Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

And Christopher Hitchens summarized well how vile her hubby was:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgSocr2DTic

And by the way, can we stop talking about how well Bill Clinton worked with the Republicans? They impeached him. And he worked well with them because he signed all their bills (DOMA, "crime bill", "ending welfare as we know it" <rolls eyes>, etc., etc.).

Comte, I enjoy your posts very much also. In case it wasn't clear, I wasn't doubting your assertion but was genuinely curious. It is possible though that your colleague may not be completely objective given your description, but I'm not arguing. I don't know the author of that link. I've made no secret I'm not a fan of Hillary, but then I'm not a fan of any of them.

Jacques, agree with much of what you say, but would debate your analysis. This is not capitalism run amok. It is in many ways the opposite. We have had increasing and relentless inference with markets and when they fail the very actors who distorted them blame the market itself. I share your concerns about Trump but not your faith he won't be elected. I also need Bordeaux!

JScott wrote: This is not capitalism run amok. It is in many ways the opposite. We have had increasing and relentless inference with markets and when they fail the very actors who distorted them blame the market itself

Well, I don't disagree with what you said, Scott, certainly politicians going back to the Clinton administration who have loosened lending practices (to supposedly help lower income customers purchase and finance homes), deregulated banking by repealing Glass Steagall, and allowed Fannie and Freddie to run massive leveraged investment books, are at least partially to blame for the financial crisis.

But this is not my point. I claim that a country where people are suicidal enough to massively leverage by buying multiple properties with NINJA loans always thinking they could refinance, a country where money managers would buy any paper as long as it's rated AAA without reading the documentation (why the hell are these people being paid any salary?) a country where bankers try to stuff their clients with risky obscure papers ignoring their own fiduciary responsibility (yes, I know caveat emptor, legal but still sleazy). Well such a country has proven itself to be self destructive in the past and may well act self destructive again by electing someone as sleazy and grotesque as Donald Trump.

I'd even take Burgundy. Heck, Loire, Australian Shiraz, anything with alcohol

lol. Yeah, it's pretty damned depressing.

Jacques, we are in complete and utter agreement. Sadly. And any of those sounds good to me. I'm buying.

Few points:
- Marketing people have demonstrated that negative campaigning is most efficient, so it is highly unlikely that we will ever get a candidate we love or respect (except for the militants who would be satisfied with anything) as shit will continue to be spread on whoever is candidate.
- Elections: No more about politics, just about marketing campaign... very sad
- Just before Trump won it, there were rumours of him being displaced...did not work
- Same about Hillary won't happen she has the nomination
- Hillary lobbyist for big business/wall street? Well she needs their money...you need to reform the law if you want to avoid politicians running for their funders.

PS I am surprised Trump has not been sued/arrested for some of his (Ryan quote) "racist" words. Any law repressing these kind of words in the US? He probably should be more careful because people around the world can hardly believe what he says...

We don't have very good choices for this year's presidential election but in the end we are going to miss Barry.
He has been solid, I'll give him an A-/B+, he was deceptively strong, like the Lynch Bages of the second half of the 1980s.
He ranks certainly in the top ten presidencies, at least to this historian, flirting even in my mind with the top five….

The Jim How Top ten Greatest Presidents, and their Bordeaux wine counterparts…..

The Top Ten Best is a lot tougher than the Bottom Ten, there have been more great presidents than there have been bad presidents, we've been pretty lucky in that regard. We'll start off with the top ten best, then move on to the top ten worst.

#10. Dwight Eisenhower. It was tough, there are about 5 or 6 others who could easily be included in the top 10, I'll mention them in honorable mention at the end. But if I have to pick, I have to include Ike in my top ten. He gets in, of course, at least as much if not more for his leadership in WWII, managing the competing personalities involved. As president he presided over post-war growth and prosperity, the interstate highway system, appointed Earl Warren, provided moderation at a time the country welcomed it, warned against the military-industrial complex. He was strong and solid, nothing fancy, but great backbone, like a great St. Estephe, a Cos d'estournel of the 1980s or even a Montrose of the 2000s. B+.

I was doing a little research on my little presidential presentation here and I came upon this essay written by Eleanor Roosevelt in the Atlantic in 1965 about the time Winston Churchill spent in the White House during World War II. It brought tears to my eyes. It is so sad how far our politics have fallen….


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... se/305459/

Hillary is ahead of Trump in the last 10 national polls taken (and maybe more, I stopped counting at 10), with an average lead of 6.5 points. Such a lead translates into a roughly 323 v 215 victory in the Electoral College for Hillary: http://www.electiongraphs.com/2016ec/

Yes but today's Quinnipiac poll has it even:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/ ... index.html

Interesting, I wonder why there's so much noise in the polls.

Also, whatever one thinks of 538 (I'm still a big fan, even if their fallibility was confirmed this year), Nate Silver released his first general election model results, giving Hillary an 80% chance of winning: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -forecast/

The FBI rebuke: is this a let off for Clinton, or does this provide plenty more for the other side to exploit?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... WEML6619I2

I think Team Clinton must have partied last night like it was 1999.

This played out pretty much exactly as I predicted earlier in this thread. No charges, primarily because of lack of intent. The statutes in question don't require it, but a prosecution on this scale and stage makes it very difficult otherwise. I also predicted the dedicated Left will claim it was a witch hunt and the Right will say it proves she's above the law and I still see that playing out. They will be able to run out the clock on the other civil lawsuits, though I suspect there will plenty there that is damaging. The question will be what the independents do with it, and I think that's going to depend on the political skill of Team Donald.

Agree with Scott.

This is far from the last we'll hear of this. While no prosecution, the FBI report is a road map for attacking Clinton. To capitalize on this, Trump would have to pull his head out of his ass long enough to realize he should praise the FBI instead of saying the decision was fixed, and use the findings to portray her as unqualified and untrustworthy. More likely, he'll continue to spew racist drivel that will place the focus back on him.

The GOP establishment will go after her, though. They've had a hard-on for the Clintons so long that it may be too late to seek emergency attention. They'll just keep popping those little blue pills until they find somewhere to stick it. Maybe they'll bring Ken Starr back for an encore. He should be available since being relieved of his duties as President of Baylor.

What a mess. I want Trump to release his tax returns and Hilary to have a press conference.

I came across this last week:

https://thepolicy.us/thinking-about-hil ... .v57kxrkr8

and related:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... l-abramson

It was also interesting that he FBI said (I read), if they prosecuted here, it would be a double standard since they hadn't prosecuted it elsewhere.

It's a double standard to say it would be a double standard. Jim, how many times did a judge buy a double standard argument from you?

AlohaArtakaHoundsong wrote:It's a double standard to say it would be a double standard. Jim, how many times did a judge buy a double standard argument from you?

I would agree that "Johnny got away with it" is no excuse when you're on trial in front of a judge. Once they decide to prosecute you, all that counts is whether you've broken the law, not the other guy. But Clinton's not in front of a judge. She's in front of the FBI and DOJ, who have to decide whether to prosecute. If they decide to prosecute everyone who ignored or flaunted the email and other security rules, including probably the entire DOS and huge swaths of government would be indicted, both Rs and Ds. And then there's the matter of actually being able to get a conviction. A special prosecutor would be much more effective at tying her up and making life miserable for all involved. The Rs would love to see that happen again. They could appoint Bernie Sanders.

If you read the articles Jacques linked above, you'll see how the double standard plays out in public. All the politicians lie. Clinton maybe less than most if you believe the linked stories. But any lie will do if you're in the pillory Hillary movement.

A "Pillory Hillary" sofa pillow, perhaps with her face on it (to sit on), would sell really well, I'd wager.

By the letter of the statute, she's undoubtedly guilty based on facts already in evidence. Even the notion that it would be a double standard isn't quite true. This department under the same statute has chosen to prosecute a Navy grunt for sending a selfie to his girlfriend while on board a nuclear sub and an Army officer who correctly warned his unit about Taliban posing as Afghan guards over a text instead of secure channels. The issue here is whether they could get a conviction without intent, both through the current Justice Department and in the court of opinion. I'm not surprised they didn't move forward but neither am I sympathetic to her situation. She deserved inquiry and probably deserves prosecution. I do resent all of them continually living above standards they set for the rest of us.

http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/588c ... -fbi-probe

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/nancy- ... s-traffic/

DavidG wrote:If they decide to prosecute everyone who ignored or flaunted the email and other security rules, including probably the entire DOS and huge swaths of government would be indicted, both Rs and Ds.

I think this is the crux at least as presented. Has the statue of limitations expired on Colin Powell's AOL email account use while running state? What about Condie's staff's emails? Or any number of the innumerable other government officials? Could a law enforcement agency decide to only prosecute Hillary and no others and not been seen as partisan? At the very least, wouldn't it need to investigate others to see if it rose to some level? Then Colin Powell and Condie Rice would be "under investigation"'. Sounds like a serious rabbit hole to go down. There are claims both Powell and Rice's teams used private email accounts and sent and received classified information on them (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ric ... ls-n511181), wouldn't this need to be checked if Hillary were prosecuted?

There's no such thing as a double standard when it comes to prosecutorial discretion. Now, if the FBI or the AG has a policy, formal or informal, of interpreting a law in a certain way, I think it's best they follow the policy until they decide that it's a better policy to do something different. Absent a policy nothing prevents the FBI, e.g., from recommending prosecuting D simply because it hasn't recommended prosecuting A, B and C. (For the record I have no opinion on the merits of this recommendation, not being remotely acquainted with the facts or the law.)

AlohaArtakaHoundsong wrote:There's no such thing as a double standard when it comes to prosecutorial discretion. Now, if the FBI or the AG has a policy, formal or informal, of interpreting a law in a certain way, I think it's best they follow the policy until they decide that it's a better policy to do something different. Absent a policy nothing prevents the FBI, e.g., from recommending prosecuting D simply because it hasn't recommended prosecuting A, B and C. (For the record I have no opinion on the merits of this recommendation, not being remotely acquainted with the facts or the law.)

Why not? Why can't a prosecutor decide not to prosecute when they had chosen not to prosecute before for the same exact charges? It sounds like you are saying they have the discretion to prosecute even if the had chosen not to before for the same exact charges, so why couldn't apply that discretion in reverse? Is there some rule that says it can go one way but not the other? I honestly don't know.

You understand it exactly. The prosecutor may charge or not as he or she sees fit. The discretion is practically absolute. The exceptions are narrow and would typically have something to do with violations of constitutional rights (like racial bias in the charging decision) or misconduct such as corruption, bribery etc. Jim is probably best acquainted with the law and the practicalities.

So, did anyone get excited when the AG said she would follow the FBI's recommendation? Did anyone think she might have had foreknowledge as to what that recommendation was going to be?

Mark the number of this reply: 666 the mark of the beast.

The timing of the FBI interview over the July 4th weekend assured minimal news exposure. It all fell into place pretty quickly after that, delivering the report the first business day after the holiday.

Title for Hillary autobiography: From Whitewater to Whitewash?

I agree, Tom, I'm amazed at how quickly the story basically went to Page 2.
To me, that FBI press conference was arguably the story of the year (so far).
It all but assured the presidency to Clinton.
That's big news.

This is why a political movement probably should not pin its presidential aspirations on an indictment being handed down against the other party's candidate. It's a bit of a longshot.

Yeah, no kidding Art. The BIG Hillary-is-gonna-be-indicted issue doesn't even survive three quarters of a news cycle. Crazy. The world is moving so crazy fast these days! My iPhone SE is amazing.

AlohaArtakaHoundsong wrote:This is why a political movement probably should not pin its presidential aspirations on an indictment being handed down against the other party's candidate. It's a bit of a longshot.

That's really all Trump et al. have, as we know. Trump makes Pat Buchanan seem like a reasonable, level-headed moderate -- his only real hope of winning at this point is Hillary imploding (the main chance of which was her getting indicted).

I am still in disbelief regarding Trump. A disgusting, sleazy, grotesque creature. Here's a website where one can bet for and against Trump's nomination (yes, even now):

https://www.predictit.org/Contract/838/ ... ation#data

FYI, a couple of weeks ago, it was 14c to bet against, now it's only 7c.

jal wrote:I am still in disbelief regarding Trump. A disgusting, sleazy, grotesque creature. Here's a website where one can bet for and against Trump's nomination (yes, even now).

Yes, repeatedly re-tweeting stuff straight from white supremacist websites, including the latest anti-Semitic one! I mean, WTF?! Where's the outrage about that? I am much more angry about that than the last three secretaries of state having sloppy email practices that violated some heretofore unenforced rule.
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/05/484832465 ... cist-tweet

There is a rest of the country out there, Patrick, besides the Denver college campuses, the New York Times editorial pages, the world of Debbie Wassermann hack Democratic politicians. The sooner that the Thomas Friedman/Paul Krugman "elites" <rolls eyes> crowd understands that, the sooner they will realize that people have had enough. They are fed the fuck up. They are fed up with self-righteous political correctness, and easily hurt kumbaya hurt feelings. Get out of the Denver bubble and come live on Lisbon Street in Lewiston, Maine, for six months. Come live in abject poverty for 6 months. People are fed the fuck up. They are are fed up with their jobs going to Asia, living week to week with no savings, being squeezed by Hillary's Citibank wine-and-cheese friends who show up to her daughter's multi-million dollar Park Avenue wedding parties, they're fed up with Bill and Hill hanging out with Mick and Keefe and Bono in VIP boxes at Olympic soccer matches, they're fed up with lightweights like Huma who probably never read a word of Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers, even after I'm sure she and The Weiner scored prime orchestra seats to the play, they are fed the fucking up with Hillary unable to take a position on any issue unless/until the polls allow it. Bill and Hillary have done NOTHING for the people of Lewiston, Maine, while they have hung out with rock stars and drunk fine wines with Wall Street bankers on Park Ave.

Not everybody thinks like you and me, Patrick. That's the way it goes in a democracy. Of course Trump is a racist. Of course he is unfit to possess the nuclear code. (By the way, there was an article in he WSJ recently on how ridiculously easy it is for whoever is serving as president, without any input from Congress, his cabinet, or aides, can ignite nuclear Armageddon. There are like NO failsafe safeguards once the prez says to launch.) But please, don't be shocked at the outrage out there. This country is very sick. I have decided I am voting for neither Clinton nor Trump, just to keep my conscience clear. I will certainly not celebrate when Hillary and her predator husband return to the White House, a certainty now that the FBI and DOJ have cleared the path. Yuck.

Another lawyer and I spent the day today as the "lawyers of the day" for arraignment day in Lewiston District Court.
Between the two of us, we represented about 180 criminal defendants in the morning, and about 140 in the afternoon.
our job was to try to meet with as many of them as we could, maybe for 2, maybe 3 minutes each, take a quick look at their police reports, and give them a very quick recommendation on what they should do. Should they plead guilty and get it over with? Or would their pleading guilty, even to a minor offense, have "collateral consequences": Would it affect their ability to get a job, get an apartment, possess a firearm, travel to another country, get a student loan, get into college, get into the military or law enforcement, have immigration consequences, cause their driver's license to be suspended, etc., etc., etc. Most cases were drug or alcohol or poverty related. I met with over 100 people today to deal with these issues. Probably 90 of them live in poverty. You think they give two fucks what Hillary Clinton stands for?

By the way, I predict Newt for Trump VP, and Kaine for Clinton Veep.
Zzzzzzzz.

If Hillary were smart she'd stick with Uncle Joe.
If Trump were smart he'd go with… um, Newt, I guess.