Is this the "October Surprise"?

[KabeRinnaul]

Congressional republicans are also promising to keep investigating her throughout her term if she wins. And impeach her immediately upon beginning her term. And refuse to confirm any of her Supreme Court appointments, just like they did to Obama.

Gunning for someone this hard, for this long, and not having ANYTHING damning against them, isn't an example of "where there's smoke, there's fire" and they just haven't found it yet. It's a good indicator they have nothing of substance against her and are just hoping the smoke screen destroys her reputation, and they've had quite a lot of success with that.

Seriously, the GOP at this point is flagrantly undermining democratic processes and the foundations of our government, and they have been ever since they realized they could get their way by being obstructionist and holding the budget hostage. I can't understand how most of the country isn't sick of them, but I guess tribalism and Red Team Versus Blue Team are just too powerful a force.

I try to avoid partisan statements that place the blame entirely on one political party, but let's be honest, here — there's a reason the Golden Mean Fallacy is a fallacy.

[HYHYBT]

I just read the new thing now isn't harping on the emails, but claiming she's a witch.

[s_stabeler]

there's an update from the FBI- I don't have a direct source, but here is Ars Technica reporting on it. Trump, predictably, has claimed that the truth has been covered up.

Oh, and to make one thing clear: Clinton shouldn't have used the private server for official correspondence. However, the sequence of events- as far as I can tell them- should be made clear:
1. Clinton was asked for the official emails on the server
2. Clinton's staff are instructed to delete her personal email stored on the server ( which they have the right to, incidentally- the only emails the State department were interested in were the official ones)
3. the server is turned over
what isn't clear is if it turned out official emails were in the ones deleted, or if the investigators recovered Clinton's personal emails and looked through those. If- at that point- they recovered the personal emails, that was actually illegal on the part of investigators. It's also not entirely clear when the contents of the classified emails were actually classified.At least some were retroactively classified after the emails were sent.
3 scenarios:
1. Contents were classified when email was sent. That would be a crime unless the information could be declassified by Clinton on her own authority. This is unlikely.
2. Contents were classified between the time the email was sent, and when the emails were investigated. this is the most likely outcome, and, provided the search was legal, means nobody actually did anything wrong- it is fine to send out information that is unclassified when you send it, and it's fine too check it was sent before classification.
3. The contents were classified once investigators knew what they contained. This is highly unlikely, particularly since it only makes sense if it was an attempt to frame Clinton. It would also be a serious crime.

It's fair to say tough, that Comey should probably dust off his resume. Neither candidate are particularly happy with him, and his actions in jumping the gun on revealing the investigation have, to be frank, made his position as Director of the FBI untenable. ( it looks too much like it was an attempt to manipulate the result of the election- which, to be blunt, is unacceptable in a director of the FBI.

[ben_who]

If there's "nothing there", which Hillary and many of her supporters claim, why would Republicans spend so much time going after her and Bill so vociferously, when there are probably hundreds of other people who they could go after? I can't think an entire party could be THAT scared of one person for that long. It is odd, though, how many people who have "crossed" the Clintons have not fared so well. In fact, I'd say that they have a higher incidence of things "happening" to associates than many, many other Democrats (and Republicans) do.

Anybody who can't see that HRC has made some rather egregious and/or nefarious (and possibly illegal) choices is simply fooling themselves.

Bet you a bright shiny nickel that now that Trump's in office everyone forgets the whole thing.

If you were expecting Hillary to be dragged off in chains without trial, that wasn't going to happen anyway, no matter how desperately you wanted it. There would have been due process involved.

Trump PRAISED the "nasty woman" in his brief victory speech. At some point in your life I hope that you'll sit bolt upright and say, "Hey! It was all political!"

But I doubt it.

[mjr]

Bet you a bright shiny nickel that now that Trump's in office everyone forgets the whole thing.

Probably, yeah.

If you were expecting Hillary to be dragged off in chains without trial, that wasn't going to happen anyway, no matter how desperately you wanted it. There would have been due process involved.

Sure. Due process would have been a necessity, of course.

Trump PRAISED the "nasty woman" in his brief victory speech. At some point in your life I hope that you'll sit bolt upright and say, "Hey! It was all political!"

But I doubt it.

Of course it's all political. In the U.S. government, politics is the name of the game. In a lot of cases, facts don't matter. It's an emotional appeal. "Political Science" is turning into a misnomer. There's merit to it, but there's also a certain "art" to politics.

This is part of the reason I believe we need some serious reform in this country with regard to politics and campaigning.

But I do have to ask again, WHY have the Clintons, specifically, been investigated this hard for this long (since Bill was in office, and some would argue going back to his Arkansas days)? Is the "Republican Establishment" that afraid of two people? And if they are, why?

[s_stabeler]

There's a reason. The Democrats have always been a coalition of various causes- as opposed to the Republicans, who have always been more inclined towards believing in a single cause (this is on the level of Congressmen/Senators. The arguments tend to be on if they should compromise with the other side, not on what the party should do. I am fully aware there are liberal Republicans, like there are conservative Democrats. With the Republicans, they are largely marginalised.) and Clinton was about the only high-profile member who could unify them. Frankly, there is evidence the Democrats may end up having similar issues to those that plague the Republicans.

Overall, I'm prepared to reserve judgement on Trump until I see what he actually does- partly, I will admit, because as a white brit, it's unlikely I will be disadvantaged much so long as he doesn't go full moron and launch nukes- and some of his suggestions are actually pretty good ( term limits for Congressmen and a ban on former Congressmen becoming lobbyists. That combination may well actually clean up the worst of the crap in Washington. There's a couple of other fair points, but I'll go inot those later.

[mjr]

and some of his suggestions are actually pretty good ( term limits for Congressmen and a ban on former Congressmen becoming lobbyists.).

IIRC, someone (points at self) has been advocating that for quite some time...

In fact, I wrote my local state representative today about a different issue, and I actually do plan on writing to my federal representatives about the same issue, and about term limits for Congress.

That's why I asked in a different thread how I could get a politician to read and respond to my letter.

[Gravekeeper]

Said ideas might be taken a little more seriously if he wasn't currently filling his entire transition team with the very lobbyists and insiders he was railing against.

[HYHYBT]

But I do have to ask again, WHY have the Clintons, specifically, been investigated this hard for this long (since Bill was in office, and some would argue going back to his Arkansas days)? Is the "Republican Establishment" that afraid of two people? And if they are, why?

Seems more related to the sunk cost fallacy to me, though not quite the same. Say the first time, whichever that was, was legitimate: "hey, this seems fishy; let's look into it." By the time you're through with that one, you're emotionally invested both in finding something to justify the effort, to show they really ARE the crooks you've been calling them, even to get them personally because you now think of them that way yourself. So there's no proof they did what they were originally suspected of, so what? Everybody's got a skeleton someplace, and your first investigaton's probably given ideas where to look next. The more you keep making this smoke, the more people, including yourself, believe there must be a fire somewhere, and the more you lose at this game, the more determined you become to win next time around. And when you do find something, anything, it seems like a big deal because you've put so much into it.