2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Jacob]

As many have pointed out because of our stupid traditions of due process and fair trials we are not really able to deport illegal immigrants at a rate much faster than we already are. So I am not really sure how he plans on fulfilling that promise.

I thought it's been pretty clear for a while that Trump is not particularly invested in due process and fair trials, so I don't think it'll be a hard problem for him to solve.

[CountDeMoney]

Best, of course, is that all articles note that the FBI is also trying to determine how many of these are duplicates of emails already released.

So glad they're on top of this one, as usual:

[alfred russel]

As many have pointed out because of our stupid traditions of due process and fair trials we are not really able to deport illegal immigrants at a rate much faster than we already are. So I am not really sure how he plans on fulfilling that promise.

I thought it's been pretty clear for a while that Trump is not particularly invested in due process and fair trials, so I don't think it'll be a hard problem for him to solve.

The thing I don't always get about Valmy's argument is that the law didn't used to be interpreted the way it is. For example, my father used to always cite as an example that the guy who tried to kill FDR was executed something like 3 weeks after his crime (he killed another dude when his shot missed). The court system back then was able to put together a trial and a couple appeals that quickly.

Today the courts would never go along with that--it would violate due process. But it used to be constitutional. Just as was throwing gays in jail and keeping catholics from voting (though the latter was possibly before some constitutional changes). What is really different is the point of view of the judges interpreting the law--and those judges are appointed by the president. Yes they have lifetime appointments so nothing will change on day 1, but long term if you appoint people with retrograde mindsets, you can expect the court system will adopt that mindset as well.

[Phillip V]

Trump has strong lead in Utah http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ut/utah_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5971.html

Missouri may be swing state like 2008 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mo/missouri_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson-6077.html

[Legbiter]

 

More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation

https://apnews.com/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625/Many-donors-to-Clinton-Foundation-met-with-her-at-State

[FunkMonk]

More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation

https://apnews.com/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625/Many-donors-to-Clinton-Foundation-met-with-her-at-State

lol nothing matters 

[Barrister]

I was just coming to post that story.

And for those (Minsky ) whose defence is that the Clinton Foundation did good work, and the Clinton's didn't personally benefit, so what's the harm...

Well for starters they did benefit - the Foundation paid their travel (Charter or First class, of course) to any number of international destinations.

But mostly at their level it isn't about money.  They were pulling it in pretty good coin from the speeches.  But it's about influence.  It gave them two billion dollars to be big players in the world of international development.  It allowed them to keep a staff of 350 employed, give her supporters good jobs, and pick out the best and brightest for Hillary's campaigns.

But just in case I wasn't clear though, my motto for this campaign is

[garbon]

More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation

https://apnews.com/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625/Many-donors-to-Clinton-Foundation-met-with-her-at-State

Shockingly people gave money to the Clinton foundation who met Clinton?

[Legbiter]

I was just coming to post that story.

And for those (Minsky ) whose defence is that the Clinton Foundation did good work, and the Clinton's didn't personally benefit, so what's the harm...

Well for starters they did benefit - the Foundation paid their travel (Charter or First class, of course) to any number of international destinations.

But what about the "charitable works?" That is what is supposed to justify all of this sleazy deal-making and influence-peddling. A look into what the foundation actually does is a lesson in the shadowy game of public relations.

The Clinton Foundation often facilitates "Commitments to Action" made by corporations to engage in good works. By one estimate, "The Commitments to Action signed by people who attend the invitation-only Clinton Global Initiative events serve as more than 95% of the Foundation's claimed 'results.' The agreements are the basis for the Foundation's public statements that 'millions of people worldwide have their lives improved.'"

Is a commitment a result? No. And it appears as though the Clinton Foundation has scrubbed many of those "Commitments to Action" from their website—not that they were legally binding anyway, or that specific. The commitments are often phrased in vague language, with only a promise to attempt to make changes, to work on it. In other words, the kind of empty PR drivel one will typically see in "raising awareness" campaigns—no substantial impact on the issue, but lots of mutual praise, glad-handing, and brand visibility.

So, to recap, while the Clinton Foundation has been a great way to trade cash from foreign governments, corporations, and various oligarchs for favors from the US State Department, it does little actual charitable work. It would be no great loss to shut it down completely.

https://shadowproof.com/2016/08/22/clinton-foundation-really-charity/

Trump may have been a little too easy on her.

[The Minsky Moment]

And for those (Minsky ) whose defence is that the Clinton Foundation did good work, and the Clinton's didn't personally benefit, so what's the harm...

?
I don't recall positing anything about it.  I don't really know what the Foundation does or what benefit the Clintons got out of it, if any.

I read the story.  it confirms my understanding - the Foundation and Clinton's conduct with regard to the Foundation operated within the rules.  It may be we should have different rules - I would probably agree with that.  But that problem is far bigger than the Clinton Foundation.  It wasn't the Clintons who pushed to destroy the entire campaign finance regulatory system and open up the unchecked sewer of corporate and special interest money.   In a post Citizens United world, where candidates are put in the position of selling themselves directly to high bidders, this sort of influence peddling is just par for the course.

[derspiess]

More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation

https://apnews.com/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625/Many-donors-to-Clinton-Foundation-met-with-her-at-State

Shockingly people gave money to the Clinton foundation who met Clinton?

Yep.  Definitely no connection.  Nothing to see, etc.

[Valmy]

I guess that is the most bizarre part of this. It is the exact same crap everybody has been recently doing yet somehow in this one instance it is OUTRAGEOUS. Especially since Clinton voted to reform this system when given the chance.

But hey at the end of the day it is not like I was under the impression the Clintons do not live in the gray area.

[Valmy]

Yep.  Definitely no connection.  Nothing to see, etc.

Hey maybe your party shouldn't have fought to institute such a system then

Granted Hans was the main pro-corruption dude on the board, not you.

[frunk]

I guess that is the most bizarre part of this. It is the exact same crap everybody has been recently doing yet somehow in this one instance it is OUTRAGEOUS. Especially since Clinton voted to reform this system when given the chance.

But hey at the end of the day it is not like I was under the impression the Clintons do not live in the gray area.

Their name is on the group, which somehow makes it more significant than Citizens for Kumquats or whatever.

[Valmy]

I guess that is the most bizarre part of this. It is the exact same crap everybody has been recently doing yet somehow in this one instance it is OUTRAGEOUS. Especially since Clinton voted to reform this system when given the chance.

But hey at the end of the day it is not like I was under the impression the Clintons do not live in the gray area.

Their name is on the group, which somehow makes it more significant than Citizens for Kumquats or whatever.

Ah I see. Remarkably poor branding there.

But my problem has always been that regardless of how shady the Clintons are, Hillary is the only candidate who is even remotely acceptable to me. But, you know, them being shady in the 90s didn't hurt the country much so I don't see why it would again.