy is not political. Her fate will be decided by Loretta Lynch, who as US Attorney oversaw the FIFA case before becoming Attorney General. Unlike liberal and racist Holder she's such a straight arrow even Rudi Giuliani supported her.
Who does or doesn't win this or that debate or primary doesn't matter. Short of indictment she's home free.
Right now she's so far left of Sanders she's hardly visible. That's a huge pivot to the center for the general.
Compared to the other folks on stage it won't be hard for her to look statesman like.
I think the US public have already made up their minds about her emails, if they disliked what she did they will not be voti
The FBI is not like the local county court - unless they have a 100% watertight case they will not indict. Their conviction rate is truly impressive. I've been involved in an FBI investigation, and it is unlike a
Plus they are investigating her under the Espionage Act - close enough to treason for you?
Which makes it unlikely they will indict, even Nixon did not end up in jail over Watergate and this is not yet in that league. O
I think you need to start following the case. You clearly are not aware of her peril under that act. They have 700 emails that look like they are in breach. That's the reason they have stopped using State releases and are working directly with intel folks. They want to be 100% certain.
Maybe but the point remains unless she is convicted of High Treason technically she can still run for president
If she is indicted it will be from either or both of
Espionage Act
18 U.S. Code § 1001 False statements
False statements is a slam dunk for the feds - if they think you lied to them they indict. You don't need to be under oath, Any statement made anywhere counts. It's typically 5 years on conviction - written, spoken or 3rd person.
Espionage Act - essentially transmitting, receiving or storing classified info on an insecure system. It could be many years in jail. The info does not need to be marked classified.
Federal cases are different - motions etc start fairly quickly.
I know this doesn't need saying, but under indictment from Uncle Sam, you need to devote all your time to your defense. Doing so makes it difficult to impossible to either run for or be POTUS both of which need all your time.
What the law says isn't the point. It's simply not feasible. Would you vote for a candidate under federal indictment who was going to spend time in club fed? QTWTAIN.
It's on CBS at 9pm eastern I believe. Hillary, leftie and a box of rocks. Hardly compelling viewing. She's wrapped up the nomination so it's pointless.
I still think Sanders will at least win New Hampshire even if Hillary is nominee. Hillary will be aiming to position herself between Sanders on the pacifist left and Trump to the populist right, she will also need to try and look statesmanlike
Does any of it matter? The threat to her candidacy is not political. Her fate will be decided by Loretta Lynch, who as US Attorney oversaw the FIFA case before becoming Attorney General. Unlike liberal and racist Holder she's such a straight arrow even Rudi Giuliani supported her.
Who does or doesn't win this or that debate or primary doesn't matter. Short of indictment she's home free.
Right now she's so far left of Sanders she's hardly visible. That's a huge pivot to the center for the general.
Compared to the other folks on stage it won't be hard for her to look statesman like.
I think the US public have already made up their minds about her emails, if they disliked what she did they will not be voti
The FBI is not like the local county court - unless they have a 100% watertight case they will not indict. Their conviction rate is truly impressive. I've been involved in an FBI investigation, and it is unlike a
Plus they are investigating her under the Espionage Act - close enough to treason for you?
Which makes it unlikely they will indict, even Nixon did not end up in jail over Watergate and this is not yet in that league. O
I think you need to start following the case. You clearly are not aware of her peril under that act. They have 700 emails that look like they are in breach. That's the reason they have stopped using State releases and are working directly with intel folks. They want to be 100% certain.
Maybe but the point remains unless she is convicted of High Treason technically she can still run for president
Technically doesn't matter - it's the reality that matters. If she's indicted it's against her own interests to remain in the race. See my other post.
If she is indicted it will be from either or both of
Espionage Act
18 U.S. Code § 1001 False statements
False statements is a slam dunk for the feds - if they think you lied to them they indict. You don't need to be under oath, Any statement made anywhere counts. It's typically 5 years on conviction - written, spoken or 3rd person.
Espionage Act - essentially transmitting, receiving or storing classified info on an insecure system. It could be many years in jail. The info does not need to be marked classified.
Federal cases are different - motions etc start fairly quickly.
I know this doesn't need saying, but under indictment from Uncle Sam, you need to devote all your time to your defense. Doing so makes it difficult to impossible to either run for or be POTUS both of which need all your time.
What the law says isn't the point. It's simply not feasible. Would you vote for a candidate under federal indictment who was going to spend time in club fed? QTWTAIN.
Key words 'could' and as Monicagate showed it depends entirely on what an interpretation of a deliberate lie is. If the GOP frontrunner Trump is nominee he has cupboards of skeletons of his own, it is not impossible that if Hillary is nominee by the time she is convicted were that to occur she could yet win if something equally damning emerges on him and then give herself a presidential pardon. It is more likely Sanders would be nominee by then and would be elected president instead but it is not impossible
If she is indicted it will be from either or both of
Espionage Act
18 U.S. Code § 1001 False statements
False statements is a slam dunk for the feds - if they think you lied to them they indict. You don't need to be under oath, Any statement made anywhere counts. It's typically 5 years on conviction - written, spoken or 3rd person.
Espionage Act - essentially transmitting, receiving or storing classified info on an insecure system. It could be many years in jail. The info does not need to be marked classified.
Federal cases are different - motions etc start fairly quickly.
I know this doesn't need saying, but under indictment from Uncle Sam, you need to devote all your time to your defense. Doing so makes it difficult to impossible to either run for or be POTUS both of which need all your time.
What the law says isn't the point. It's simply not feasible. Would you vote for a candidate under federal indictment who was going to spend time in club fed? QTWTAIN.
Key words 'could' and as Monicagate showed it depends entirely on what an interpretation of a deliberate lie is. If the GOP frontrunner Trump is nominee he has cupboards of skeletons of his own, it is not impossible that if Hillary is nominee by the time she is convicted were that to occur she could yet win if something equally damning emerges on him and then give herself a presidential pardon. It is more likely Sanders would be nominee by then and would be elected president instead but it is not impossible
Has a president ever pardoned themselves? I think Nixon was pardoned by Ford.
If she is indicted it will be from either or both of
Espionage Act
18 U.S. Code § 1001 False statements
False statements is a slam dunk for the feds - if they think you lied to them they indict. You don't need to be under oath, Any statement made anywhere counts. It's typically 5 years on conviction - written, spoken or 3rd person.
Espionage Act - essentially transmitting, receiving or storing classified info on an insecure system. It could be many years in jail. The info does not need to be marked classified.
Federal cases are different - motions etc start fairly quickly.
I know this doesn't need saying, but under indictment from Uncle Sam, you need to devote all your time to your defense. Doing so makes it difficult to impossible to either run for or be POTUS both of which need all your time.
What the law says isn't the point. It's simply not feasible. Would you vote for a candidate under federal indictment who was going to spend time in club fed? QTWTAIN.
Key words 'could' and as Monicagate showed it depends entirely on what an interpretation of a deliberate lie is. If the GOP frontrunner Trump is nominee he has cupboards of skeletons of his own, it is not impossible that if Hillary is nominee by the time she is convicted were that to occur she could yet win if something equally damning emerges on him and then give herself a presidential pardon. It is more likely Sanders would be nominee by then and would be elected president instead but it is not impossible
1. Could means it could be many years or a few. It doesn't mean none.
2. it depends entirely on what an interpretation of a deliberate lie is. - No it doesn't, It depends on what the FBI says it is. The defendant has to prove a negative. They get convictions on this all the time.
3. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP. This is her self-inflicted legal problem and he is not a factor.
Why do you persist in confusing what is a perfectly simple issue - if she's indicted she's gone. Do not confuse legality with reality. What the Dems do then would be fascinating.
Once it became public that the FBI had started its own email classification investigation to bypass State, and had also started an investigation under the False Statements statute, every legal talking head on both CNN and Fox News said it raised the chance of her being indicted to about 50-50. Will she be? I have no idea. But her peril is very real.
It's on CBS at 9pm eastern I believe. Hillary, leftie and a box of rocks. Hardly compelling viewing. She's wrapped up the nomination so it's pointless.
I still think Sanders will at least win New Hampshire even if Hillary is nominee. Hillary will be aiming to position herself between Sanders on the pacifist left and Trump to the populist right, she will also need to try and look statesmanlike
Does any of it matter? The threat to her candidacy is not political. Her fate will be decided by Loretta Lynch, who as US Attorney oversaw the FIFA case before becoming Attorney General. Unlike liberal and racist Holder she's such a straight arrow even Rudi Giuliani supported her.
Who does or doesn't win this or that debate or primary doesn't matter. Short of indictment she's home free.
Right now she's so far left of Sanders she's hardly visible. That's a huge pivot to the center for the general.
Compared to the other folks on stage it won't be hard for her to look statesman like.
I think the US public have already made up their minds about her emails, if they disliked what she did they will not be voti
The FBI is not like the local county court - unless they have a 100% watertight case they will not indict. Their conviction rate is truly impressive. I've been involved in an FBI investigation, and it is unlike a
Plus they are investigating her under the Espionage Act - close enough to treason for you?
Which makes it unlikely they will indict, even Nixon did not end up in jail over Watergate and this is not yet in that league. O
I think you need to start following the case. You clearly are not aware of her peril under that act. They have 700 emails that look like they are in breach. That's the reason they have stopped using State releases and are working directly with intel folks. They want to be 100% certain.
Maybe but the point remains unless she is convicted of High Treason technically she can still run for president
Technically doesn't matter - it's the reality that matters. If she's indicted it's against her own interests to remain in the race. See my other post.
Does any of it matter? The threat to her candidacy is not political. Her fate will be decided by Loretta Lynch, who as US Attorney oversaw the FIFA case before becoming Attorney General. Unlike liberal and racist Holder she's such a straight arrow even Rudi Giuliani supported her.
Who does or doesn't win this or that debate or primary doesn't matter. Short of indictment she's home free.
Right now she's so far left of Sanders she's hardly visible. That's a huge pivot to the center for the general.
Compared to the other folks on stage it won't be hard for her to look statesman like.
I think the US public have already made up their minds about her emails, if they disliked what she did they will not be voti
The FBI is not like the local county court - unless they have a 100% watertight case they will not indict. Their conviction rate is truly impressive. I've been involved in an FBI investigation, and it is unlike a
Plus they are investigating her under the Espionage Act - close enough to treason for you?
Which makes it unlikely they will indict, even Nixon did not end up in jail over Watergate and this is not yet in that league. O
I think you need to start following the case. You clearly are not aware of her peril under that act. They have 700 emails that look like they are in breach. That's the reason they have stopped using State releases and are working directly with intel folks. They want to be 100% certain.
Maybe but the point remains unless she is convicted of High Treason technically she can still run for president
Technically doesn't matter - it's the reality that matters. If she's indicted it's against her own interests to remain in the race. See my other post.
Not if she wins and gives herself a pardon
She's far too smart to take that risk. I am no legal eagle but I doubt you can pardon yourself. She'd be in jail.
Why do you cling to this so fiercely? You can't have a president who is a convicted criminal who then proceeds to pardon herself and continue as if nothing had happened. That's just silly.
The Dem debate might be interesting after all. Apparently Sanders campaign manager threw a fit this morning talking with CBS about restructuring the debate after last night's events in Paris.
If she is indicted it will be from either or both of
Espionage Act
18 U.S. Code § 1001 False statements
False statements is a slam dunk for the feds - if they think you lied to them they indict. You don't need to be under oath, Any statement made anywhere counts. It's typically 5 years on conviction - written, spoken or 3rd person.
Espionage Act - essentially transmitting, receiving or storing classified info on an insecure system. It could be many years in jail. The info does not need to be marked classified.
Federal cases are different - motions etc start fairly quickly.
I know this doesn't need saying, but under indictment from Uncle Sam, you need to devote all your time to your defense. Doing so makes it difficult to impossible to either run for or be POTUS both of which need all your time.
What the law says isn't the point. It's simply not feasible. Would you vote for a candidate under federal indictment who was going to spend time in club fed? QTWTAIN.
Key words 'could' and as Monicagate showed it depends entirely on what an interpretation of a deliberate lie is. If the GOP frontrunner Trump is nominee he has cupboards of skeletons of his own, it is not impossible that if Hillary is nominee by the time she is convicted were that to occur she could yet win if something equally damning emerges on him and then give herself a presidential pardon. It is more likely Sanders would be nominee by then and would be elected president instead but it is not impossible
Has a president ever pardoned themselves? I think Nixon was pardoned by Ford.
Yes but Nixon had resigned at that point, Hillary would have just won a presidential election and have a mandate however small
Comments
I'd point to Northern Ireland as how to prosecute an anti terror operation successfully. There were no armoured divisions driving tanks here for 30 years, no jet fighters and the forefront of the fight ended up being civilian, not military agencies.
If they claim it wasn't successful, point out that the counter terror story of NI is one of the most frequently cited examples within Western agencies about how to do it well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutha_meat
Early Christians also objected to the consumption of meat sacrificed to false idols, something that brought them considerable persecution .
In practice a lot of meat served in the UK is unlabelled Halal meat. If you want to avoid it then best be veggie, or eat pork.
Well don't. I have lefty leaning friends so I can sympathise.
The nuclear deterrent is of course a deterrent from nuclear attack. Unfortunately we cannot uninvent nuclear weapons. If they were dismantled then as soon as it was thought that someone was reinventing them, it would ferment a war not stop one.
I am wavering having been a unilatralist since the 70's.
Sadly, the sort of thing I can never come up with!
Am I overcompensating on smiting night?
Curiously although the Paris prosecutor said 7 died, everyone else keeps saying 8 - 7 dying from explosive belts, 1 from being shot.
This is unhelpful and stirs the increasing anger in this country. When schools arbitrarily do this without consultation they entrench this feeling with those that have been here for generations. Their way of life is being changed. It doesn't stop with schools it is increasing daily and of course we are now in the silly season where we won't be able to say Christmas but officials and others use wintervall .
A pox on all their heads because we address this imbalance first, have the decency to stand up for our beliefs and seek to protect our own customs why should any other faith.
If Halal labelling, as suggested earlier on this site, was made mandatory it would be a big boost to UK farmers, as would banning imports of meat from countries that do not have the same animal welfare standards as our farmers comply with. On which point I haven't seen the Red Tractor mark in Tescos for a long time now, I wonder why.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/14/airbnb-users-claim-website-fails-protect-them-scammerson
Basically it is people not paying for the accommodation through AirBnB, and I suspect many are doing so in order to avoid fees / enticed with a cheaper deal. Do these people not wonder why the letter is asking to try and bypass the system? Or is it a case of you can't con an honest man.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/second-democratic-2016-debate-iowa-when-is-it-215792#ixzz3rK9TL3Ga
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3318379/Hunt-Isis-killers-Syrian-passport-body-suicide-bomber-Stade-France.html
It is not a deterrent. Like Trident.
That's the issue really. They don't need to do that because most is halal.What they need to do is mark it non-halal. You would not see too many labels if that was the case.
Basically The deed is done your way of life has been changed for ever and no one, not a single person gave you or anyone else the respect to even ask. Just like the lady and her children in this school. They don't matter, no one cares a flying feck what they think or their rights religious or otherwise. It's as simple as that.
When they left Syria for Greece did they intend to get jobs at Morrisons or B&Q and were later persuaded otherwise? I seriously doubt it. The intel folks will be all over it.
I have to confess that I just will not buy meat for human consumption (roasted chickens for the cat are another matter) from any supermarket. I used to but not since I could not be sure where the stuff came from and how it was killed. Now I only buy from the local butcher and, scottish beef steaks aside, only meat from local farms. It is a bit more expensive but if I have a problem with, say, a bit of pork I can tell the farmer himself all about it in the pub on Sundays.
However, Mr Llama, you spoil that cat, I have to say. Roast chicken, I ask you. What is wrong with cat food?
Who does or doesn't win this or that debate or primary doesn't matter. Short of indictment she's home free.
Right now she's so far left of Sanders she's hardly visible. That's a huge pivot to the center for the general.
Compared to the other folks on stage it won't be hard for her to look statesman like.
1. Is it the same two?
2. If they went through Turkey in 2013, did they transit the country to somewhere in Europe fairly quickly, or hang about for a bit before moving on or leave Turkey for elsewhere in the Middle East?
The same arguments on anti-Labour majorities have never seem to take hold quite as effectively, perhaps due to previously being better liked, comparitively.
Mind you Herself is now firmly of the opinion that Thomas doesn't like the chicken from Sainsburys. She came home from shopping early one evening and carved him a plateful of the Sainsburys chicken she had just bought and he turned his nose up. What she didn't know, and I have yet to confess, is that I had given him a dish of prawns just half an hour earlier. So now he can only have chicken from Waitrose or, at a push, Tesco.
I will have to keep my cats away from PB. If they were to find out about Thomas's fantastic diet, my life would become quite impossible.
She gets kibble and canned food.
I don't suppose Mr. B., who I see is also chipping in, feeds his dogs on rubbish either.
Your Sanders point is ridiculous, she is right of him on economics, as she made clear in the last debate when she disputed his assertion the US should be more like Denmark and on foreign policy, she will be the centrist in the Democratic race, on present polling it looks like the GOP is rejecting its centrists so that would make her task easier
http://news.sky.com/story/1587126/cult-death-threat-over-ken-livingstone-crush
If they indict then she will be convicted and going to jail. Loretta Lynch is not going to pull any punches.
Whether the public have made their minds up about her emails is irrelevant - this is a legal and criminal process not a political one.
Plus they are investigating her under the Espionage Act - close enough to treason for you?
Like the peace of God, American politics passes all understanding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beCYGm1vMJ0
Now they've expanded the investigation to include false statements and starting their own classification exercise on her emails, going straight to the intel folks. What we don't know is whose false statements they are looking at - Clinton or her aides.
She can claim that the Benghazi committee is a witch hunt, but not this.
Espionage Act
18 U.S. Code § 1001 False statements
False statements is a slam dunk for the feds - if they think you lied to them they indict. You don't need to be under oath, Any statement made anywhere counts. It's typically 5 years on conviction - written, spoken or 3rd person.
Espionage Act - essentially transmitting, receiving or storing classified info on an insecure system. It could be many years in jail. The info does not need to be marked classified.
Federal cases are different - motions etc start fairly quickly.
I know this doesn't need saying, but under indictment from Uncle Sam, you need to devote all your time to your defense. Doing so makes it difficult to impossible to either run for or be POTUS both of which need all your time.
What the law says isn't the point. It's simply not feasible. Would you vote for a candidate under federal indictment who was going to spend time in club fed? QTWTAIN.
2. it depends entirely on what an interpretation of a deliberate lie is. - No it doesn't, It depends on what the FBI says it is. The defendant has to prove a negative. They get convictions on this all the time.
3. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP. This is her self-inflicted legal problem and he is not a factor.
Why do you persist in confusing what is a perfectly simple issue - if she's indicted she's gone. Do not confuse legality with reality. What the Dems do then would be fascinating.
Once it became public that the FBI had started its own email classification investigation to bypass State, and had also started an investigation under the False Statements statute, every legal talking head on both CNN and Fox News said it raised the chance of her being indicted to about 50-50. Will she be? I have no idea. But her peril is very real.
Why do you cling to this so fiercely? You can't have a president who is a convicted criminal who then proceeds to pardon herself and continue as if nothing had happened. That's just silly.
No official help request has been made, they emphasize.