President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Mick

Let's look at the facts shall we.

Classified emails were found on the Anthony Weiners laptop belonging to Hillary Clinton. Antony Weiner was the husband of Huma Abedin, closest Aide to Hillary Clinton.

Antony Weiner's Laptop was not an Authorised and secured device to retain and hold Classified information, neither was Antony Weiner and Huma Abedin an authorised person to see classified information.

The mishandling of Classified Information is a Federal Crime in the U.S, it violates the following Federal Statutes:-



The ones in Red and bold are the Statutes (Laws) that Hillary violated, yet the FBI cleared her of any wrong doing despite these violations and just labeled her 'extremely careless', in the original draft statement by 'Slippery Comey', he said she was "Grossly Negligent", that was altered and removed because it would have levied a potential indictment.

So she was cleared.

By that statement it's over and no reason to keep insisting she was guilty.

Originally Posted by Mr K

Get over it Mick, Hillary is an innocent woman !

She can't being used an excuse for all Donald's mess ups.

He has not done any mess ups far as I am concerned, U.S Economy booming, Jobs growing massively, lower taxes, meaning greater take home pay.

Stronger borders and removing the drug cartels the "Animals" MS-13 gangs that Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, adores and who was outraged that they should stopped being called "Animals" by Trump.

Oh and did I forget also Peace in the Korean Peninsula and Denuclearised.

If you remove the hate, the progress from Trump is ALL there.

---------- Post added at 11:36 ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Stephen

So she was cleared.

By that statement it's over and no reason to keep insisting she was guilty.

She was wrongly cleared! It is NOT over - there is an investigation report due next week on it and the 'improper considerations' - it could be reopened at any time.

Think you're counting a lot of chickens before they've roosted there....

Originally Posted by Damien

Think you're counting a lot of chickens before they've roosted there....

With what ?

Originally Posted by Mick

With what ?

A denuclearised North Korea.

Originally Posted by Mick

He has not done any mess ups far as I am concerned, U.S Economy booming, Jobs growing massively, lower taxes, meaning greater take home pay.

Stronger borders and removing the drug cartels the "Animals" MS-13 gangs that Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, adores and who was outraged that they should stopped being called "Animals" by Trump.

Oh and did I forget also Peace in the Korean Peninsula and Denuclearised.

If you remove the hate, the progress from Trump is ALL there.

---------- Post added at 11:36 ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 ----------



She was wrongly cleared! It is NOT over - there is an investigation report due next week on it and the 'improper considerations' - it could be reopened at any time.

You forgot rising gas (petrol) prices and the deficit surge...

http://time.com/money/5273390/gas-prices-cost-you/

As of May 10, American drivers paid $2.84 a gallon, on average, according to the website GasBuddy. That’s up about 50 cents from a year ago.

On Tuesday, the U.S. government hiked its official forecast for the so-called summer driving season — which unofficially begins on Memorial Day weekend — warning that average national prices could peak at $2.97 a gallon in June. In fact, it’s already above that level in as many as 10 states, including the entire West Coast.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/39...ion-in-may-cbo

The federal budget deficit surged to $530 billion in the first eight months of the 2018 fiscal year, which began in October, surpassing last year's deficit over the same period by $97 billion, according to new figures.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in a report released Thursday that government spending surged 6 percent relative to last year, while revenues only increased 3 percent.

Re the "booming economy"

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf...s_this_fa.html

While President Donald Trump touts millions of new jobs, low unemployment rate, a rising stock market and tax cuts, most Americans say they aren't seeing any benefits, according to a poll released Wednesday.

In the Monmouth University Poll, 53 percent of Americans said they and their families haven't enjoyed the fruits of a growing economy, while 42 percent said they have.

Who did benefit? Those responding to the poll said the rich (57 percent) and Wall Street bankers (56 percent). Just 14 percent said the benefits were flowing to middle class families.

"We continually see national economic indicators hitting new marks, such as last week's news of the lowest unemployment rate in 18 years," said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute.
"And yet very few Americans feel like they are reaping the benefits."...

...Around 2.1 million new jobs were created in 2017, slightly below the 2.2 million created during Obama's last year in office...

...While Trump and congressional Republicans touted the tax plan as a boon for the middle class, in actuality 43 percent of the benefits will go to the top 5 percent of taxpayers, while 38 percent will go to the bottom 80 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center.

You never learn Hugh and please correct my quotes - I don't trust these 'Fake News' Media polls.

Originally Posted by Mick

You never learn Hugh and please correct my quotes - I don't trust these 'Fake News' Media polls.

So which media outlets are trustworthy and not fake news?

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So which media outlets are trustworthy and not fake news?

They are all as bad as each other - lazy journalism I call it. A rush to get a story out and then either having to correct it or retract it...

[Chloé Palmas]

Okay I will give you an example here, Maggy. A few days back the ruling on the CO baker (who refused to participate in gay marriages) won his case in the high court not to have bake cakes for gay weddings, whilst not falling foul of CO's civil rights laws:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.dff35124ccf7

Now the decision was 7-2 in favor of him. What did WaPo / USA Today etc all run with as a headline?

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn’t make same-sex wedding cake

That was the headline, this was the first line:

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn’t make same-sex wedding cake.

Now this was not narrow - not by any stretch of the imagination. A narrow decision by the Supremes is usually 5-4. Sure this is not a unanimous decision (no dissenting votes) but by no stretch of the imagination is this "narrow".

As shown by the fact that the follow up stories (all in the WaPo) all had the following headlines:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...eaf_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...eaf_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...2b1_story.html

Notice how they took out the word narrow? Now they knew what the majority was all along - they knew that it wasn't 5 to 4. They still editorialized it as "narrow" to begin with.

USA Today was the same - I did check through the AP and these were not linking of an AP story, nor Reuters. They had their own individual reporting on the issue. This, in no way was a narrow decision - you have to be numerically challenged to think that.

When the Halbig decision came down (6-3) WaPo even stated that because it wasn't a 5-4 ruling that it shouldn't be seen as a "close" ruling but that it had broad consensus among the court's justices.

Yet in this case, a 7 to 2 ruling was close? They knew how full of it they were so they did issue corrections but their sheer audacity to print such stuff is staggering.

So, you tell me - is that fake news? Whether it is indicative of the entire WaPo is another matter but the article headline is clearly wrong given their own admission and corrections later, but does that constitute fake news? You be the judge.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Mick

You never learn Hugh and please correct my quotes - I don't trust these 'Fake News' Media polls.

You mean like Twitter then?

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

Okay I will give you an example here, Maggy. A few days back the ruling on the CO baker (who refused to participate in gay marriages) won his case in the high court not to have bake cakes for gay weddings, whilst not falling foul of CO's civil rights laws:

.

Yep I saw that one and laughed Chloe. One main outlet broke the story, most copied the same misleading headline.

5-4 is a narrow victory.

7-2 ruling in Supreme Court is an overwhelming verdict, which includes 2 Democrat Justices who sided with the bakers legal fight.

---------- Post added at 14:28 ---------- Previous post was at 14:23 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

You mean like Twitter then?

Give it a rest, I told you the other day my views on polls, stop bringing up the same rubbish.

I said I found that twitter poll interesting, I never said I absolutely trusted it. Only one poll mattered to me and that was the June 23rd poll undertaken in 2016, that resulted in us Democratically deciding to leave the EU.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You mean like Twitter then?

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

Okay I will give you an example here, Maggy. A few days back the ruling on the CO baker (who refused to participate in gay marriages) won his case in the high court not to have bake cakes for gay weddings, whilst not falling foul of CO's civil rights laws:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.dff35124ccf7

Now the decision was 7-2 in favor of him. What did WaPo / USA Today etc all run with as a headline?


Now this was not narrow - not by any stretch of the imagination. A narrow decision by the Supremes is usually 5-4. Sure this is not a unanimous decision (no dissenting votes) but by no stretch of the imagination is this "narrow".

Notice how they took out the word narrow? Now they knew what the majority was all along - they knew that it wasn't 5 to 4. They still editorialized it as "narrow" to begin with.

USA Today was the same - I did check through the AP and these were not linking of an AP story, nor Reuters. They had their own individual reporting on the issue. This, in no way was a narrow decision - you have to be numerically challenged to think that.


Yet in this case, a 7 to 2 ruling was close? They knew how full of it they were so they did issue corrections but their sheer audacity to print such stuff is staggering.

So, you tell me - is that fake news? Whether it is indicative of the entire WaPo is another matter but the article headline is clearly wrong given their own admission and corrections later, but does that constitute fake news? You be the judge.

They called it a narrow decision or ruling, not a narrow victory. I.E The decision was limited to a very narrow scope.

That's why a lot of outlets called it narrow.

PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...x-wedding-cake

The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday for a Colorado baker who wouldn’t make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the court is not deciding the big issue in the case, whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gay and lesbian people.

The justices’ limited ruling turned on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. The justices voted 7-2 that the commission violated Phillips’ rights under the First Amendment.

This blog is a neutral one which follows the Supreme Court from a legal perspective and they called it narrow: http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/op...ing-cake-case/

The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple because he believed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. This was one of the most anticipated decisions of the term, and it was relatively narrow: Although Phillips prevailed today, the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy rested largely on the majority’s conclusion that the Colorado administrative agency that ruled against Phillips treated him unfairly by being too hostile to his sincere religious beliefs. The opinion seemed to leave open the possibility that, in a future case, a service provider’s sincere religious beliefs might have to yield to the state’s interest in protecting the rights of same-sex couples, and the majority did not rule at all on one of the central arguments in the case – whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech.

This isn't a Trump thing. People have used this phrasing before to refer to court decisions whose impact is limited. Here is an article from 2014: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...rrow-decisions

Anyone saying victory would be wrong, calling it a narrow ruling appears to a correct way to talk about a legal ruling.

[Itshim]

Sorry to tell you this polls show he is more popular than ever. At least he does what he says. More than can be said of UK