From Washington Times. “You can assume that there’s a grand jury,” said Troy A. Eid, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado. “You don’t go out and investigate unless you’ve got a grand jury because there’s no authority to do subpoenas or compel people to do anything. With immunity agreements, that means by definition that there’s a grand jury investigation that’s going on some place.”
SD Are there many Americans who gawp in shocked disbelief when they contemplate Trump as I do? On the news they have found a lot of people who are backing him in a kind of 'I'm for Boris' way with no idea about what he will do. To make matters worse Clinton seems both dull and tainted. It is far from inconceivable to me that if elected, Trump might want to launch a teensy weensy nuclear strike on somebody to make a point. Nutcase Megalomaniac Putin responds, and the planet can kiss it's arse goodbye.
I don't think there are as many Americans shocked by Trump's popularity as there were. He continues to rise in the polls, and is getting the endorsements of some pretty smart people. Trump is on TV constantly over here, and doesn't come over as nutty as so many of the popular sound-bites make him appear. His tactic seems to be outrageous, and then back off to a more sensible position. Apparently this has been the way he has negotiated in his businesses as well. I'm not a supporter of his, but I'm not as scared as having him as President as I am of Clinton.
The other thread has turned into a left v right social welfare debate.
Genuine question, because I think Trump is a very scary prospect: What scares you about having Clinton as President?
If Blomberg is a non starter can you see any third party Billionaires stepping forward? There's surely a chance with two such polarising candidates running off against one another? Someone on here mentioned Oprah a few days ago but I can't see somebody like her on the left of the spectrum wanting to split the democratic vote. Maybe our old friend will give it one more go (just kidding but I love the gif).
I reckon Bloomberg would have stood if had been Sanders v Trump but won't now that it looks like Clinton will get the nomination.
Clinton's IT guy was granted immunity against prosecution yesterday by the Department of Justice, the strongest suggestion so far that they (the DOJ) have enough to prosecute Hilary over the email server issue.
Really? Surely they offer immunity because he won't give say anyting until he gets it for fear of self-incrimination. Suggest to me they don't have anything much yet.
When I came to the U.S. Nixon was President, there has been no other candidate who has been so surrounded by scandal in the time I've been here.
The right wing and their media outlets have been inventing smears against her for 25 years and not one has proved anything other than yet another fake scandal.
When I came to the U.S. Nixon was President, there has been no other candidate who has been so surrounded by scandal in the time I've been here.
Sorry mate, that's terrible. Check out the unbelievably badly photoshopped pic of Hilary with Vince Foster which tell you all you need to know about the credibility of that article
When I came to the U.S. Nixon was President, there has been no other candidate who has been so surrounded by scandal in the time I've been here.
Again, don't get this. Her husband was surrounded by far worse, and ditto the first George Bush. What happened when he was a part of the CIA and then head of the CIA is nothing short of a litany of war crimes and cover-ups.
Here is a breakdown of the "scandals" from The Atlantic. It should be noted that "Scandals" by no means mean illegal activity, just things that could come back to haunt her, e.g. the Goldman Sachs speeches, or the Clinton Foundation conflict of interest. I will add I think all of these are damning, but Limey, it feels like your opinions of her haven't evolved much since 1994.
On the email server, as talked about elsewhere, she could get done for breaching the records act, but this isn't treason. Again, I work with the kind of information she exposed. It was negligent, it was stupid, but it ends about there. If she's guilty of negligence and stupidity and she broke the law then by all means I support a Grand Jury. But do you think she was selling secrets? Do you think as President her lack of IT knowledge will somehow put the entire country at risk? Do you know the state our nuclear facilities are in? You know why we don't need to worry about them being hacked? Because they're running on technology from the 60s and 70s.
Regarding the IT stuff, surely you've lived here long enough to understand that top politicians never take the fall. Scooter Libby, victim blaming of the first Clinton, Oliver North et al for Iran Contra (fun fact, the man who flew the guns to Iran, an anti-Castro Cuban exile, had, by some accounts, known the then sitting Vice President for 25 years).
The reason Nixon got caught was 1) he recorded EVERYTHING, 2) he hired people even more evil than himself (Hunt, Sturgis, etc.), 3) He did far, far, far worse things than what he ended up resigning for (electoral fraud, bombing of Laos--a war crime, firebombing Vietnam--a war crime, covering up who killed John Kennedy, see #2).
As always the cover-up is more important than the crime. The attempts at wiping the memory of the server and the lies. I really didn't have an opinion of her in'94.
The reason Nixon got caught was 1) he recorded EVERYTHING, 2) he hired people even more evil than himself (Hunt, Sturgis, etc.), 3) He did far, far, far worse things than what he ended up resigning for (electoral fraud, bombing of Laos--a war crime, firebombing Vietnam--a war crime, covering up who killed John Kennedy, see #2).
Of course there are many conspiracy theories about who ordered/organised/was behind JFK's assassination, the Watergate link with E Howard Hunt and his death bed confession etc.. but are you saying categorically that Nixon covered up the truth behind who killed Jack Kennedy?
According to the General Accounting Office, the cost of the White House vandalism reached about $14,000 and included $4,850 to replace computer keyboards with damaged or missing “W” keys. The agency said some of the destruction was intentional, including glue smeared on desks, broken furniture, offices full of trash and graffiti in a men’s restroom stall that disparaged Bush. There were also missing doorknobs, medallions and office signs.
I think we can all agree that that's funny, depending on how witty the graffiti was.
As always the cover-up is more important than the crime. The attempts at wiping the memory of the server and the lies. I really didn't have an opinion of her in'94.
You would prefer Trump or Cruz in The White House than Clinton ?
Clinton comes across as arrogant and corrupt, and I can see why a lot of Americans don't like her even taking the dem/rep divide out of the equation... But from the outside looking in she at least appears to be a credible head of state. Trump on the other hand probably looks like Boris Johnson looks to other countries... A loon with a crap haircut. I'm pretty sure the average American doesn't care what other people think of their president though
As always the cover-up is more important than the crime. The attempts at wiping the memory of the server and the lies. I really didn't have an opinion of her in'94.
You would prefer Trump or Cruz in The White House than Clinton ?
Without question. Rubio would be my first choice though. Obamacare has to go.
As always the cover-up is more important than the crime. The attempts at wiping the memory of the server and the lies. I really didn't have an opinion of her in'94.
You would prefer Trump or Cruz in The White House than Clinton ?
Without question. Rubio would be my first choice though. Obamacare has to go.
To be replaced by.....?
For the record I agree, but we've had a bad free market system, we have a bad Government enforced privatized system, and apart from single-payer I'm yet to hear any other alternatives, but am always very much welcome. It should be noted, both of the above were results of Conservative policies. "Obamacare" originating in MA with Romney, etc. etc.
The reason Nixon got caught was 1) he recorded EVERYTHING, 2) he hired people even more evil than himself (Hunt, Sturgis, etc.), 3) He did far, far, far worse things than what he ended up resigning for (electoral fraud, bombing of Laos--a war crime, firebombing Vietnam--a war crime, covering up who killed John Kennedy, see #2).
Of course there are many conspiracy theories about who ordered/organised/was behind JFK's assassination, the Watergate link with E Howard Hunt and his death bed confession etc.. but are you saying categorically that Nixon covered up the truth behind who killed Jack Kennedy?
If this is something that interests people I'd be more than happy to do another thread on this, because I am fascinated, and do a fair amount of reading around the JFK assassination.
There is a point in one of the Nixon tapes that was originally held back where he talks about paying off Hunt, who was then in jail. The reason he gives is "Hunt knows about that Bay of Pigs stuff." At the time, the Bay of Pigs and the CIA involvement in it was commonly known, so paying someone to cover that up wouldn't make sense. It's been theorized by many, including the aid who he was talking to (and I will cite this if it's a rabbit hole we want to go down) that Bay of Pigs is code for who killed Kennedy.
Even before the deathbed "confession" (in which he awkwardly leaves himself out), I would have bet on Hunt knowing about what actually happened. That group of covert operatives of the CIA/Military Intelligence had the means and motives, Morales, Meyer, Phillips, Hunt, Sturgis, Harvey, etc. Even putting the Kennedy thing to one side (I don't believe it was a coup d'eta like some others, I think it was simply a consolidation of power), their influence on American foreign policy, and their disruption of other countries in the name of fighting communism is fascinating, and something that still has repercussion to this day.
As always the cover-up is more important than the crime. The attempts at wiping the memory of the server and the lies. I really didn't have an opinion of her in'94.
You would prefer Trump or Cruz in The White House than Clinton ?
Without question. Rubio would be my first choice though. Obamacare has to go.
To be replaced by.....?
For the record I agree, but we've had a bad free market system, we have a bad Government enforced privatized system, and apart from single-payer I'm yet to hear any other alternatives, but am always very much welcome. It should be noted, both of the above were results of Conservative policies. "Obamacare" originating in MA with Romney, etc. etc.
Any healthcare initiative that doesn't address tort reform is a waste of everybody's time. From the moment one steps into a doctor's office, one is confronted by defensive medicine. The clipboard with all the disclaimers is handed over and off we go. Unnecessary referrals to specialists, lab work, etc. etc. Unfortunately everyone in Washington is a lawyer, so getting any change here is unlikely, to say the least. The free market system, with insurance sold across state lines, and real tort reform is the only way to bring down healthcare costs, and it would happen quickly. Unfortunately I don't hear anyone talking about tort reform.
As always the cover-up is more important than the crime. The attempts at wiping the memory of the server and the lies. I really didn't have an opinion of her in'94.
You would prefer Trump or Cruz in The White House than Clinton ?
Without question. Rubio would be my first choice though. Obamacare has to go.
To be replaced by.....?
For the record I agree, but we've had a bad free market system, we have a bad Government enforced privatized system, and apart from single-payer I'm yet to hear any other alternatives, but am always very much welcome. It should be noted, both of the above were results of Conservative policies. "Obamacare" originating in MA with Romney, etc. etc.
How about a system that is free at the point of delivery regardless of your ability to pay, and paid for out of general taxation? And to make it even sweeter it would cost per capita about 37% of what the US currently spends on healthcare.
Oops sorry - the Americans don't like socialism do they? ;-)
Malpractice insurance is the biggest reason healthcare is so expensive in the U.S.. Getting lawyers out of healthcare would be the quickest and most effective way of bringing costs down. Unfortunately everyone in Washington is a lawyer.
Any healthcare initiative that doesn't address tort reform is a waste of everybody's time. From the moment one steps into a doctor's office, one is confronted by defensive medicine. The clipboard with all the disclaimers is handed over and off we go. Unnecessary referrals to specialists, lab work, etc. etc. Unfortunately everyone in Washington is a lawyer, so getting any change here is unlikely, to say the least. The free market system, with insurance sold across state lines, and real tort reform is the only way to bring down healthcare costs, and it would happen quickly. Unfortunately I don't hear anyone talking about tort reform.
And I'm the dewey eyed optimist!?!?!?!
Completely with you. I disagree that malpractice insurance is the highest cost in healthcare, but in the time my mom has been a doctor, really in the last 15-20 years, it has skyrocketed and it is a ridiculous cost. She works for Kaiser, and the loops they have to jump through to keep from getting sued are sad. But other than that, yes, completely agree.
I personally believe the only way to do that would be through a Government-payer system ( @bobmunro with you 100%) as the Government does have the ability to regulate costs and prices (which is what Medicare does, not brilliantly well, but better) and along with that they could reform what is payed out in malpractice, driving costs down.
On the whole, what is the issue with negligence claims? Are most frivolous? Do patients have unreasonable expectations, too many ambulance chasing lawyers? Are the doctors a bit rubbish? Or is there a culture of get your own way/if there's blame there's a claim? That's the stereotype of litigious Americans, but i'd rather hear the reality from people who live there
The problem is that it's most often cheaper to settle a claim than to fight it, so even frivolous claims are settled. And too many ambulance chasing lawyers.
On the whole, what is the issue with negligence claims? Are most frivolous? Do patients have unreasonable expectations, too many ambulance chasing lawyers? Are the doctors a bit rubbish? Or is there a culture of get your own way/if there's blame there's a claim? That's the stereotype of litigious Americans, but i'd rather hear the reality from people who live there
It's a combination thereof, but I definitely think the litigious American culture plays a large role. Limey is right that it's often cheaper to settle than fight it, but that's the case with so many lawsuits these days.
Unlike in the U.K, where the loser in a lawsuit most often pays the winner's legal expenses, a doctor who wins a lawsuit, or his insurance company, is stuck with massive legal expenses. Simply changing to "loser pays all" would eliminate frivolous suits and discourage ambulance chasers. As a consequence the defensive medicine would be eliminated and malpractice insurance premiums would be reduced.
If Americans could genuinely be given the option of a NHS based along the lines of the U.K. Model what would be their major objections ?
I spoke to a lady in New York before Christmas (who had had a caesarian for $30,000 paid by her insurance company) she had stumped up $1,600 in pre natal fees she had to pay for herself. Anyway she was shocked by the idea that anybody could get health care without having paid for it. She simply thought people should not get it 'free'.
Comments
“You can assume that there’s a grand jury,” said Troy A. Eid, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado. “You don’t go out and investigate unless you’ve got a grand jury because there’s no authority to do subpoenas or compel people to do anything. With immunity agreements, that means by definition that there’s a grand jury investigation that’s going on some place.”
Genuine question, because I think Trump is a very scary prospect: What scares you about having Clinton as President?
http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/
When I came to the U.S. Nixon was President, there has been no other candidate who has been so surrounded by scandal in the time I've been here.
Here is a breakdown of the "scandals" from The Atlantic. It should be noted that "Scandals" by no means mean illegal activity, just things that could come back to haunt her, e.g. the Goldman Sachs speeches, or the Clinton Foundation conflict of interest. I will add I think all of these are damning, but Limey, it feels like your opinions of her haven't evolved much since 1994.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/?utm_source=SFFB
On the email server, as talked about elsewhere, she could get done for breaching the records act, but this isn't treason. Again, I work with the kind of information she exposed. It was negligent, it was stupid, but it ends about there. If she's guilty of negligence and stupidity and she broke the law then by all means I support a Grand Jury. But do you think she was selling secrets? Do you think as President her lack of IT knowledge will somehow put the entire country at risk? Do you know the state our nuclear facilities are in? You know why we don't need to worry about them being hacked? Because they're running on technology from the 60s and 70s.
Regarding the IT stuff, surely you've lived here long enough to understand that top politicians never take the fall. Scooter Libby, victim blaming of the first Clinton, Oliver North et al for Iran Contra (fun fact, the man who flew the guns to Iran, an anti-Castro Cuban exile, had, by some accounts, known the then sitting Vice President for 25 years).
The reason Nixon got caught was 1) he recorded EVERYTHING, 2) he hired people even more evil than himself (Hunt, Sturgis, etc.), 3) He did far, far, far worse things than what he ended up resigning for (electoral fraud, bombing of Laos--a war crime, firebombing Vietnam--a war crime, covering up who killed John Kennedy, see #2).
I think we can all agree that that's funny, depending on how witty the graffiti was.
For the record I agree, but we've had a bad free market system, we have a bad Government enforced privatized system, and apart from single-payer I'm yet to hear any other alternatives, but am always very much welcome. It should be noted, both of the above were results of Conservative policies. "Obamacare" originating in MA with Romney, etc. etc.
There is a point in one of the Nixon tapes that was originally held back where he talks about paying off Hunt, who was then in jail. The reason he gives is "Hunt knows about that Bay of Pigs stuff." At the time, the Bay of Pigs and the CIA involvement in it was commonly known, so paying someone to cover that up wouldn't make sense. It's been theorized by many, including the aid who he was talking to (and I will cite this if it's a rabbit hole we want to go down) that Bay of Pigs is code for who killed Kennedy.
Even before the deathbed "confession" (in which he awkwardly leaves himself out), I would have bet on Hunt knowing about what actually happened. That group of covert operatives of the CIA/Military Intelligence had the means and motives, Morales, Meyer, Phillips, Hunt, Sturgis, Harvey, etc. Even putting the Kennedy thing to one side (I don't believe it was a coup d'eta like some others, I think it was simply a consolidation of power), their influence on American foreign policy, and their disruption of other countries in the name of fighting communism is fascinating, and something that still has repercussion to this day.
Unfortunately I don't hear anyone talking about tort reform.
Oops sorry - the Americans don't like socialism do they? ;-)
Completely with you. I disagree that malpractice insurance is the highest cost in healthcare, but in the time my mom has been a doctor, really in the last 15-20 years, it has skyrocketed and it is a ridiculous cost. She works for Kaiser, and the loops they have to jump through to keep from getting sued are sad. But other than that, yes, completely agree.
I personally believe the only way to do that would be through a Government-payer system ( @bobmunro with you 100%) as the Government does have the ability to regulate costs and prices (which is what Medicare does, not brilliantly well, but better) and along with that they could reform what is payed out in malpractice, driving costs down.
Anyway she was shocked by the idea that anybody could get health care without having paid for it. She simply thought people should not get it 'free'.