MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
“Many people” would like to see Nigel Farage as UN ambassador in Washington, twits Trump
President-elect Donald J. Trump has ostensibly thrown his support behind the idea of UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage becoming the British Ambassador to the United States in a tweet issued late on Monday night. Trump issued the statement, unprompted, via his Twitter feed, stating that the idea was popular amongst “many people” in a move that is sure to set the British political establishment into a further tailspin. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesTrump says...:
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse -4“Many people” would like to see Nigel Farage as UN ambassador in Washington, twits Trump”
I say...:
Me too :-)))
This is the funniest story around and once again shows how ignorant Trump is of protocol. One of Trump's family needs to take him to one side and explain that he is President-elect in the U.S., not dictator of the world. HE doesn't get to decide who is our Queen's representative in the United States.
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse +3The photo of them together was great, it could have been lifted from the Muppet Show.
With Trump and Farage...,what you see is what you get !
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse +5Ole bag, getting a little more nervous . . . by the moment?
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -3'twits' - Lol very apt typo.
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“Donald Trump will not pursue investigation over Hillary Clinton email server” BBC News. Why? Because even he knows there is nothing to pursue. Hillary Clinton will never run again so there is no need for him to malign her anymore.
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +3@ElaineB
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If that's why the BBC thinks Trump won't go after Hillary, I disagree ; while Trump - and everyone else - knows HRC is guilty of the accusations, he won't after her in order to not further alienate the snowflakes, and because he has more important things to focus on than the 'quickly-becoming-irrelevant' HRC...
An ambassador is the representative of the particular government in power -- Farage, fortunately, doesn't represent the present crowd. I'd like to see him in government, but it's not likely to be as a part of this one. If May was any good, she would have put him in charge of withdrawal from the EU. He wouldn't have let things drag on forever -- which is a primary reason why he would never have been considered for the position.
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -1@JB
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“while Trump - and everyone else - knows HRC is guilty of the accusations”
Can you explain how that is anything but your personal opinion? She has been cleared of any criminal act in regards to the email controversy. Look, I don't much care for Hillary or her husband but there is a huge difference between disliking someone and them being a criminal.
@Bisley
As far as the U.K. is concerned diplomats are the representatives of the government but the Ambassador is the representative of The Queen.
Farage has said that he no longer wants his life back but wants to be an M.P., so he can concentrate on that first.
Farage could possibly represent the Queen....
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...as Court Jester...
What a hoot that the BBC know what Trump, or anybody else anywhere, will do.
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -7This damnable organisation is too busy with it's head up it's behind to know what is going on.
Just look at the way they followed the MSN lies about Trump and the slavish way they puffed TheHil.
Other news sources for the same story:
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +6CNN
Washington Post
CNBC
Bloomberg
Financial Times
Fox News
to name but a few.
She was investigated for a year and the FBI concluded that she had done nothing to warrant criminal charges. Trump would have wasted time and money continue the fools errand, and given that he has some serious legal problems waiting in the wings, he made the right choice to drop the nonsense.
Interestingly Trump stated that he thought his supporters that he got to chant “lock her up” would be perfectly fine with his decisions to drop it. I wonder at what point the penny will drop and they realise he was using them.
@ElaineB
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Can you explain how that is anything but your personal opinion? ”
With pleasure. It is common knowledge that she had the private server “hidden” in her home. When discovered, did she deny it ? NO. She later gave the feeble excuse that it made her work easier...Really ? in what way ? Was she trying to save the Government a few bucks ? how considerate of her. Not to mention the potential security risk in doing so, which is another story...
After being subpoenaed by the DOJ, to present the e-mails, she ordered one of her staff to delete them. Over 30,000 of them. Did she deny it ? NO. She later claimed that most of the deleted e-mails referred to the organizing of Chelsea's wedding ...if so, why not just hand them over and prove her accusers wrong ? and, in all honesty, how many e-mails can someone send related to a wedding ?
After categorically denying that any of the e-mails were work-related, and/or classified, she was proven a liar when they managed to recover most of the e-mails. When accused publicly by Trump she simply ignored the issue and changed the subject. More deceit.
The fact that the FBI dropped all charges was no surprise, especially when it is notorious that the WH was leaning on them to drop the matter . So, the fact she wasn't charged - or was 'cleared of any criminal act' - by no means makes her innocent, it just means they decided to sweep the dirt under the carpet.
I understand that in politics there is a grey area when it comes down to mal-practices, but the notion that someone needs to be condemned to be a criminal, is overrated....especially when we all know that dirty, underhand political agreements happen all the time.
@ JB Yes, that she had a private server is common knowledge and was the subject of a year long investigation by the FBI. The FBI concluded that she had done nothing criminal. So, yes, that clears her of any criminal activity. You may not like the conclusion but that is the truth of the matter.
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +4The FBI would have charged her if they could. There is no way that they were involved in some deal with the Democrats and that is clearly shown by them re-opening the case on spurious grounds within 60 days of the election. They closed it again once the damage had been done to Clinton. (I doubt we have heard the last of that clear breach of protocol).
I am sure that in the U.S., like the U.K., a person is innocent until proven guilty. What you are proposing is that someone can be found guilty just because you don't like them. If that's the case there are a number of people I would like to lock up! :)
As for 'underhand political agreements', do you really think that if they are happening all the time it is only with Democrats?
@ElaineB
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the FBI's “official” conclusion was that HRC had done nothing wrong.....well, it's obvious that most people's concept of 'wrong' differs to theirs. So you believe, just because they eventually decided to declare her innocent, means she actually is ? Can't argue with 'your' perception of events. Also seems you give more importance to protocol than to the truth ; The FBI is subordinated to the US president, and it's already stale news that he intervened to hush things up. Why don't you google “State Department official 'pressured' FBI to declassify Clinton e-mail : FBI documents” ??
I think you are letting the principle that 'a person is innocent until proven guilty' cloud your better judgement, because you are chosing to ignore the evidence...just like the FBI was forced to do. As I've mentioned before, I didn't always dislike Hillary - I started having doubts about her after seeing her incompetence while Secretary of State, and especially after the evidence regarding the e-mail server surfaced...if she could have proven her accusers wrong, she would have, so why didn't she ? It is obvious it's just a dirty cover up.
Re yr question “As for 'underhand political agreements', do you really think that if they are happening all the time it is only with Democrats?”
Of course not, but the question here is a cover up by the FBI, to benefit HRC....when /if the other side is accused, I hope justice works a bit better.
@ JB
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Are you saying there is no longer a separation of powers in the U.S? You don't think the FBI are fit to carry out an investigation? If not who is?
I didn't say Hillary did nothing wrong; I said she did nothing illegal. She apologised for what she did wrong and the FBI concluded after a year-long investigation that she had done nothing illegal.
Is she guilty of being wrong? Yes. And she apologised. Is she guilty of doing something illegal? No. That makes her innocent of criminal activity.
The principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' is the foundation of a justice system. How can i 'cloud my judgement', it clarifies my judgement. It is the basis of the criminal justice system. What alternative would you suggest? Everyone, including you, is guilty until you prove your innocence?
Honestly, I do not believe the FBI has covered up anything. If that were the case they would never have re-opened the case on spurious grounds which broke electoral rules. Note that they very quickly closed it again when it was clear that the 'new evidence' was non-existent.
The FBI could be accused of leaning heavily towards the Republicans. James Comey was a registered Republican. They took a whole year to investigate the case, dragging it out as close to the election as possible and only closed it for fear of being accused of interfering with an election. (That they re-opened it against protocol may still land them in hot water).
I am interested in justice and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. So should you be because the alternative does not bear thinking about.
It seems that Trump is wrong in assuming his supporters are happy with his decision.
DT won't go after HC simply because; he knows how venerable he is due to his rackets right in the USA and in many other countries. Hence to avoid any retaliation - tit for tat - he took a wiser decision to keep quiet.
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse -1More simply put; billions - BILLIONS - were spent befoe / during the campaigns - surely not because the candidates are so damn patriotic! Behind everyone's backs; there are the donors [INVESTORS] queuing up to make hay while the “sun shines”.
Elaine,
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Because OJ Simpson wasn't proven guilty of murdering his wife, we all need to “assume” he was innocent of doing it?
OJ did it. And, Hillary Clinton isn't innocent. She just isn't proven guilty.
I don't see why a court of law concept of “innocent until proven guilty” needs to be automatically extended to the realm of public opinion.
On the positive side it would get the little prick out of the country..
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse +4http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/it-would-get-the-little-prick-out-of-the-country-realises-britain-20161122117597
@ bushpilot
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0That is hardly a comparison. Looking at the OJ case, he was sent to trial and found not guilty (for possibly political retaliation by the jury) but later convicted in a civil trial. Is that correct?
Hillary has not even been charged with any crime and yet you say she is guilty. By that reasoning we are all guilty.
What exactly do you think she is guilty of? I mean the actual law she has broken because the FBI tried for a year to find evidence to charge her with and failed.
Do you think Trump is guilty of fraud by settling the claim regarding his University? Surely he wouldn't have settled $25m if he was entirely innocent. No one would do that.
Elaine, you asked:
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Do you think Trump is guilty of fraud by settling the claim regarding his University? Surely he wouldn't have settled $25m if he was entirely innocent.”
Surely he would not have! You are absolutely correct. You do understand what I was trying to say. He's guilty!!
And, Hillary's totally guilty too. No matter she wasn't charged.
The OJ trial was a good example, not hardly an example. Before that civil trial ever came to be, everyone knew he was guilty. It is a good example for making the point that, “not proven guilty does not prove innocence”.
And the above point is even more true when a legal charge didn't even come into play in the first place. Trump was not charged with fraud, he is definitely not innocent of it.
Maybe your Democrats will try and impeach him for it when they retake control of Congress in two years. The Republicans have tried sillier things.
But what exactly is Hillary guilty of? You still don't say.
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You cannot condemn people you because you 'think' they are guilty. That is not a justice system. And you cannot say the 'everyone' thinks this or that because a) it isn't true and b) judicial trials are not based on speculation but by the evidence.
Your posts alone show how important it is to have trials based on the facts and not on popular held myths or opinions. You can't even tell me what crime Clinton has committed and yet you deem her to be guilty.
Politics/Politicians are tending to be nothing more than the “Brotherhood of Racketeers”. If NOT; why would the donors [investors] spend Time / Capital / Efforts amounting to the tune of BILLONS of USDs? NOT - certainly NOT - because they are So very patriotic!
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Not Proven...is a good one...
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In Scots Law...
“a verdict that there is insufficient evidence to establish guilt or innocence.”
“not proven” suggests a strong possibility of guilt, but insufficient grounds to convict.
A person receiving a not proven verdict is not fined or imprisoned, but they are left with a huge stain on their character.”
@ Voice
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0True but Not Proven of what? I still haven't heard what law she is guilty of breaking. Not Proven would only be a verdict if there had been a trial. Hillary hasn't even been charged with anything.
I want to say again that I completely understand why people don't like her but being unlikeable not a crime. I don't like some people but apparently I am not allowed to lock them up for that.
@ElaineB
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Are you saying there is no longer a separation of powers in the U.S? You don't think the FBI are fit to carry out an investigation? If not who is?”
No, I am not saying that - I said, and implied, that James Comey ceded to pressure from the WH to drop the matter. And why is it so improbable that someone might do as instructed, even if in disagreement with their boss ? You put too much faith in people in high positions, as if they are beyond reproach...
So to you, using an 'unauthorized' server (in her home, to hide it), and putting national security at risk, is not illegal.....well, why hide it then ? why deny initial accusations, only to have to admit to them later on ? To be declared innocent or, have a serious accusation dropped, for unknown reasons, does not mean she is innocent. The facts speak for themeselves....looks like that short of a presidential pardon, she has already been pardoned...unofficially by BO, and now Trump. And to a certain extent I can agree with that, why shoot her now that she's just a lame duck ?
“The principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' is the foundation of a justice system”
presumes the person is actually charged and goes to trial....and the result has to be respected, but in this case, the charges being dropped without even the slightest hint of a convincing reason, is highly suspicious....to believe she did nothing wrong, and because of THAT alone, the charges were dropped, is to be extremely naive.
Neither am I saying the FBI covered things up - the orders to do so came from above, leaving them with no option - and to suggest that Comey did what he did, because he's a registered Republican, is almost 'hillarious'....very unlikely, given the fact many republicans preferred Hillary to win...unfortunate, but true.
At this point, that some Trump supporters may not like his decision, is hardly relevant. He now has to buckle down and be the president of all Americans.
@JB
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't say she did nothing wrong, I have repeatedly said she did nothing illegal.
Show me the law that she has broken? Show me the existence of hard evidence that would reasonably lead to a conviction. You are working on the basis of 'if wishing made it true'.
No, Obama has not pardoned her. Yes, Trump has acknowledged that there is no case in law to answer to. There never was and he knew it. He just used it to stir up hatred and his supporters jumped on board. If he thought there was a case he would follow through with it or is it just another of the promises he made that has already been dropped?
Yes a person is innocent until proven guilty even if no charges are brought and there is, therefore, no trial. Look at it another way. If I were to start calling you a thief and repeated it in every post I made all over the board, and said that just because there is no evidence and no charges have been brought against you, you are still guilty because I say so - and others start to believe it because I have said it so many times - would you be happy with that form of justice?
I absolutely do not believe The White House put pressure on the FBI. It is simply not credible because the next administration has access to all of the data, so any conspiracy would be immediately uncovered. Trump would have considered that before he made the announcement that he was not pursuing it. He knows there is no case to answer because no law has been broken.
There are two possible cases for a lawsuit. Slander and that the FBI broke the law by trying to unduly influence the election. Both are a possibility.
Double-Speak... “à la ElaineB”...:
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -3- “You cannot condemn people you because you 'think' they are guilty. That is not a justice system.” ...... she says about a Yankee case in Yankeeland...
- ”You cannot say the 'everyone' thinks this or that because a) it isn't true and b) judicial trials are not based on speculation but by the evidence.“ ...... she says about a Yankee case in Yankeeland...
”How important it is to have trials based on the facts and not on popular held myths or opinions.”...... she says about a Yankee case in Yankeeland...
But curiously... all of the above is what she does all the time about an Argie case in Argentina...
What a sweet little scheming and perfidious Albion woman she is...
@ElaineB
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OK, you believe that what she admitted to doing (using a private, unauthorized server hidden in her home) was 'perhaps' wrong, but not illegal.......well, that is only a matter of opinion....and the fact that the FBI dropped the charges without indicting her, nor satisfactorily expaining why, does not exclude the possibility that some dirty deal was reached with the WH.
As to breaking a specific law, I don't enough about US law to discuss that, however, I'm pretty sure that 'endangering' national security - even if through brainless negligence - is covered by some law..(look at Edward Snowden) and that the decision to not indict her was purely political. Thus, guilty without being charged (for the 'greater good' ?) looks like a big possibility.
I disagree BO hasn't pardoned her...unofficially ... his leaning on the FBI (not to be simply excluded as impossible) to dismiss the charges, to me is an implicit pardon. And the possibility of an official Presidential pardon is still on the table...
I believe Trump's motivation to not go after her has nothing to do with her guilt or her innocence...it's simply that now there is nothing left to gain by going after her...she's politically finished.
It is now clear that you believe she is innocent, therefore did nothing 'wrong' (because if she had, she'd be punished ?), and that all this came about without any pressure from the WH. I think you are giving the system too much credit, in that you think it is above any wrongdoing....I have a different view of governments and politicians, and am quite prepared to believe that most would do whatever it takes to get their way, provided they think they can get away with it.
@JB
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Yes, a matter of the FBI's opinion. They were investigating to see if there had been anything illegal that could be prosecuted. Their opinion has to be more valid than yours as you have not seen the evidence.
These are James Comey's words:
“I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. ”
“After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision.”
“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.”
Again: Yes, I believe she did something WRONG. No, she did not do anything ILLEGAL.
What you believe and what is the truth are not the same thing. I think you want to believe she is guilty, for what ever reason, and you are entitled to think that way. I prefer to put aside my personal feelings in favour of facts when it comes to applying the law.
Would you really want to live in a lawless society?
Many people would like to see Farage as ambassador to Mars.
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +2@ElaineB
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, I agree that his opinion/decision - to not indict HRC - and whether based on the truth, or not, carries more weight than mine. Anyway, his opinion does not necessarily reflect the truth just because that is the 'official' version of events. While your credulity surprises me, it is what you think and that's it, however I can also claim that what you believe and the truth are not the same thing. I don't 'want' to believe she's guilty, I think she is, and that the WH went out of their way to cover things up...the FBI, and the DOJ never got got round to properly divulging the true contents of all the deleted e-mails, just said that a 'few' were 'work-related' but caused no harm....and things were left at that...smells of a cover-up to me, but what matters is that she can now retire into anonymity and enjoy the benefits of the Clinton Foundation....
I
@ JB
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Not just Comey's opinion but the conclusion after examining all the evidence and in consultation with the Justice Department. You and I have not seen the evidence but if you cannot trust the FBI and the Justice Department of the U.S. who are you prepared to believe? Conspiracy theorists? General rumours put about by people who have not seen the evidence?
The FBI and DOJ cannot divulge the content of the work emails but Comey did state clearly that there was no evidence the email was ever hacked or that the content was seen by anyone without clearance.
The idea that it is a big cover-up is not believable in this case because Clinton has as many enemies as allies in D.C.. And how do you explain the actions of Comey in re-opening the case on spurious grounds defying the rules on interfering in elections? (He may still be prosecuted for that, though I suspect he will be retired early).
I am not naive. I am in D.C a lot, in fact I will be there next month, and I meet with people from both parties. These conspiracy theories are laughed about. They encourage them to discredit opponents but they don't believe them. They might not like the result of the investigation but accept the facts.
Clearly we have differing opinions but I enjoyed a good debate with you and am glad it didn't involve any name calling or personal attacks. :)
@ ElaineB
Nov 24th, 2016 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with you about Clinton, I think Comey would have charged her if he believed there was a reasonable case, even if there was some pressure from the White House.
But Think has a point. CFK has not been convicted of anything, but you are happy to say that she is guilty. Why the difference?
@ DT I didn't read Think's post before you directed me to it.
Nov 24th, 2016 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where did I say CFK is guilty of a criminal act? She is currently under investigation and going to trial so we shall see.
FBI/DOJ are executive agencies.
Nov 24th, 2016 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The other two branches of government are the legislative and judiciary branches.
The separation of powers refers to these three branches.
There are statutes and administration regulations that provide for limited self autonomy for specific agencies resident within a particular branch but each of these agencies is subject to the hierarchy of its branch.
Obamy nominated Lynch and Comey.
The FBI investigates.
The DOJ prosecutes.
There is no separation of powers between the white house and these agencies as they do and have always done the bidding of the president as they serve at his leisure.
It's embarrassing and quite revealing to see the ignorance on display in the comments above.
@ ElaineB
Nov 24th, 2016 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Hmm, maybe you didn't actually say she was guilty. This is what I was thinking of:
“I remember staying at one of her hotels that was booked out by a company controlled by her thug supporters. The place was empty. Pure money-laundering into her pockets.”
You don't seem to have much doubt about her guilt though?
@ chronic
That seems like rather a flaw in the US system if you are correct.
Monkey, you are truly clueless.
Nov 24th, 2016 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse -2@ DT Quite and the situations are different.
Nov 24th, 2016 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -1CFK has not yet been investigated by the professionals whose job it is to do so. She couldn't be whilst she was President and that is partly why she looked at changing the constitution so she could run for a third term. Now the investigations are starting, this will be the first of many. So, we shall see.
My personal opinion: I have witnessed the corruption that many Argentines have spoken of and written about, including investigative reporters there. The evidence stacks up and deserves to be investigated further. I think she is guilty of a lot of things but is she guilty of crimes under Argentine law? Most probably but that is not enough until it is proven in a court of law or she confesses.
How it differs from Clinton is that she has been investigated for a whole year and the FBI and DOJ - the professionals - stated she in not guilty of a crime under U.S. law. And yet she is still branded as guilty because people want to believe that.
You haven't seen me post about locking up CFK or HRC but others have. That might be part of the misunderstanding.
Ole bag: You are a self delusional dumbass.
Nov 24th, 2016 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Comey and Lynch work for Obamy.
lol.
@ ElaineB
Nov 24th, 2016 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah, that makes sense.
What do you think of the Nisman case? As I understand it, it was investigated and found to be suicide, but many people do not believe it and want the case reopened.
DOJ tells the FBI to stand down:
Nov 24th, 2016 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -2http://www.wsj.com/articles/laptop-may-include-thousands-of-emails-linked-to-hillary-clintons-private-server-1477854957
Obamy may grant the clitons a limited preemptive or anticipatory pardon.
This is within his purview.
The issue remains that due to perceived interference the public has no confidence in the workings of these agencies and cliton without a trial remains unvindicated in perpetuity.
Though in the absence of vindication, cliton might suffer its alternative.
So, for these reasons and others - congress will likely revisit the matter.
It was a wind up, I think he should actually make him US ambassador to the UK, he would find the beer more agreeable.
Nov 24th, 2016 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ElaineB: You should read the full transcript of Trump's remarks to the NYT. It gives an in-depth look at the man that I found quite re-assuring. The media has been in overdrive trying to selectively find items to say “he's going back on this, going back on that.”
Regarding Hillary, be sure her sins will find her out. Trump doesn't need nor will he have the time, to engage in a personal crusade against her. It may well be that the investigation into the Clinton Foundation remains on-going. It doesn't need his personal input.
@ DT
Nov 24th, 2016 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Do you want my personal opinion? It was murder and not on the orders of CFK or her government. I will say what I said from the beginning, look to the Iranians. If you want to know why you will have to spend a lot of time researching the full background of the case and the wider issues at play at the time of the murder.
@ElaineB
Nov 24th, 2016 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“Not just Comey's opinion but the conclusion after examining all the evidence and in consultation with the Justice Department.”
Why are you so pre-disposed to believe that Comey and the DOJ told the truth, and only the truth ? Is it not possible, that being subordinated to the WH, and that if the whole truth came out it would have nipped HRC's candidacy in the bud ? to avoid this, it is perfectly feasible that BO himself pressured the two agencies to produce a credible version of the result of the investigation, considering that the top men are appointed by BO and that they take their orders from the President ?
“The FBI and DOJ cannot divulge the content of the work emails but Comey did state clearly that there was no evidence the email was ever hacked or that the content was seen by anyone without clearance.”
If they were unable to divulge the contents of the e-mails, what does that tell you ? it confirms what the DOJ actually did say, “they cannot be divulged because many are classified”. As to alleging that the private server wasn't hacked, how can they be so sure ?
It's the kind of thing a priest tells you when you have some doubts about religious teachings, “you mustn't question, you must have faith”....very convenient, but doesn't stick.
“The idea that it is a big cover-up is not believable in this case because Clinton has as many enemies as allies in D.C.”
There is absolutely nothing to prove it wasn't (a cover-up). She may have many enemies, but those in power are on her side. And if Comey is retired early, it'll probably be because Trump, not BO, wants to get rid of him.
You may visit DC a lot and talk to both sides of the aisle, but d'you really expect them to be forthcoming on such a matter ? They play their cards close to their chests.
As to being guilty but not charged, just look at Bill Clinton and Monica L. Seems to run in the family.
Elaine, I have long learned that the best way to make a point is to avoid emotions
@ JB
Nov 24th, 2016 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“Why are you so pre-disposed to believe that Comey and the DOJ told the truth,”
Why are you so pre-disposed to believe they they are lying? Why are you so pre-disposed to believe Clinton is guilty without seeing evidence to prove it or providing the law she has broken?
The justice systems work on the basis that the people involved are telling the truth. It is why perjury almost always carries a prison sentence, it undermines the whole justice system. I prefer to trust the people who have seen the evidence and applied the law accordingly because, as I said before, Trump's administration will have access to all the evidence and will very quickly discover if Comey and the DoJ are lying.
It is a shame they you dropped to a personal level at the end there, it was a good debate until then. I am not emotional about it at all.
Comey and the DoJ will be working for Trump in a few months time so surely he will want to see the law applied if Clinton has broken a law.? (Whatever the law is as no one will tell me) If not he is surely guilty of corruption.
On another note. What do you think the investigation into the Trump Foundation will reveal?
If the Ole Bag has ever been to DC it's obvious that she was in the bag for the entire period as evidenced her virtually nonexistent knowledge of its inner workings.
Nov 24th, 2016 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -3I would be amazed if either Lynch and Comey are still in office the day after Trump is President.
Nov 24th, 2016 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ElaineB
Nov 24th, 2016 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Seems we all know what Hillary did (hidden E-mail server, suspicious activity in the Clinton Foundation), and we agree it was wrong, but the “Law” (read FBI, DOJ, WH) thinks it wasn't worthwhile indicting her over.....that's where we disagree. To me, what she did is serious, but obviously the FBI etc, for whatever reason, thinks she was just careless.
It's no longer even really an attempt to cover things up, it seems more like a re-definition of what is considered criminal action and what isn't.
I cant disagree with your statement that “The justice systems work on the basis that the people involved are telling the truth”....Sure it does, and while basing itself on that premise, who's to guarantee that the accused 'always' tell the truth ? that they don't lie ? It is nothing new for criminals get off, scott-free, due to outright lying and to simple technical mistakes (in collecting evidence), which seem to have more relevance than undeniable proof ; the justice system over time, perhaps not intentionally, has come to make it far harder to enforce the law, and made it easier for criminals to get away.
Regarding your remark “It is a shame they you dropped to a personal level at the end there, it was a good debate until then. I am not emotional about it at all”, it appears you have read into my last comment what isn't there....I was in NO WAY insinuating you were - only referring to one of MY traits, prompted positively by your “... am glad it didn't involve any name calling or personal attacks”, a principle I usually follow when I see that the other person is level-headed and not being stupid.
“What do you think the investigation into the Trump Foundation will reveal?”
Quite frankly, I don't know....to be honest I have not been following this closely at all, and I only know what I've heard, and which is that he has allegedly used it for personal gain instead of its official purpose. Always possible....
@ JB
Nov 24th, 2016 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -3I completely agree the flaw in the justice system is that people can and do lie. But what is the alternative? I think the penalties for being caught lying have to be severe - and in the U.K. they are - in order to discourage it.
Innocent people are found guilty and 'guilty' people walk free. People are entitled to a fair trial and the onus must be on proof of guilt. It is flawed but the best system there is. I wouldn't want it any other way.
Sorry to labour the point but I still don't know what law Clinton is supposed to have broken. As far as I understand the statement made by Comey, he said that from the evidence there was no law broken so there were no charges.
I also don't buy that Comey was biased towards the Democrats. He may have been told to hurry up and conclude the case so it did not interfere with the election (I don't know this but just mooting the idea). If he had truly been in favour of Clinton he would never have reopened the case within 60 days of the election. Especially on the grounds he did. I also agree with the comment that I don't think Comey will be around for long under the new administration.
Re: emotion comment. Ah, O.K., likewise I try to look at it based on the facts. I have no dog in the race; no affinity with Clinton; just an interest in the subject.
Re: Trump. It has been such a divisive campaign that I suspect a lot of dirt will be dug up and we shall see what comes of it.
The flaws in the legal system - the loopholes - are “intentional”!
Nov 24th, 2016 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A septuagenarian with a frat-boy level of maturity troll-tweets and people actually take him seriously. Sigh...
Nov 24th, 2016 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +1http://en.mercopress.com/2016/11/22/many-people-would-like-to-see-nigel-farage-as-un-ambassador-in-washington-twits-trump/comments#comment455156: Ha, ha, the “Queen's representative to the US”. You British, with your corrupt theocratic monarchy, are so funny.
Nov 25th, 2016 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse -8But you are wrong - the question of whether the US can dictate the nature of the UK's representation to the US was settled in 1943/44. At that time the premier of the UK, Winston Churchill, said, in a childish fit of pique, that the UK was still a sovereign nation. The back down then of the UK negated that proposition. The UK was then, as it is now, a vassal nation whose place it is is to not touch anything and keep their mouths shut.
Zzzzzzzzzzz...
Nov 25th, 2016 - 05:04 am - Link - Report abuse +5Mr Heisenbergcontext
Nov 25th, 2016 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse -4I Think that..., due to the recent political developments in the USA..., We..., the People..., will have to..., somehow..., reset our logical thinking and common sense... and begin to take that septuagenarian with a frat-boy level of maturity troll seriously....
Sigh...
I dunno Think, how does one adjust to living in The Twilight Zone...for real?
Nov 25th, 2016 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Search me...
Nov 25th, 2016 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -2@ElaineB
Nov 25th, 2016 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A few posts back, you cited James Comey :
“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
“Although we did not find 'clear' evidence...” implies to a certain extent that there was “some” evidence...which they chose to ignore. As to considering that her “carelessness in handling very sensitive, highly classified information” was not worthwhile doing anything about, is absurd. It seems that according to their interpretation of the law, she did nothing illegal, so that's where the buck stops, but I'm pretty confident that many lawyers in the US would disagree with that.
“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.”
“... our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring.....” ; Their “judgement”, like any judgement, is subject to various interpretations, as Comey says : “Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors....”, which just reinforces the fact that when politics are involved, nothing is black or white...and interpretations can be justified in the grey area inbetween.
The fact that the FBI considers she did nothing illegal then boils down to their interpretation of the law. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that, provided they use the same standard when it comes down to 'judging' republicans.
Just to finalize, isn't it contradictory that the Democrats reacted so strongly against Trump's declaration he might not accept the results, and now they (Democrats) are questioning them ?
From what I have seen on the news it is the Green party challenging the results in some States.
Nov 26th, 2016 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse +2From the comments on THE HILL (see link below):
Nov 26th, 2016 - 10:54 am - Link - Report abuse -4”Stein (the Green Party Presidential hopeful) is spending more than twice on the recount, than she did running for the office.” (she got 1% of the vote)
Is it Soros or TheHil or both who are bankrolling her U$D 7 M recount fund?
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307535-green-partys-jill-stein-files-for-recount-in-wisconsin
The comments are amusing.
@ JB
Nov 26th, 2016 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse -1You can continue to believe she is guilty, that is your opinion, but she is not guilty in the eyes of the law. And, yes, law is open to interpretation, that is the basis of common law.
Your final point: Yes, it is daft the way voters whose candidate fails to win complain forever about it. It happens on both sides. Republicans still complain that JFK's father bought the election for him. This is normal, especially in the U.S. where they treat elections like a sporting event. What is not normal is a presidential candidate stating they might not accept the result. That is the huge difference.
I accept the result. Trump will be POTUS and is open to the same scrutiny as all people in public office. I am sure I will find a lot to criticise about his style and will voice it, just as Republican voters have been criticising everything Obama did. We are lucky to be able to voice our opinions freely and shouldn't take it for granted.
System?
Nov 26th, 2016 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Ole bag, what do you know of the system?
Answer?
Apparently, nothing.
In situations where the incumbent executive or someone so closely associated with it was to be investigated and that alignment renders the appearance of impartiality null - previously a independent counsel was appointed by a special three person panel of federal judges to conduct that investigation.
This law was allowed to lapse.
A new special counsel law was passed which allowed the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel as required for the same purposes.
Lowrenta Lynch's failure to appoint a special counsel to investigate cliton's email server fiasco constitutes a commission of an act of malfeasance of office.
Lynch's failure to appoint is an injustice committed against the country as it deprived it of a more objective indication of the guilt or innocence of a person seeking to lead it in a crime that if proven goes to the very essence of the leadership implicit in occupying that position.
Obamy's gal, LowRenta, serves at his pleasure.
In the absence of good faith by LowRenta Lynch, the responsibility falls to the legislative - as is their constitutional mandate - to assure that the funding for and administration of government is consistent with the law promulgated for those purposes.
This is the system.
Also, since the cover up and obstruction by cliton may be continuing unabated - the charges toll - and an otherwise applicable statute of limitations is inapplicable.
Whether or not cliton violated a federal statute pertaining to the custody of certain documents is a matter for a hearing and if not a judicial one than a fuller legislative one as this is the law of this land.
@ElaineB
Nov 26th, 2016 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“...but she is not guilty in the eyes of the law.”....well, given their interpretation of the law, I must agree.
“What is not normal is a presidential candidate stating they might not accept the result. That is the huge difference.”
So it's OK to question the result 'after' the election, but not before, despite the widespread rumours that the election could be rigged ? - an idea pushed by Trump, without a doubt - but based on a not-so-far-fetched possibility, given that results of other elections were only decided only after a lot badmouthing and recounts....Before, or after, doesn't make much difference....the motivation stems from the same thing - suspicion.
Mmmmmm....old bag? Powerful words when one loses their ability to effectively convey one's simple points of view. If you can't beat them with facts, baffle them with bullshit and insults. You sound like the rest of the white trash who live in the social media because, all too often they have no other life where the significant with pay them any attention. I bet you even post on yahoo news.
Nov 27th, 2016 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!