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
I'm with Tim_B on this one. Having your first act as president be to pardon yourself? That'd go down well
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
Nixon had won 2 elections and had a mandate. If any president could have pardoned himself, he would. He tried everything else. What's your point?
This is now descending into farce. It's reductio ad absurdum.
If she is indicted it will be from either or both of
Espionage Act
18 U.S. Code § 1001 False statements
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
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.
She has to be convicted first. Technically it has a lot to do with Trump actually, if he is nominee, as is still likely, and something turns up on him which is certainly not impossible if she is still nominee she could yet beat him and then pardon herself. Because you are wrong even if she is indicted she is not automatically gone as she has to be convicted of high treason to be prevented from running again. If she is indicted and convicted then if she pulled out Biden would probably change his mind and run and he polls even better than her in the general
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
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.
She has to be convicted first. Technically it has a lot to do with Trump actually, if he is nominee, as is still likely, and something turns up on him which is certainly not impossible if she is still nominee she could yet beat him and then pardon herself. Because you are wrong even if she is indicted she is not automatically gone as she has to be convicted of high treason to be prevented from running again. If she is indicted and convicted then if she pulled out Biden would probably change his mind and run anyway and he polls even better than her in the general
Who knows - if it happened maybe Biden could be persuaded.
You are confusing pure legality with political reality. Enough. Let's let it be.
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.
Technically a serving president can pardon anyone including themselves and technically you can, ridiculous though it may sound to you
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.
Technically a serving president can pardon anyone including themselves and technically you can, ridiculous though it may sound to you
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.
Technically a serving president can pardon anyone including themselves and technically you can, ridiculous though it may sound to you
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
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.
She has to be convicted first. Technically it has a lot to do with Trump actually, if he is no
Who knows - if it happened maybe Biden could be persuaded.
You are confusing pure legality with political reality. Enough. Let's let it be.
Nothing is impossible in politics and it is not possible Trump v Clinton could see the candidates of both main parties being investigated for dodgy pasts and who knows what would then happen
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
Nixon had won 2 elections and had a mandate. If any president could have pardoned himself, he would. He tried everything else. What's your point?
This is now descending into farce. It's reductio ad absurdum.
His poll ratings were in the toilet at that point, Hillary would have to have just won an election and a mandate for a pardon to be brought into play
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.
Since when has silliness stopped anything? Like electing a foreigner as POTUS, or permitting a Cuban-Canadian to enter the race.
Of course the President can pardon him/herself. They can even pardon themselves in advance of any indictment or conviction...
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.
She has to be convicted first. Technically it has a lot to do with Trump actually, if he is no
Who knows - if it happened maybe Biden could be persuaded.
You are confusing pure legality with political reality. Enough. Let's let it be.
Nothing is impossible in politics and it is not possible Trump v Clinton could see the candidates of both main parties being investigated for dodgy pasts and who knows what would then happen
Trumps' background, divorces, his business dealings and the 4 bankruptcies he was involved in etc has been gone over many times. If you're doing high stakes business with a guy like Trump due diligence is the first thing you do. If there were more skeletons in his closet they would have been found long ago. He faces no potential legal jeopardy. Clinton faces huge potential legal jeopardy. Like Clinton, most people either do or don't like Trump. He's been in the public eye for many years. He and Clinton are somewhat alike in that and they both have high negative numbers.
Trump is a known quantity. So is his potential legal jeopardy.
Clinton is a known quantity. Her potential legal jeopardy is not.
I still think Trump will not be the eventual nominee, although it's becoming ever harder to say that..
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 yo.
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.
Since when has silliness stopped anything? Like electing a foreigner as POTUS, or permitting a Cuban-Canadian to enter the race.
Of course the President can pardon him/herself. They can even pardon themselves in advance of any indictment or conviction...
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
Nixon had won 2 elections and had a mandate. If any president could have pardoned himself, he would. He tried everything else. What's your point?
This is now descending into farce. It's reductio ad absurdum.
His poll ratings were in the toilet at that point, Hillary would have to have just won an election and a mandate for a pardon to be brought into play
He's the president and has won 2 elections. He either is or isn't POTUS, HIs poll ratings have nothing to do with it, he either does or doesn't have the power.
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.
She has to be convicted first. Technically it has a lot to do with Trump actually, if he is no
Who knows - if it happened maybe Biden could be persuaded.
You are confusing pure legality with political reality. Enough. Let's let it be.
Nothing is impossible in politics and it is not possible Trump v Clinton could see the candidates of both main parties being investigated for dodgy pasts and who knows what would then happen
Trumps' background, divorces, his business dealings and the 4 bankruptcies he was involved in etc has been gone over many times. If you're doing high stakes business with a guy like Trump due diligence is the first thing you do. If there were more skeletons in his closet they would have been found long ago. He faces no potential legal jeopardy. Clinton faces huge potential legal jeopardy. Like Clinton, most people either do or don't like Trump. He's been in the public eye for many years. He and Clinton are somewhat alike in that and they both have high negative numbers.
Trump is a known quantity. So is his potential legal jeopardy.
Clinton is a known quantity. Her potential legal jeopardy is not.
I still think Trump will not be the eventual nominee, although it's becoming ever harder to say that..
Trump as a celebrity is not the same as Trump the potential next president, his past will be combed over like never before and there is plenty in his past business career which may turn up something of interest
I agree with David, both in general and on most of his specific points. I can see some scope for a bit of informal local cooperation - we won't stand here, you won't try hard there, we'll refrain from criticising that vote-swapping website - but anything beyond that is a complicated self-defeating distraction.
She has to be convicted first. Technically it has a lot to do with Trump actually, if he is no
Who knows - if it happened maybe Biden could be persuaded.
You are confusing pure legality with political reality. Enough. Let's let it be.
Nothing is impossible in politics and it is not possible Trump v Clinton could see the candidates of both main parties being investigated for dodgy pasts and who knows what would then happen
Trumps' background, divorces, his business dealings and the 4 bankruptcies he was involved in etc has been gone over many times. If you're doing high stakes business with a guy like Trump due diligence is the first thing you do. If there were more skeletons in his closet they would have been found long ago. He faces no potential legal jeopardy. Clinton faces huge potential legal jeopardy. Like Clinton, most people either do or don't like Trump. He's been in the public eye for many years. He and Clinton are somewhat alike in that and they both have high negative numbers.
Trump is a known quantity. So is his potential legal jeopardy.
Clinton is a known quantity. Her potential legal jeopardy is not.
I still think Trump will not be the eventual nominee, although it's becoming ever harder to say that..
Trump as a celebrity is not the same as Trump the potential next president, his past will be combed over like never before and there is plenty in his past business career which may turn up something of interest
Not other than his 4 corporate bankruptcies and he's dealt with that. For almost 40 years on every big deal he's done - and he's done thousands - he's had to open his books and let potential partners attorneys and forensic accountants do due diligence on him. He will publish (may have already done) his tax returns and net worth statements. Compared to that he has nothing to fear from the media or the Dems. The man is not a crook.
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
Nixon had won 2 elections and had a mandate. If any president could have pardoned himself, he would. He tried everything else. What's your point?
This is now descending into farce. It's reductio ad absurdum.
His poll ratings were in the toilet at that point, Hillary would have to have just won an election and a mandate for a pardon to be brought into play
He's the president and has won 2 elections. He either is or isn't POTUS, HIs poll ratings have nothing to do with it, he either does or doesn't have the power.
Where's the citation on this I asked for?
Technically Nixon could have pardoned himself but did not on the grounds that Ford would not indict him anyway, you asked Rob D for a citation not me, anyway off to bed
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
Nixon had won 2 elections and had a mandate. If any president could have pardoned himself, he would. He tried everything else. What's your point?
This is now descending into farce. It's reductio ad absurdum.
His poll ratings were in the toilet at that point, Hillary would have to have just won an election and a mandate for a pardon to be brought into play
He's the president and has won 2 elections. He either is or isn't POTUS, HIs poll ratings have nothing to do with it, he either does or doesn't have the power.
Where's the citation on this I asked for?
Technically Nixon could have pardoned himself but did not on the grounds that Ford would not indict him anyway, you asked Rob D for a citation not me, anyway off to bed
You're the one pushing this - provide a citation please, or as usual are you deflecting.
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
Nixon had won 2 elections and had a mandate. If any president could have pardoned himself, he would. He tried everything else. What's your point?
This is now descending into farce. It's reductio ad absurdum.
His poll ratings were in the toilet at that point, Hillary would have to have just won an election and a mandate for a pardon to be brought into play
He's the president and has won 2 elections. He either is or isn't POTUS, HIs poll ratings have nothing to do with it, he either does or doesn't have the power.
Where's the citation on this I asked for?
Technically Nixon could have pardoned himself but did not on the grounds that Ford would not indict him anyway, you asked Rob D for a citation not me, anyway off to bed
I'm thought that was directed at you? Citation for what is needed
If she is indicted it will be from either or both of
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
Nixon had won 2 elections and had a mandate. If any president could have pardoned himself, he would. He tried everything else. What's your point?
This is now descending into farce. It's reductio ad absurdum.
His poll ratings were in the toilet at that point, Hillary would have to have just won an election and a mandate for a pardon to be brought into play
He's the president and has won 2 elections. He either is or isn't POTUS, HIs poll ratings have nothing to do with it, he either does or doesn't have the power.
Where's the citation on this I asked for?
Technically Nixon could have pardoned himself but did not on the grounds that Ford would not indict him anyway, you asked Rob D for a citation not me, anyway off to bed
I'm thought that was directed at you? Citation for what is needed
Citation showing that a POTUS can pardon themselves. He keeps saying technically this or that. Fair enough - citation please.
She has to be convicted first. Technically it has a lot to do with Trump actually, if he is no
Who knows - if it happened maybe Biden could be persuaded.
You are confusing pure legality with political reality. Enough. Let's let it be.
Nothing is impossible in politics and it is not possible Trump v Clinton could see the candidates of both main parties being investigated for dodgy pasts and who knows what would then happen
Trumps' background, divorces, his business dealings and the 4 bankruptcies he was involved in etc has been gone over many times. If you're doing high stakes business with a guy like Trump due diligence is the first thing you do. If there were more skeletons in his closet they would have been found long ago. He faces no potential legal jeopardy. Clinton faces huge potential legal jeopardy. Like Clinton, most people either do or don't like Trump. He's been in the public eye for many years. He and Clinton are somewhat alike in that and they both have high negative numbers.
Trump is a known quantity. So is his potential legal jeopardy.
Clinton is a known quantity. Her potential legal jeopardy is not.
I still think Trump will not be the eventual nominee, although it's becoming ever harder to say that..
Trump as a celebrity is not the same as Trump the potential next president, his past will be combed over like never before and there is plenty in his past business career which may turn up something of interest
Not other than his 4 corporate bankruptcies and he's dealt with that. For almost 40 years on every big deal he's done - and he's done thousands - he's had to open his books and let potential partners attorneys and forensic accountants do due diligence on him. He will publish (may have already done) his tax returns and net worth statements. Compared to that he has nothing to fear from the media or the Dems. The man is not a crook.
It sounds a bit like wishful thinking. What happens if nothing is dug up on Trump?
If she is indicted it will be from either or both of
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
Nixon had won 2 elections and had a mandate. If any president could have pardoned himself, he would. He tried everything else. What's your point?
This is now descending into farce. It's reductio ad absurdum.
His poll ratings were in the toilet at that point, Hillary would have to have just won an election and a mandate for a pardon to be brought into play
He's the president and has won 2 elections. He either is or isn't POTUS, HIs poll ratings have nothing to do with it, he either does or doesn't have the power.
Where's the citation on this I asked for?
Technically Nixon could have pardoned himself but did not on the grounds that Ford would not indict him anyway, you asked Rob D for a citation not me, anyway off to bed
I'm thought that was directed at you? Citation for what is needed
Citation showing that a POTUS can pardon themselves. He keeps saying technically this or that. Fair enough - citation please.
Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States" and it does not exclude the President from that. Anyway got some work to do in the morning so will have to head to bed
She has to be convicted first. Technically it has a lot to do with Trump actually, if he is no
Who knows - if it happened maybe Biden could be persuaded.
You are confusing pure legality with political reality. Enough. Let's let it be.
Nothing is impossible in politics and it is not possible Trump v Clinton could see the candidates of both main parties being investigated for dodgy pasts and who knows what would then happen
Trum
Trump is a known quantity. So is his potential legal jeopardy.
Clinton is a known quantity. Her potential legal jeopardy is not.
I still think Trump will not be the eventual nominee, although it's becoming ever harder to say that..
Trump as a celebrity is not the same as Trump the potential next president, his past will be combed over like never before and there is plenty in his past business career which may turn up something of interest
Not other than his 4 corporate bankruptcies and he's dealt with that. For almost 40 years on every big deal he's done - and he's done thousands - he's had to open his books and let potential partners attorneys and forensic accountants do due diligence on him. He will publish (may have already done) his tax returns and net worth statements. Compared to that he has nothing to fear from the media or the Dems. The man is not a crook.
Nowhere near the level of scrutiny of a potential president. For starters David Sater was a top executive at the Bayrock Group — Trump’s most frequent partner on condo and hotel deals — and the son of a reputed Russian mobster. In 2000 he was named as a co-conspirator in a $40 million fraud case that resulted in 19 guilty pleas and the conviction of six mobsters from the Russian mafia and the Gambino crime family.
Tevfik Arif, another Bayrock Group executive who serves as a partner in Trump Soho, was dramatically arrested aboard the world’s largest for-charter luxury yacht and charged with “encouraging” and “facilitating” prostitution. Some of the girls were only 16 years old.
If she is indicted it will be from either or both of
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
Nixon had won 2 elections and had a mandate. If any president could have pardoned himself, he would. He tried everything else. What's your point?
This is now descending into farce. It's reductio ad absurdum.
His poll ratings were in the toilet at that point, Hillary would have to have just won an election and a mandate for a pardon to be brought into play
He's the president and has won 2 elections. He either is or isn't POTUS, HIs poll ratings have nothing to do with it, he either does or doesn't have the power.
Where's the citation on this I asked for?
Technically Nixon could have pardoned himself but did not on the grounds that Ford would not indict him anyway, you asked Rob D for a citation not me, anyway off to bed
I'm thought that was directed at you? Citation for what is needed
Citation showing that a POTUS can pardon themselves. He keeps saying technically this or that. Fair enough - citation please.
Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States" and it does not exclude the President from that. Anyway got some work to do in the morning so will have to head to bed
It doesn't apply to impeachment - if a sitting POTUS was convicted they'd move for it so fast your eyes would spin/
If she is indicted it will be from either or both of
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
Nixon had won 2 elections and had a mandate. If any president could have pardoned himself, he would. He tried everything else. What's your point?
This is now descending into farce. It's reductio ad absurdum.
His poll ratings were in the toilet at that point, Hillary would have to have just won an election and a mandate for a pardon to be brought into play
He's the president and has won 2 elections. He either is or isn't POTUS, HIs poll ratings have nothing to do with it, he either does or doesn't have the power.
Where's the citation on this I asked for?
Technically Nixon could have pardoned himself but did not on the grounds that Ford would not indict him anyway, you asked Rob D for a citation not me, anyway off to bed
I'm thought that was directed at you? Citation for what is needed
Citation showing that a POTUS can pardon themselves. He keeps saying technically this or that. Fair enough - citation please.
Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States" and it does not exclude the President from that. Anyway got some work to do in the morning so will have to head to bed
It doesn't apply to impeachment - if a sitting POTUS was convicted they'd move for it so fast your eyes would spin/
To impeach they would need 2/3 of the Senate, the GOP is well short of that and would likely again be short if Hillary had just been elected so position unchanged. Night
Who knows - if it happened maybe Biden could be persuaded.
You are confusing pure legality with political reality. Enough. Let's let it be.
Nothing is impossible in politics and it is not possible Trump v Clinton could see the candidates of both main parties being investigated for dodgy pasts and who knows what would then happen
Trum
Trump is a known quantity. So is his potential legal jeopardy.
Clinton is a known quantity. Her potential legal jeopardy is not.
I still think Trump will not be the eventual nominee, although it's becoming ever harder to say that..
Trump as a celebrity is not the same as Trump the potential next president, his past will be combed over like never before and there is plenty in his past business career which may turn up something of interest
Not other than his 4 corporate bankruptcies and he's dealt with that. For almost 40 years on every big deal he's done - and he's done thousands - he's had to open his books and let potential partners attorneys and forensic accountants do due diligence on him. He will publish (may have already done) his tax returns and net worth statements. Compared to that he has nothing to fear from the media or the Dems. The man is not a crook.
Nowhere near the level of scrutiny of a potential president. For starters David Sater was a top executive at the Bayrock Group — Trump’s most frequent partner on condo and hotel deals — and the son of a reputed Russian mobster. In 2000 he was named as a co-conspirator in a $40 million fraud case that resulted in 19 guilty pleas and the conviction of six mobsters from the Russian mafia and the Gambino crime family.
Tevfik Arif, another Bayrock Group executive who serves as a partner in Trump Soho, was dramatically arrested aboard the world’s largest for-charter luxury yacht and charged with “encouraging” and “facilitating” prostitution. Some of the girls were only 16 years old.
There's nothing new there. None of it is about Trump, but his business partners. My then business partner spent years in federal prison for tax evasion, but even the IRS said it didn't reflect on me.
Who knows - if it happened maybe Biden could be persuaded.
You are confusing pure legality with political reality. Enough. Let's let it be.
Nothing is impossible in politics and it is not possible Trump v Clinton could see the candidates of both main parties being investigated for dodgy pasts and who knows what would then happen
Trum
Trump is a known quantity. So is his potential legal jeopardy.
Clinton is a known quantity. Her potential legal jeopardy is not.
I still think Trump will not be the eventual nominee, although it's becoming ever harder to say that..
Trump as a celebrity is not the same as Trump the potential next president, his past will be combed over like never before and there is plenty in his past business career which may turn up something of interest
Not other than his 4 corporate bankruptcies and he's dealt with that. For almost 40 years on every big deal he's done - and he's done thousands - he'.
Nowhere near the level of scrutiny of a potential president. For starters David Sater was a top executive at the Bayrock Group — Trump’s most frequent partner on condo and hotel deals — and the son of a reputed Russian mobster. In 2000 he was named as a co-conspirator in a $40 million fraud case that resulted in 19 guilty pleas and the conviction of six mobsters from the Russian mafia and the Gambino crime family.
Tevfik Arif, another Bayrock Group executive who serves as a partner in Trump Soho, was dramatically arrested aboard the world’s largest for-charter luxury yacht and charged with “encouraging” and “facilitating” prostitution. Some of the girls were only 16 years old.
There's nothing new there. None of it is about Trump, but his business partners. My then business partner spent years in federal prison for tax evasion, but even the IRS said it didn't reflect on me.
This was multiple business partners convicted, not just one, many of whom were acting for Trump on deals and you were not running for US President, for a final time, goodnight
This was multiple business partners convicted, not just one, many of whom were acting for Trump on deals and you were not running for US President, for a final time, goodnight
Four, out of how many people he has done business 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?)
That's a fact not an argument and it's factually correct, so what argument is it being used to support? If you're in favour a nuclear deterrent you need to say what they deter. If you've got a rational nation state in mind then their fact is irrelevant. If you're talking about terrorism or Islamic extremism in general then they're obviously correct: You can't deter a nutjob death cult with nuclear weapons, especially if the said nutjobs live in your own country so you'd have to nuke yourself.
Some excellent stuff in the Guardian online about how Isis was formed. There is a fundamental difference in how they see the world and how we should all live, they'll stop at nothing to achieve those aims. I appreciate that's an obvious remark but in "ordinary" war we know who the enemy is and where they are, this is different.
Peace talks? not sure ISIS would be down for that.
An interesting piece though as it shows Benn for the hard left reality that he is. The Labour party of today is unrecognisable even compared to Miliband - and he did a fair bit of the initial damage after 2010. The post-war consensus in British politics is gone.
Some excellent stuff in the Guardian online about how Isis was formed. There is a fundamental difference in how they see the world and how we should all live, they'll stop at nothing to achieve those aims. I appreciate that's an obvious remark but in "ordinary" war we know who the enemy is and where they are, this is different.
That article by Benn proves that indoctrination of children works..regardless of religion,race or political background..."give me the kids and i will give you back a demented lunatic"....Peace talks wit ISIS....Insanity ..
Question that I should know the answer to, I've read things but not entirely sure if true, but who funds ISIS? Can we not hack into ISIS bank accounts, stop the funds reaching them etc?
And if it is known who funds them, why not cut off relations with them?
Captured oil fields. Probably fraud and wealthy sunni donors. My belief is that these terrorist outrages form no part of a serious strategy for anything, they do it because they can do it. If they had to stop doing it they would have to stop and think about what else to do. But if the perpetrators were capable of stopping and thinking they would realise how absurd they are. Where it leads is hardly a consideration.
No, they are very deliberately part of ISIS's strategy to end the "grayzone" (muslims and non-muslims living side by side) as they call it.
ISIS absolutely loathe and detest the fact that Muslims live peacfully in Western countries as it ruins their apocalypse narrative. Terrorist attacks in Europe are, according to ISIS literature, designed to create a black an white world of harsh anti-muslim feeling in Europe to drive Muslims into the arms of ISIS and create the final apocalyptic battle they crave.
Europe's general acceptance of the refugees has been a blow to ISIS propaganda.
Peace talks? not sure ISIS would be down for that.
It seems he wants peace talks and then attacks on ISIS. Which means he wants peace talks between Assad's forces, the remnants of the FSA and the Kurds. I've no idea if that would include al Nusra, and I daresay he hasn't thought about it that deeply.
She has to be convicted first. Technically it has a lot to do with Trump actually, if he is no
Who knows - if it happened maybe Biden could be persuaded.
You are confusing pure legality with political reality. Enough. Let's let it be.
Nothing is impossible in politics and it is not possible Trump v Clinton could see the candidates of both main parties being investigated for dodgy pasts and who knows what would then happen
Trumps' background, divorces, his business dealings and the 4 bankruptcies he was involved in etc has been gone over many times. If you're doing high stakes business with a guy like Trump due diligence is the first thing you do. If there were more skeletons in his closet they would have been found long ago. He faces no potential legal jeopardy. Clinton faces huge potential legal jeopardy. Like Clinton, most people either do or don't like Trump. He's been in the public eye for many years. He and Clinton are somewhat alike in that and they both have high negative numbers.
Trump is a known quantity. So is his potential legal jeopardy.
Clinton is a known quantity. Her potential legal jeopardy is not.
I still think Trump will not be the eventual nominee, although it's becoming ever harder to say that..
Trump as a celebrity is not the same as Trump the potential next president, his past will be combed over like never before and there is plenty in his past business career which may turn up something of interest
Not other than his 4 corporate bankruptcies and he's dealt with that. For almost 40 years on every big deal he's done - and he's done thousands - he's had to open his books and let potential partners attorneys and forensic accountants do due diligence on him. He will publish (may have already done) his tax returns and net worth statements. Compared to that he has nothing to fear from the media or the Dems. The man is not a crook.
It sounds a bit like wishful thinking. What happens if nothing is dug up on Trump?
Trump is feared by the US political establishment, both Democrat and Republican because:
1. He is a successful business man. 2. He has brains, but thinks outside the box. 3. Like Reagan, he can command support of the public.
...but Labour could support PR, that would be a more natural way to create a coalition that opposes the Tory Party. Talk of an anti-Tory majority is FPTP talk and crazy as you point out.
Bang goes my 949/1 bet on Hilary Benn becoming the next Prime Minister. Oh well. it's back to the usual 6/4 daily gruel I suppose.
Any alternative to Corbyn before the next election wouldstill have to be relatively leftwing as Howard was relatively rightwing when he replaced IDS because of the size of the mandate Corbyn and Howard got from the membership. Benn is not going to be the next PM anymore than Howard was, the aim would simply be to make modest progress and then allow a more moderate, fresher leader to emerge after defeat, with Chuka Umunna probably playing the Cameron role
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?
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%.
Not hugely interesting. Just a LD collapse. Tory vote also dropped 7% in the same period. Minor parties UKIP and SNP did well. Labour up a bit.
I couldn't disagree more. The so-called progressive majority just disappeared into thin air.
From 1945 to 2010, the Lab + LD (or predecessors) GB vote was consistently in the 50-60% range. Then it wasn't, by a long way.
The working class who made up the bulk of that number never believed in the 'progressiveness' espoused by the middle class left.
Many of the SDP voters will also have voted Tory in 2015 not just Labour. Significant numbers of Working class voters who backed both Thatcher and Foot may well have voted UKIP
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.
Comments
This is now descending into farce. It's reductio ad absurdum.
Who knows - if it happened maybe Biden could be persuaded.
You are confusing pure legality with political reality. Enough. Let's let it be.
Of course the President can pardon him/herself. They can even pardon themselves in advance of any indictment or conviction...
Trump is a known quantity. So is his potential legal jeopardy.
Clinton is a known quantity. Her potential legal jeopardy is not.
I still think Trump will not be the eventual nominee, although it's becoming ever harder to say that..
Where's the citation on this I asked for?
Tevfik Arif, another Bayrock Group executive who serves as a partner in Trump Soho, was dramatically arrested aboard the world’s largest for-charter luxury yacht and charged with “encouraging” and “facilitating” prostitution. Some of the girls were only 16 years old.
Raoul Goldberg, who brought Trump the site for the 45-story Trump Tower Philadelphia, was sentenced to 46 months in prison in 2000 for trying to ship tens of thousands of ecstasy pills into the U.S.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/donald-trump-not-just-a-birther-five-awful-things-about-the-don/5/
Goodnight
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/14/tax-credits-cuts-conservative-mps-opposed-stephen-mcpartland
And this from a possible alternate leader.
I look around Europe at our leaders and despair.
Oh well. it's back to the usual 6/4 daily gruel I suppose.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
ISIS absolutely loathe and detest the fact that Muslims live peacfully in Western countries as it ruins their apocalypse narrative. Terrorist attacks in Europe are, according to ISIS literature, designed to create a black an white world of harsh anti-muslim feeling in Europe to drive Muslims into the arms of ISIS and create the final apocalyptic battle they crave.
Europe's general acceptance of the refugees has been a blow to ISIS propaganda.
New Thread New Thread
1. He is a successful business man.
2. He has brains, but thinks outside the box.
3. Like Reagan, he can command support of the public.
and 4. He may make a great president.
'In the end, the decadence of Merkel, Holland, Cameron et al will cost you your world and everything you love' http://www.steynonline.com/7293/the-barbarians-are-inside-and-there-are-no-gates …