No Charges for Clinton in Emailgate

[Honky Tonk]

Will this be after she goes after the Bill of Rights ? The Second Amendment will be first to go, followed by a scaling back of the First. The others will be looked at closely. After she wins and if the Dems get a majority in Congress, she will be able to appoint Supreme Court justices. Once that happens it's any ones guess. I am sure she has compiled a list of people and organizations that need to be dealt with. I hope I am wrong, but the way things are going ?????

I wish people would get off of the 2nd Amendment, "Take Away Our Guns" bandwagon. If anyone attempted this, there would be a parade down Wall Street by the gun lobbyists and supporters, with the attemptee's heads on sticks. That being said, I don't feel just anyone has the right to own just any kind of weapon that they so choose, and things need to be contained a bit. I had the chance to try out a high-powered assault rifle recently and I can't see a need for such a weapon in civilian hands. Every elected official compiles a list of organizations, people, and issues that they feel need to be dealt with. I think it's disgusting that the Republicans dug their heels in and are refusing to even interview Barack's Supreme Court nominee. But then, they've been this way for @ least the last 8 years, and I don't feel warm and fuzzy voting for any of them. So yes, you're wrong.

[noise]

Will this be after she goes after the Bill of Rights ? The Second Amendment will be first to go, followed by a scaling back of the First. The others will be looked at closely. After she wins and if the Dems get a majority in Congress, she will be able to appoint Supreme Court justices. Once that happens it's any ones guess. I am sure she has compiled a list of people and organizations that need to be dealt with. I hope I am wrong, but the way things are going ?????

In fairness, Trump has been much more outwardly hostile towards the First Amendment.

[lpg]

I'm not on any bandwagon for anything. Politicians of both parties don't like getting caught doing things they shouldn't. Clinton stated a long time ago that the Constitution should be a "Living Document" subject to change. Would you feel comfortable having it fiddled with to suit which ever way political winds are blowing ? Again both parties are corrupt and will say or do anything to get or stay in power.

[Honky Tonk]

I'm not on any bandwagon for anything. Politicians of both parties don't like getting caught doing things they shouldn't. Clinton stated a long time ago that the Constitution should be a "Living Document" subject to change. Would you feel comfortable having it fiddled with to suit which ever way political winds are blowing ? Again both parties are corrupt and will say or do anything to get or stay in power.

I didn't mean you specifically regarding the 2nd Amendment. I actually think the Constitution should be tweaked, but very carefully, and with a majority populace approval. A lot of things have changed since 1778. I don't think our forefathers envisioned the problems encountered in today's world.

[lpg]

I didn't mean you specifically regarding the 2nd Amendment. I actually think the Constitution should be tweaked, but very carefully, and with a majority populace approval. A lot of things have changed since 1778. I don't think our forefathers envisioned the problems encountered in today's world.

No offense taken. I agree with you on careful tweaks. I think in todays political climate that opening it up could have unintended results.

[Honky Tonk]

No offense taken. I agree with you on careful tweaks. I think in todays political climate that opening it up could have unintended results.

Absolutely, totally agree. But how far back should you still hang on to your guiding doctrine? I always think to myself if the original drafters of the Constitution were to show up today, walk around, read and watch the news, would they have still drafted the document as is?

[coracle]

Maybe the original drafters did foresee the advent of our Media and had a an inkling of what it would do to us in the future -

[lpg]

Absolutely, totally agree. But how far back should you still hang on to your guiding doctrine? I always think to myself if the original drafters of the Constitution were to show up today, walk around, read and watch the news, would they have still drafted the document as is?

Good point. I think they would be horrified at society in general. And I think that's the root of the problem. Society has changed from the common good to all I care about is me. Would they draft the document the same ? Maybe not. But how much of our freedoms would be lost in the process ? I don't want to live in a police state.

[JBMcB]

Hillary vs. Comey super mix:

[Pam]

This site had a good running commentary on today's hearings:

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/t...-this-morning/

[Zacha341]

Well, Richard Nixon really could exclaim that he never profited from public service, and he was not a 'crook' compared to all of this! Hah!

[Pam]

New movie coming out about the Clinton Foundation:

https://youtu.be/qdMrEmx6Bvg

[Richard]

Well, Richard Nixon really could exclaim that he never profited from public service, and he was not a 'crook' compared to all of this! Hah!

He erased 18 minutes of tape compared with over 300 emails ....

[Richard]

I didn't mean you specifically regarding the 2nd Amendment. I actually think the Constitution should be tweaked, but very carefully, and with a majority populace approval. A lot of things have changed since 1778. I don't think our forefathers envisioned the problems encountered in today's world.

I think that door has been closed,in light of everything we have learned what the popular vote actually counts for.I think opening it will open a never ending change on whims or what is correct at the the time.Most of it is a basic set of rules so to speak.

[lpg]

I think that door has been closed,in light of everything we have learned what the popular vote actually counts for.I think opening it will open a never ending change on whims or what is correct at the the time.Most of it is a basic set of rules so to speak.

Agreed. What has been lost is basic trust in the way government operates. One set of rules for those connected and harsher rules for the rest.

[Bobl]

I'm just a retired blue collar guy with an Associate Degree education, certainly not an expert, but I see a lot of naive comments on this thread. It's all but over, folks. Income has been redistributed from working middle class to a wealthy oligarchy in the past several decades. The Citizens United decision sealed the deal. Read the book Dark Money, by Jane Mayer, to see how this was accomplished. A good companion book is It's Even Worse Than It Looks, by Thomas E Mann and Norman J Ornstein. The second book was penned first, and may offer some false hope. I hope that I am wrong.

[Pam]

I'm just a retired blue collar guy with an Associate Degree education, certainly not an expert, but I see a lot of naive comments on this thread. It's all but over, folks. Income has been redistributed from working middle class to a wealthy oligarchy in the past several decades. The Citizens United decision sealed the deal. Read the book Dark Money, by Jane Mayer, to see how this was accomplished. A good companion book is It's Even Worse Than It Looks, by Thomas E Mann and Norman J Ornstein. The second book was penned first, and may offer some false hope. I hope that I am wrong.

I hope it's not all over. A lot of people have been energized and activated by the Sanders campaign this year. They are going to continue to fight. Bernie was cheated out of the win but a lot of people are running for lower offices that share his views. They might get in and start to make a difference.

A lot of people aren't willing to let Hillary's crimes drop either. Petition to get Hillary charged:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...8-952-and-1924

[Pam]

Mock trial for Hillary planned at the DNC:

https://www.facebook.com/events/1053815404656317/

[Bobl]

Where were all of the concerns and demands for investigation when Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell used unsecured emails, or when the thousands of government emails were scrubbed by Karl Rove? One political party seems much more effective than the other at exploiting these things.

[Bobl]

I'm not on any bandwagon for anything. Politicians of both parties don't like getting caught doing things they shouldn't. Clinton stated a long time ago that the Constitution should be a "Living Document" subject to change. Would you feel comfortable having it fiddled with to suit which ever way political winds are blowing ? Again both parties are corrupt and will say or do anything to get or stay in power.

I am glad that Ms Clinton agrees with the founding fathers, who included a process, albeit a difficult one, for amending the constitution.

[lpg]

I am glad that Ms Clinton agrees with the founding fathers, who included a process, albeit a difficult one, for amending the constitution.

I think the founding fathers made it difficult to amend the constitution to prevent constant fiddling based on political whims. Just curious. If it were up to you, how would you amend the constitution ??

[Jimaz]

...If it were up to you, how would you amend the constitution ??

Here's a start: Move To Amend.

[Bobl]

I think the founding fathers made it difficult to amend the constitution to prevent constant fiddling based on political whims. Just curious. If it were up to you, how would you amend the constitution ??

It is very difficult, as it should be. The process is explained in Article 5 of the constitution. I find it interesting that some who describe themselves as conservative take issue with Ms Clinton's accurate statement that the constitution is a living document when the proof is contained in Article 5.

[Pam]

Where were all of the concerns and demands for investigation when Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell used unsecured emails, or when the thousands of government emails were scrubbed by Karl Rove? One political party seems much more effective than the other at exploiting these things.

Clinton had a private server for the entire 4 years she was Secretary of State. She refused to use the State Dept. account. I don't think anyone else had done that before. Also she is running for president. Shouldn't we expect more scrutiny for a presidential candidate?