This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
For someone who has publicly admitted on these boards several times he hasn't really followed this story or know any pertinent details--that you're too "bored" to be bothered by any of it--this is a transparently foolish thing to believe, unless it is for the express purpose of self-delusion.
Yes. I believe there is a greater likelihood of indictment than not. The evidence is overwhelming that she broke several egregious laws and put national security in harm's way. Regardless of intent. I've made several bets with this factored in.
The sourcing of the speech was spectacular work. I don't know who has/hasn't seen this video:
OK. Well, no offense, but I think that YOU'RE the one deluding yourself.
I think it's interesting you think Trump being in the race has an effect on the indictment decision. Obama & Lynch are affected by politics in the indictment decision? Welcome aboard.
I don't expect Comey to actually issue a recommendation of indictment but instead to give his findings to Lynch and let her make a decision.
I don't, and that's not what I wrote. I believe that IF Hillary was going to be indicted over this, Obama would have already asked her to step aside from the campaign. But I did not suggest that either he, Lynch, or Comey would override indicting her if they thought she deserved to be indicted.
No offense, but you haven't looked into this much, so I'm not sure how credible your opinion is in this matter.
The investigation is not complete, he can't do that unless he considers the political implications.
Except that what I wrote has nothing to do with the specifics of wrongdoing, or lack of wrongdoing. It has everything to do with the politics.
Tim finds it boring and having no importance so yeah he has admitted he knows zero facts going in anyway.
Let me repeat myself. If there was a CHANCE of Hillary's indictment over this, President Obama would have gone to Hillary several months ago, possibly a year ago, and said, "Hillary, I'm being told this is a serious investigation and that there is a chance you committed some crimes here and the FBI may charge you. I have no idea if this is going to happen, and I'm not going to interfere with the process. But if you are our nominee, and you get indicted by the FBI, that will be a disaster for the party and our chances of keeping the White House. So I need you to withdraw from the campaign, right now."
No, your view is that Obama will interfere and NOT LET her be indicted. That's not what I'm saying.
Yes, but what the President knew months ago is likely different than what he knows now. As you said, it's too late for him to intervene. And, if there is still a chance she won't be indicted, the better political move is to ride this out and hope/pray she skates by. Nothing to be gained by bumping her now, as opposed to a month or so from now when the findings are crystal clear and from an authoritative source.
Wait, how do you know this conversation never took place? Are you assuming that if it had, she'd have stepped aside?
It's Trump. She will be (or better be) winning in a landslide anyway. Oh, and for the billionth time, the parties are very different. There are multiple ways to be terrible.....there's a difference.
Obama actions thus are that of a man who has been told that the FBI's investigation is mainly for show and that no indictment is likely to come from it.
Yes...both sides missed golden opportunities. And we all get stuck with one of those two.
Because I believe that if this conversation had taken place and Hillary refused to step aside Obama would have made that public and disavowed her
Your nuance isn't significant enough to making a distinction between your position and his
It's a pretty big "nuance". I don't believe that Obama would ever interfere with an FBI or Justce Department decision. I do think he'd interfere in the election, and there's nothing wrong in that at all IMO.Your nuance isn't significant enough to making a distinction between your position and his
And, to be clear, it is your contention that (a) Obama knew the full extent of the problem months ago and (b) Hillary would acknowledge criminal behavior and (c) that she would just play lap dog to Obama, ceding to his request?
To be fair, I think that, in this particular instance, it says more about the two candidates than Obama.
Hillary might not withdraw if she's indicted, what are you talking about?
Sure. But he's running about +5 on the favorability polling. That plus the turnout thing I think means he's a key asset. The key to winning in November for Clinton is making the map and demographics look as much like 2008 and 2012 as possible (while also taking advantage of the increasing % of minority voters). Obama obviously helps with that.
So you don't believe Obama? Obama has clearly stated he does not talk to Lynch or Comey about the investigation so he would have no way of knowing.
Doesn't need to talk to them directly - he can get inside information from other people.
So he's been briefed, most likely by Jarrett, it's the same thing.
Reason I asked you to be less Trolly is because I'm warming to this. Please don't ruin it.
I realize it's semantics, but I'm only saying he is telling the truth about not speaking directly to Comey/Lynch or interfering with the investigation.
Maybe the conversation took place and maybe she told him to sod off.
Great idea! Obama should have trashed the only strong democratic nominee publicly, right? What could have gone wrong (other than a sure Trump win)?
So in a little bit we get to find out whether this nation is still a nation of laws or a nation of men. In that sense the outcome of this is a profound indicator of where this country is.
Hello, Warrior. I see you have been out of the country for a year and would like to take this time to introduce you to a candidate by the name of "Bernie Sanders" who is currently leading in national polls versus Donald Trump.
Willing to bet others have responded down post from here, but I have to ask. You think Hillary would bail from her life long dream if Obama asked (months ago by the way)?It's a pretty big "nuance". I don't believe that Obama would ever interfere with an FBI or Justce Department decision. I do think he'd interfere in the election, and there's nothing wrong in that at all IMO.Your nuance isn't significant enough to making a distinction between your position and his
So many things wrong with this fantasy. Good gracious.
