American Politics

[Tiny 12]

While Hillary's email server thing was disturbing, especially since she should have known better, the fact that the OTTIASAFG stored classified documents in public areas of a club is unforgiveable. Especially since many of those documents contained nuclear secrets of the US and other countries and descriptions of the weaknesses of the American military. The documents that contained nuclear secrets can not be declassified unilaterally by a president. Foreign government agents have been arrested trying to gain entry into Mar-A-Lardo. I don't recall any agents ever trying to gain access to Hillary's home. Furthermore, the Secret Service, by their own admission, had no clue that the documents were stored in publicly assessible places. Like a ballroom and a bathroom and a shower.

Picture it PVMonger. You're attending an event at Mar A Largo. You need to take a dump so you go to the bathroom. You could take a crap and read some top secret document about Kim Jong Un! How cool would that be!

[Tiny 12]

Tiny, I would vote to indict but the big one is the lead. Here is a link from a NY Post article:

Trump apparently made the admission during a meeting with a group that included his communications aide Margo Martin and were helping to write an autobiography of Mark Meadows, Trump's last White House chief of staff.

The autobiography later recounted that during the meeting, Trump talked about "a four-page report typed up by Mark Milley himself.

It contained the general's own plan to attack Iran, deploying massive numbers of troops, something he urged President Trump to do more than once during his presidency. " (Sources who spoke with CNN disputed that Milley authored the report.).

Trump expressed frustration that Milley refused to take responsibility for the attack plan and added that if he could release the document, it would undermine Milley's account he gave in a July 2021 article in The New Yorker.

In that telling, Milley pushed back against plans by Trump to strike Iran after the 2020 election, telling him at one point: "If you do this, you're going to have a fking war. ".

End of link.

And this is the alarmist article from General Miley, https://www.newyorker.com/news/lette...-striking-iran.

We will see what happens Tiny but my preliminary take is this general is a lying war mongering POS who is hiding behind the top secret classification system so he has not outted as a liar. This is exactly the kind of bullshit CYA swamp shit that I want made public. If a journalist would have gotten his hands on this document and published it a la the Pentagon Papers, he would win a Pulitzer.

And my take as of now is this general is a way bigger threat to our way of life than Trump is. The government will try to limit the extent of the conversation but I do not think this judge who was appointed by Trump is going to place strict limits on testimony.

Best of all if Trump wins in 2024, then the first thing he will do is declassify this document so is it really that big of a deal? I am not buying now that it is, but we will see. Given Russiagate, Ukrainegate, the bullshit about 1-6, and the intelligence agents and Hunter Biden's laptop being classic Russian disinformation, this sure looks a lot more like the swamp protecting its own than a threat to our nation.

It seems to me we have a disgusting swamp full of liars desperate to keep Trump out of office so he cannot expose them, but we will see.

Hey Elvis,

I read a really good article about this not too long ago but don't remember where. Anyway apparently Bolton and another hawk in the White House were really pushing Trump to strike out at Iran, in a way that would have killed Iranians. This would have been a completely disproportionate response to what the Iranians did, shooting down a drone. Instinctively, Trump didn't want to do it. And while he initially looked to be letting Bolton have his way, after ruminating on it, he decided not to proceed. I believe he actually made the decision and it was relayed to the commanders before planes were in the air. I don't remember what role if any Milley played but do remember some of the people in the pentagon, who had actually fought in wars, thought Bolton's plans were nuts. Bolton, a neocon, apparently didn't learn anything from our experience in Iraq.

Now I don't know if it was Trump's intention from the start that the situation play out the way it did. But in hindsight, it looks brilliant. He didn't escalate the situation with the Iranians. He did probably scare the shit out of them. Like Kim Jong Un, they were probably thinking, incorrectly, that Trump's bat shit crazy enough to bomb them.

I did in general like Trump's foreign policy. I thought he did a better job than most would have done. Trying to establish personal relationships with people like Putin, Ji and Kim was a good idea. There might not be a war between Russia and Ukraine right now if Trump were president. My complaints would be that he should have given more respect to some of our allies, like the Australian Prime Minister, and his trade wars were poorly thought out and hurt us more than China. And he probably should at times have given more credence to the experts advice, the people in the State Department and CIA for example.

He didn't get us into any new wars, and he had us on a path to get out of Afghanistan. Those are the big things.

[The Cane]

The documents that contained nuclear secrets can not be declassified unilaterally by a president.

They certainly can't be declassified just by thinking about it. What an incredibly stupid thing to say! Beyond ignorant to just plain dumb! And there are people who want this guy to be President (again). My God (slapping forehead in disbelief)! Well, he's not going to be because the guy is unelectable in a general election contest. Let us not forget that Trump has never won the popular vote, and if he gets the GOP nomination he will lose by an even larger margin than he did the last time. Instead of picking up voters, it will just get worse and worse and worse for him until all he has left is his "basket of deplorables", which won't be enough to win. Independents gave him a chance the first time. And he blew it! Big time. If the GOP is insane enough to make this proven loser their candidate yet again in 2024, it's going to be another loss! You read it right here. His best bet is that somebody else gets the GOP nomination and wins the presidency, and then in a cowardly act pardons Trump of all of his transgressions. Now look at this toad:

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6312698126112

[PVMonger]

It's going to be interesting to see if some prominent Republicans change their view after they read the indictment. It changed mine. Hillary's mistakes potentially were far more damaging to national security than Trump's. But Trump for some crazy reason appears to have intentionally misled the DOJ and FBI, and lied to them.

Here's a link to the indictment, if you're interested.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...648653.3.0.pdf

And this is why I believe Hillary's oversights were potentially more damaging.

The personal email account Hillary Clinton used for business purposes during her tenure as secretary of state was almost certainly hacked by countries like Russia or Iran, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates (Secretary of Defense under Bush and Obama) said Thursday.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/60072...re-pretty-high

Michael Hayden, former Director of the National Security Agency, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said "I would lose all respect for a whole bunch of foreign intelligence agencies if they weren't sitting back, paging through the emails."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillar...il_controversy

Clinton repeatedly claimed that she did not send or receive any information that was marked classified in her personal emails. Thats false. FBI Director James Comey said more than 2,000 emails contained classified information and some of them bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/cl...d-information/

I don't think Hillary Clinton deserved to be prosecuted though. Trump, probably, assuming he doesn't end up in jail. All that's my Libertarian side speaking. Maybe home incarceration with an ankle bracelet would be the best punishment for Trump -- enough time to keep him out of the 2024 primaries, so that hopefully a Republican who can beat Biden will be nominated. I might vote for that if I were on a jury.

Well, at this point, every prominent Republican has had the opportunity to read the DOJ charging document. It has changed none of their minds. At least as to what they say publicly. The simple facts are they they are probably scared of the OTTIASAFG's base or they are scared of OTTIASAFG himself. Privately, all of them probably want the OTTIASAFG to simply go away.

While Hillary's email server thing was disturbing, especially since she should have known better, the fact that the OTTIASAFG stored classified documents in public areas of a club is unforgiveable. Especially since many of those documents contained nuclear secrets of the US and other countries and descriptions of the weaknesses of the American military. The documents that contained nuclear secrets can not be declassified unilaterally by a president. Foreign government agents have been arrested trying to gain entry into Mar-A-Lardo. I don't recall any agents ever trying to gain access to Hillary's home. Furthermore, the Secret Service, by their own admission, had no clue that the documents were stored in publicly assessible places. Like a ballroom and a bathroom and a shower.

[EihTooms]

How can Trump be more popular among Republicans than people like Tim Scott, Chris Christie and Chris Sununu, good prospective candidates for president who wouldn't divide the country? Why is it that Trump currently has a slight edge over Biden in the average of nationwide polls?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...iden-7383.html

Well, part of the reason is that many Americans are sick and tired of the arrogance and sanctimony of Democratic leaders like Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. They don't like being called stupid, deplorables and dregs of society. By supporting Trump, they're giving a big FU to Democratic politicians, as well as the so called "RINOS. " And Trump gave a big FU to the DOJ and FBI, when he didn't turn over confidential documents and lied to them. I'm going to be surprised if they don't nail him. You don't tell the Man to get fucked and get away with it, even if you're an ex-president. But ironically this may increase Trump's popularity among the faithful.

The belief that members of the opposing party are criminals, anti-American and idiots, which you express above, is emblematic of why we're so divided. It's a sad state we're in.

The dude had to pay a $25 Million fraud case settlement heading into the 2016 election. His record of scams and cons was easily assessible long before anyone voted for him to be the Leader of the Free World.

Do a Google Search on anything related to Trump, fraud cases, criminal convictions of his business associates, election officials, administration advisors, etc. Word it damn near any way you want. There are too many for me to cite and I don't shy away from citing anything at any time.

Yep, the people who still voted for that pathetically obvious corrupt con man and clown for that job easily qualify as the America-hating Idiots of All Time.

[The Cane]

Trump tried to use Barr to weaponize the government against his enemies (and has has the gall to accuse others of doing the same). The nerve to call somebody "Desanctimonious". Well listen to Barr now!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bil...even-half-true

[EihTooms]

It's going to be interesting to see if some prominent Republicans change their view after they read the indictment. It changed mine. Hillary's mistakes potentially were far more damaging to national security than Trump's. But Trump for some crazy reason appears to have intentionally misled the DOJ and FBI, and lied to them.

Here's a link to the indictment, if you're interested.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...648653.3.0.pdf

And this is why I believe Hillary's oversights were potentially more damaging.

The personal email account Hillary Clinton used for business purposes during her tenure as secretary of state was almost certainly hacked by countries like Russia or Iran, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates (Secretary of Defense under Bush and Obama) said Thursday.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/60072...re-pretty-high

Michael Hayden, former Director of the National Security Agency, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said "I would lose all respect for a whole bunch of foreign intelligence agencies if they weren't sitting back, paging through the emails."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillar...il_controversy

Clinton repeatedly claimed that she did not send or receive any information that was marked classified in her personal emails. Thats false. FBI Director James Comey said more than 2,000 emails contained classified information and some of them bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/cl...d-information/

I don't think Hillary Clinton deserved to be prosecuted though. Trump, probably, assuming he doesn't end up in jail. All that's my Libertarian side speaking. Maybe home incarceration with an ankle bracelet would be the best punishment for Trump -- enough time to keep him out of the 2024 primaries, so that hopefully a Republican who can beat Biden will be nominated. I might vote for that if I were on a jury.

So the conclusion by some experts was that, despite there being no evidence of Clinton's server being hacked, it "probably" was.

How would that make her intention and effort for security "potentially more damaging" than restricting the emails to the State Department's server, which, along with the Pentagon's server, show an abundance of evidence that it was absolutely and most certainly hacked at a historic level?

Pentagon, State Department among agencies hacked: report.
12/15/20

https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecu...hacked-report/

[EihTooms]

How can Trump be more popular among Republicans than people like Tim Scott, Chris Christie and Chris Sununu, good prospective candidates for president who wouldn't divide the country? Why is it that Trump currently has a slight edge over Biden in the average of nationwide polls?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...iden-7383.html

Well, part of the reason is that many Americans are sick and tired of the arrogance and sanctimony of Democratic leaders like Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. They don't like being called stupid, deplorables and dregs of society. By supporting Trump, they're giving a big FU to Democratic politicians, as well as the so called "RINOS. " And Trump gave a big FU to the DOJ and FBI, when he didn't turn over confidential documents and lied to them. I'm going to be surprised if they don't nail him. You don't tell the Man to get fucked and get away with it, even if you're an ex-president. But ironically this may increase Trump's popularity among the faithful.

The belief that members of the opposing party are criminals, anti-American and idiots, which you express above, is emblematic of why we're so divided. It's a sad state we're in.

Here is a link for a Polling Service that is a bit less Winger-Leaning than RealClearPolitics:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

Since that one shows results more favorable to Biden, they make it unnecessarily difficut to find the pertinent polls on that default link. So you might get to them easier by following a Google Search for "538 polls 2024 presidenial election. ".

Anyway, Biden either beats or ties Trump in 6 out of 8 of the most recent head-to-head match ups since late May. Biden also beats or ties DeSantis in 6 out of 7 of those head-to-head recent polls in that same timeframe. This Polling Service apparently does not do a running consensus on that question and I did not bother to do the math to see if Biden beats Trump and / or DeSantis by 1. 8 points as Trump does over Biden so far in that Winger-Leaning RCP consensus. If you do the math on it, please let us know what the results are since late May.

[EihTooms]

"Now that my favorite president, Donald Trump, is facing a 37-count indictment from the feds, I join with my brothers and sisters in MAGA, and with all sensible Republicans, in saying this: I'm not sure I want to live in a country where a former president can wave around classified documents he's not supposed to have and say, "This is secret information. Look at this," and then be held accountable for his actions.

I mean, what kind of country have we become? One in which federal prosecutors can take "evidence" before a "grand jury," and that grand jury can "vote to indict" a former president for 37 alleged "crimes"? Look at all the other people out there in America, including Democrats like Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden, who HAVEN'T been indicted for crimes on the flimsy excuse that there is no "evidence" they did crimes. THAT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR!

Or as Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn tweeted: "Where are the investigations against the Clintons and the Bidens? What about fairness? Two tiers of justice at work. "

TWO TIERS! One tier in which President Trump keeps getting indicted via both state and federal justice systems and another in which the people I don't like keep getting not indicted via all the things Fox News tells me they did wrong.

It's like America has become a banana republic, as long as you do as I've done and refuse to look up the definition of "banana republic. "

And of course, you know who's behind this travesty of justice, right? It's so-called President Biden, who is both frail and senile and also a laser-sharp master at conducting witch hunts.

Sure, they'll tell you the indictment came via a special counsel investigation, and that the federal special counsel statute keeps such investigations walled off from political influence. But that's complete nonsense, unless we're talking about special counsel John Durham, who was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr while Trump was president and tasked with investigating the NEFARIOUS LEFT-WING CRIMES committed in the Trump-Russia probe. Durham was above reproach, and the fact that the New York Times reported he "charged no high-level F. Be. I. Or intelligence official with a crime and acknowledged in a footnote that Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign did nothing prosecutable, either" is something I will ignore.

Current special counsel Jack Smith, on the other hand he's bad news. I know this because Trump has said repeatedly that Smith's investigation is a witch hunt, and I've never known Trump to lie about anything.

Keep in mind, in 2016, Trump said: "I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law. ".

So after he said that, you expect me to believe he didn't protect classified information? Just because, according to the indictment, there's a recording of him holding a classified document in his office at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, and saying to two staff members and an interviewer: "See, as president I could have declassified it. . Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret. ".

You call that "damning evidence," I call it, "What about Hunter Biden's laptop?

Now I can already hear all the libs out there whining and saying that if it was Biden or Hillary or Hunter getting indicted, I wouldn't be saying a word about two-tiers of justice or the weaponization of the department of justice or anything like that.

Well, those whiners would be right, but the difference is I believe Biden and Hillary and Hunter are all guilty and should be locked up for life, whereas with Trump, I believe he is great and innocent and the best president America has ever known.

It's like this: If Hillary got indicted for murder, I would say, "Yes, she is absolutely a murderer. Lock her up. ".

But if in some outrageous scenario President Trump was indicted for murder just because he told a bunch of people that he did a murder, I would say: "How dare you charge this man with murder when others in the USA have not been charged with murder! There are clearly two tiers of justice, one in which my favorite president, who said he murdered someone, is charged with murder and one in which people who haven't murdered are not charged with murder!

And that, my liberal friends, makes perfect sense to me and my MAGA companions. So watch out. The Trump Train's a comin'. "

https://news.yahoo.com/dont-want-liv...080013662.html

No joke and no exaggeration, that mirrors the stated sentiment of every 2016 and 2020 Trump voter I know personally. And I know several.

Frankly, I am surprised wingers have not yet floated what I might call the "See? Trump was not indicted for wearing his wife's panties!" deflection response to this as they have continued to float with their "Russiagate! See? Mueller did not charge Trump with collusion!" deflection response to the Mueller Report.

Uh-huh. That would be because, like the issue of collusion regarding the Mueller investigation, Trump wearing his wife's panties might be embarrassing for him, but it is not illegal and the prosecutors and Grand Jury here were not even looking for it.

But there is still time for wingers to come up with something like that.

[EihTooms]

Well, yeah, a spurious relationship between a Republican controlled House of Representatives and favorable stock market performance goes back a long way too. It's not causal either, although I do give some credence to the belief that a Democratic President and Republican House has historically been the best for America. Budget bills originate in the House. When one party controls the House, Senate and Presidency, it goes crazy with spending. We saw that recently in 2021 and 2022. And this year the Republican House, with a Democratic President, was able to claw back $1. 5 trillion of the $5 trillion+ in unfunded spending passed by the Democrats the previous two years. And no reasonable person would question the clawbacks, in their totality.

Your view that the party of the president is one of the main determinants of stock market performance is incredibly simplistic.

This is from the CNBC link below.

Sam Stovall, CFRA chief investment strategist, looked at how the market has performed under six political scenarios: a White House and Congress all under the same party, a White House with a split Congress, and a White House and Congress hailing from two different parties. Stovall included election data going back to 1945.

Of all the possible combinations, stocks appear to perform best when a Democrat is in the White House and the Congress is split. The second highest returns happen when a Democrat is president and Republicans control the Congress.

But ultimately, Stovall said, investors should be wary of reading too much into these numbers.

"It's a good example of how you can have data tell whatever story you want," he said. "If you want to favor the Democrats, talk about the presidency. If you want to favor the Republicans, talk about House control. ".

Bob French, director of investment analysis at McLean Asset Management, agrees. "We can go in and slice and dice the data however we want and most of the time come up with whatever answer we want. ".

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/03/are-...ck-market.html

I have repeatedly agreed that the relationship between Repub presidents and every Great Depression, Great Recession and Massive Jobs Destruction and none of the Great Recoveries, Great Economic Expansions and Historic Jobs Creation since the late 1920's is "spurious", "a wild coincidence" and "bad luck for Repubs ".

The same as the next Great Depression, Great Recession and Massive Jobs Destruction that happens under a Repub and not a Dem.

And the one after that.

And the one after that.

And the one after that.

And so on.

[Elvis 2008]

It's going to be interesting to see if some prominent Republicans change their view after they read the indictment. It changed mine.

Tiny, I would vote to indict but the big one is the lead. Here is a link from a NY Post article:

Trump apparently made the admission during a meeting with a group that included his communications aide Margo Martin and were helping to write an autobiography of Mark Meadows, Trump's last White House chief of staff.

The autobiography later recounted that during the meeting, Trump talked about "a four-page report typed up by Mark Milley himself.

It contained the general's own plan to attack Iran, deploying massive numbers of troops, something he urged President Trump to do more than once during his presidency. " (Sources who spoke with CNN disputed that Milley authored the report.).

Trump expressed frustration that Milley refused to take responsibility for the attack plan and added that if he could release the document, it would undermine Milley's account he gave in a July 2021 article in The New Yorker.

In that telling, Milley pushed back against plans by Trump to strike Iran after the 2020 election, telling him at one point: "If you do this, you're going to have a fking war. ".

End of link.

And this is the alarmist article from General Miley, https://www.newyorker.com/news/lette...-striking-iran.

We will see what happens Tiny but my preliminary take is this general is a lying war mongering POS who is hiding behind the top secret classification system so he has not outted as a liar. This is exactly the kind of bullshit CYA swamp shit that I want made public. If a journalist would have gotten his hands on this document and published it a la the Pentagon Papers, he would win a Pulitzer.

And my take as of now is this general is a way bigger threat to our way of life than Trump is. The government will try to limit the extent of the conversation but I do not think this judge who was appointed by Trump is going to place strict limits on testimony.

Best of all if Trump wins in 2024, then the first thing he will do is declassify this document so is it really that big of a deal? I am not buying now that it is, but we will see. Given Russiagate, Ukrainegate, the bullshit about 1-6, and the intelligence agents and Hunter Biden's laptop being classic Russian disinformation, this sure looks a lot more like the swamp protecting its own than a threat to our nation.

It seems to me we have a disgusting swamp full of liars desperate to keep Trump out of office so he cannot expose them, but we will see.

[The Cane]

The Biden and Clinton cases (also the Pence case) are not the same as Trump's. It's the facts that are controlling, and I predict that Trump is going to be convicted for being the shifty idiot that he is. He did it to himself, and now he's going to pay a price. Twice impeached, liable in a rape case, indicted in a hush money case, and now this. And an indictment in Georgia for election interference coming. What a moron and the worst President ever. Lady Justice shall prevail!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...mp-indictment/

[Tiny 12]

"Now that my favorite president, Donald Trump, is facing a 37-count indictment from the feds, I join with my brothers and sisters in MAGA, and with all sensible Republicans, in saying this: I'm not sure I want to live in a country where a former president can wave around classified documents he's not supposed to have and say, "This is secret information. Look at this," and then be held accountable for his actions.

I mean, what kind of country have we become? One in which federal prosecutors can take "evidence" before a "grand jury," and that grand jury can "vote to indict" a former president for 37 alleged "crimes"? Look at all the other people out there in America, including Democrats like Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden, who HAVEN'T been indicted for crimes on the flimsy excuse that there is no "evidence" they did crimes. THAT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR!

Or as Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn tweeted: "Where are the investigations against the Clintons and the Bidens? What about fairness? Two tiers of justice at work. "

TWO TIERS! One tier in which President Trump keeps getting indicted via both state and federal justice systems and another in which the people I don't like keep getting not indicted via all the things Fox News tells me they did wrong.

It's like America has become a banana republic, as long as you do as I've done and refuse to look up the definition of "banana republic. "

And of course, you know who's behind this travesty of justice, right? It's so-called President Biden, who is both frail and senile and also a laser-sharp master at conducting witch hunts.

Sure, they'll tell you the indictment came via a special counsel investigation, and that the federal special counsel statute keeps such investigations walled off from political influence. But that's complete nonsense, unless we're talking about special counsel John Durham, who was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr while Trump was president and tasked with investigating the NEFARIOUS LEFT-WING CRIMES committed in the Trump-Russia probe. Durham was above reproach, and the fact that the New York Times reported he "charged no high-level F. Be. I. Or intelligence official with a crime and acknowledged in a footnote that Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign did nothing prosecutable, either" is something I will ignore.

Current special counsel Jack Smith, on the other hand he's bad news. I know this because Trump has said repeatedly that Smith's investigation is a witch hunt, and I've never known Trump to lie about anything.

Keep in mind, in 2016, Trump said: "I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law. ".

So after he said that, you expect me to believe he didn't protect classified information? Just because, according to the indictment, there's a recording of him holding a classified document in his office at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, and saying to two staff members and an interviewer: "See, as president I could have declassified it. . Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret. ".

You call that "damning evidence," I call it, "What about Hunter Biden's laptop?

Now I can already hear all the libs out there whining and saying that if it was Biden or Hillary or Hunter getting indicted, I wouldn't be saying a word about two-tiers of justice or the weaponization of the department of justice or anything like that.

Well, those whiners would be right, but the difference is I believe Biden and Hillary and Hunter are all guilty and should be locked up for life, whereas with Trump, I believe he is great and innocent and the best president America has ever known.

It's like this: If Hillary got indicted for murder, I would say, "Yes, she is absolutely a murderer. Lock her up. ".

But if in some outrageous scenario President Trump was indicted for murder just because he told a bunch of people that he did a murder, I would say: "How dare you charge this man with murder when others in the USA have not been charged with murder! There are clearly two tiers of justice, one in which my favorite president, who said he murdered someone, is charged with murder and one in which people who haven't murdered are not charged with murder!

And that, my liberal friends, makes perfect sense to me and my MAGA companions. So watch out. The Trump Train's a comin'. "

https://news.yahoo.com/dont-want-liv...080013662.html

It's going to be interesting to see if some prominent Republicans change their view after they read the indictment. It changed mine. Hillary's mistakes potentially were far more damaging to national security than Trump's. But Trump for some crazy reason appears to have intentionally misled the DOJ and FBI, and lied to them.

Here's a link to the indictment, if you're interested.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...648653.3.0.pdf

And this is why I believe Hillary's oversights were potentially more damaging.

The personal email account Hillary Clinton used for business purposes during her tenure as secretary of state was almost certainly hacked by countries like Russia or Iran, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates (Secretary of Defense under Bush and Obama) said Thursday.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/60072...re-pretty-high

Michael Hayden, former Director of the National Security Agency, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said "I would lose all respect for a whole bunch of foreign intelligence agencies if they weren't sitting back, paging through the emails."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillar...il_controversy

Clinton repeatedly claimed that she did not send or receive any information that was marked classified in her personal emails. Thats false. FBI Director James Comey said more than 2,000 emails contained classified information and some of them bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/cl...d-information/

I don't think Hillary Clinton deserved to be prosecuted though. Trump, probably, assuming he doesn't end up in jail. All that's my Libertarian side speaking. Maybe home incarceration with an ankle bracelet would be the best punishment for Trump -- enough time to keep him out of the 2024 primaries, so that hopefully a Republican who can beat Biden will be nominated. I might vote for that if I were on a jury.

[Tiny 12]

Because Repub criminality, even Anti-American criminality and Un-Constitutional criminalty is totally irrelevant to whether or not he or another Repub gets into the White House to produce their classic Great Repub Economic Disasters and Massive Job Losses.

All 74 Million numbskulls who voted for Trump in 2020 would enthusiastically do so again in 2024 even if he was sitting in a prison cell locked to leg irons. If anything, a higher percentage of Repubs would do so than in 2020.

The only chance that some Repub numbskulls might stop voting for Repubs instead of Dems is for their eyes to be opened to the historically mathmatically proven fact that a Repub in the White House is really shitty for their wallets, contrary to what pro Repub Mainstream Media and pro Repub Bothsider / Neithersiders try time and again to con them into mistakenly believing.

Trump being proven to be an America-hating, High National Security Risk Felon many times over won't do it. It might even improve his standing with Repub voters.

How can Trump be more popular among Republicans than people like Tim Scott, Chris Christie and Chris Sununu, good prospective candidates for president who wouldn't divide the country? Why is it that Trump currently has a slight edge over Biden in the average of nationwide polls?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...iden-7383.html

Well, part of the reason is that many Americans are sick and tired of the arrogance and sanctimony of Democratic leaders like Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. They don't like being called stupid, deplorables and dregs of society. By supporting Trump, they're giving a big FU to Democratic politicians, as well as the so called "RINOS. " And Trump gave a big FU to the DOJ and FBI, when he didn't turn over confidential documents and lied to them. I'm going to be surprised if they don't nail him. You don't tell the Man to get fucked and get away with it, even if you're an ex-president. But ironically this may increase Trump's popularity among the faithful.

The belief that members of the opposing party are criminals, anti-American and idiots, which you express above, is emblematic of why we're so divided. It's a sad state we're in.

[Tiny 12]

The "spurious" relationship between superior economic and stock market performance under Dem presidents vs Repub presidents goes back about as far as any financial analyst can go. That has been documented, calculated and proven mathmatically so often and by so many financial analysts and publications I really didn't think I needed to go back any further than 2-3 Dems and Repubs this time. Even a 7th grader could look it up and know it within minutes. Pretty much the same reason I did not feel the need to break it down to precisely how much Per Annum Growth or Decline a dollar invested on January 20,1989 would experience until today, 0. 36 or 0. 37 or perhaps 0. 38 of the way into 2023:

Who is better for the Stock Market: Democrats or Republicans?
Arthur Stein Financial, LLC | Sep 9, 2012

https://www.arthursteinfinancial.com...or-republicans

Democratic presidents are better for the stock market and economy than Republicans, one study shows

https://markets.businessinsider.com/...0-8-1029528932

How did that utterly mathmatically inaccurate "popular belief" come about?

Why, from the tireless efforts by pro Repub Mainstream Media and pro Repub Bothsider / Neithersiders to spread such nonsense, of course.

Well, yeah, a spurious relationship between a Republican controlled House of Representatives and favorable stock market performance goes back a long way too. It's not causal either, although I do give some credence to the belief that a Democratic President and Republican House has historically been the best for America. Budget bills originate in the House. When one party controls the House, Senate and Presidency, it goes crazy with spending. We saw that recently in 2021 and 2022. And this year the Republican House, with a Democratic President, was able to claw back $1. 5 trillion of the $5 trillion+ in unfunded spending passed by the Democrats the previous two years. And no reasonable person would question the clawbacks, in their totality.

Your view that the party of the president is one of the main determinants of stock market performance is incredibly simplistic.

This is from the CNBC link below.

Sam Stovall, CFRA chief investment strategist, looked at how the market has performed under six political scenarios: a White House and Congress all under the same party, a White House with a split Congress, and a White House and Congress hailing from two different parties. Stovall included election data going back to 1945.

Of all the possible combinations, stocks appear to perform best when a Democrat is in the White House and the Congress is split. The second highest returns happen when a Democrat is president and Republicans control the Congress.

But ultimately, Stovall said, investors should be wary of reading too much into these numbers.

"It's a good example of how you can have data tell whatever story you want," he said. "If you want to favor the Democrats, talk about the presidency. If you want to favor the Republicans, talk about House control. ".

Bob French, director of investment analysis at McLean Asset Management, agrees. "We can go in and slice and dice the data however we want and most of the time come up with whatever answer we want. ".

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/03/are-...ck-market.html