Sheriff investigating Trump for Inciting a Riot in NC

jeffhandy said:

LOST said:

 If any Sheriff or other law enforcement authority charged Trump with a crime for something he said at a rally it would almost guaranty his nomination. And he would have to decide whether to accept legal assistance from the ACLU. 

The other problem is that that Sheriff would then face a landslide of death threats on himself, his department and his family.  This is how those with rabid followers manage to get away with their barbaric comments.  As a Sheriff of a small region, I would think more than twice about facing the wrath of Trump's supporters nationwide.  The burden that it would place on that Sheriff department would be immense and would probably make everyday policing impossible.  I am guessing that this had a lot to do with charges not being filed.

You guess? 

In guessing you are accusing this sheriff of cowardice, dereliction of duty, lying, and probably a few other things, all to create some scenario for which you not a shred of proof and because you have no answers to what I wrote.

You are also accusing the every law enforcement agency involved in this, of the same things, from the Feds to local authorities, and considering the peanut gallery chipping in here you might get away with it.

I'm falling in love with BCC all over again.

ridski said:

Of course he doesn't. It's impossible to see contradictions to an infallible position.

And while we may complain about springgreen2's Trump thread count, at least he starts threads. How many threads started by others do we need where BCC reminds us in a dictatorial tone what "the discussion is about"? I've been away most of the weekend and read it 3 times in 3 threads in the last 24 hours. I must presume he has it as some kind of shortcut on his laptop at this point.

In case you and your ignorant friend haven't noticed, since the the 3rd post on this thread, except for the meaningless bull***t the two of you have provided, it has been about Trump and free speech, with a short detour to Clinton and back. No dictatorial force required.

That's about all the response you and he are worth.

BCC said:
Hits someone or steals something it's OK to prosecute but indicted for mishandling state secrets, a felony, gets a pass. Are you serious?

I haven't been near a TV today, so I must have missed something. Somebody got indicted for felony mishandling state secrets? That's huge! Who?

One notes that the 4th post in this thread was made by BCC, so by his own admission this thread was not about Trump and free speech until BCC posted about it, which is again typical for BCC. 

ridski said:

One notes that the 4th post in this thread was made by BCC, so by his own admission this thread was not about Trump and free speech until BCC posted about it, which is again typical for BCC. 

And you neglected to note, you were so busy kvetching about my posting habits, that the first 3 posts were about trump and the line where free speech ended.

As far as your endless kvetching why don't you just shut up and stop reading what I write, or why don't you actually join the conversation. Tell us where you stand on Trump being indicted for what he has said and why. Tell us if you agree with a scenario where the appropriate law enforcement agencies are fearful of indicting Trump or they don't because they can't find a winning case.

And tell us about whether on Hillary lied about her handling of the e-mails and has something to worry about due to her actions at State or why she doesn't.

OR keep on kvetchin and piss and moan that I'm being a dictator.

BCC said:
And obviously I beat JH over the head and

Beat over the head? How Trumpinista of you.

[Edited to add]  I accurately quoted Mr. BCC's post above me, as it read before it was edited.

I have no idea what the post below this one means.

nohero said:

BCC said:
And obviously I beat JH over the head and

Beat over the head? How Trumpinista of you.

 You said one smart thing because you repeated what I had said.

Don't push your luck.

lol

BCC said:

nohero said:

BCC said:
And obviously I beat JH over the head and

Beat over the head? How Trumpinista of you.

 You said one smart thing because you repeated what I had said.

Don't push your luck.

Or what?

BCC said:

ridski said:

One notes that the 4th post in this thread was made by BCC, so by his own admission this thread was not about Trump and free speech until BCC posted about it, which is again typical for BCC. 

And you neglected to note, you were so busy kvetching about my posting habits, that the first 3 posts were about trump and the line where free speech ended.

As far as your endless kvetching why don't you just shut up and stop reading what I write, or why don't you actually join the conversation. Tell us where you stand on Trump being indicted for what he has said and why. Tell us if you agree with a scenario where the appropriate law enforcement agencies are fearful of indicting Trump or they don't because they can't find a winning case.

And tell us about whether on Hillary lied about her handling of the e-mails and has something to worry about due to her actions at State or why she doesn't.

OR keep on kvetchin and piss and moan that I'm being a dictator.

Okay. I was in Boston over the weekend with my wife and some friends enjoying the sights and complete lack of outdoor water features (other than the river of course). I've read the threads here, but skipped the news mostly because I was away and having a nice time. As Trump hasn't been indicted for anything I can't really formulate an opinion on that. Does Hillary things to worry about? I'm sure she does, and I've mentioned that before. Like you, I'm waiting until the final(?) Benghazi panel's report comes out so I can read what it says and I'm sure, just like you, my judgment will wait until then.

Satisfied?

There's a lovely fountain in the courtyard of the (Copley) Boston Public Library.

ridski said:

I'm waiting until the final(?) Benghazi panel's report comes out so I can read what it says

There is no such thing as a Final Benghazi panel. So far they have spend more than $20 Million on investigations by 10 Congressional committees (not counting the 7 prior congressional investigations).

There have been 32 hearings and 11 published reports, totaling 784 pages.

ZERO of them have found any administration wrongdoing.

But Hillary is still running for president!!! What should they do?! 

Easy, answer: FORM ANOTHER COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE IT AGAIN!!

EricH said:

There is no such thing as a Final Benghazi panel. So far they have spend more than $20 Million on investigations by 10 Congressional committees (not counting the 7 prior congressional investigations).

There have been 32 hearings and 11 published reports, totaling 784 pages.

ZERO of them have found any administration wrongdoing.

But Hillary is still running for president!!! What should they do?! 

Easy, answer: FORM ANOTHER COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE IT AGAIN!!

And BCC will find this to be a legitimate and totally captivating exercise of democracy.

RobB said:

There's a lovely fountain in the courtyard of the (Copley) Boston Public Library.

I know. It wasn't running yet.

That's not what we're talking about.

BCC

said:
You guess? 

In guessing you are accusing this sheriff of cowardice,

Nope, I'm accusing him of doing a risk analysis and making the choice that would cause the least harm to his community.  Sometimes you let a speeder go when the risk is that chasing him will cause harm to pedestrians.  These are good police decisions.

jeffhandy said:

LOST said:

 If any Sheriff or other law enforcement authority charged Trump with a crime for something he said at a rally it would almost guaranty his nomination. And he would have to decide whether to accept legal assistance from the ACLU. 

The other problem is that that Sheriff would then face a landslide of death threats on himself, his department and his family.  This is how those with rabid followers manage to get away with their barbaric comments.  As a Sheriff of a small region, I would think more than twice about facing the wrath of Trump's supporters nationwide.  The burden that it would place on that Sheriff department would be immense and would probably make everyday policing impossible.  I am guessing that this had a lot to do with charges not being filed.

If he was so concerned about his security he likely wouldn't have advertised the fact that he was looking into the possibility while on a local radio show. 

ctrzaska said:

If he was so concerned about his security he likely wouldn't have advertised the fact that he was looking into the possibility while on a local radio show. 

Or maybe something happened after the time that he announced it on the radio show.  Many people re-evaluate for many different reasons.

BCC said:

LOST said:

I am against the criminalization of Politics. In authoritarian countries losing political candidates end up in jail. 

I would probably favor immunity for any candidate for President during a Presidential Campaign. Unless a candidate personally hits someone or steals something he or she should not be charged with a crime.

I have said that an indictment of Hillary Clinton would make her more popular with her supporters. If any Sheriff or other law enforcement authority charged Trump with a crime for something he said at a rally it would almost guaranty his nomination. And he would have to decide whether to accept legal assistance from the ACLU. 

Hits someone or steals something it's OK to prosecute but indicted for mishandling state secrets, a felony, gets a pass. Are you serious?

Absolutely! Indicting the leading candidate for President who is the wife of a former President and the former Secretary of State, who is one of the most famous people in the world, unlike most of the other candidates who are unknowns sends a message that America is a Banana Republic.

"Mishandling state secrets"? What does that mean to the average person? And when it has something to do with computers that most people know hardly understand it becomes technical nerd-speak. 

How would most of us react if a candidate for President or PM in some other country was indicted for "mishandling State secrets" through his or her computer? We would laugh cynically.

Until someone reminded us of Nixon, of course.

jeffhandy said:

ctrzaska said:

If he was so concerned about his security he likely wouldn't have advertised the fact that he was looking into the possibility while on a local radio show. 

Or maybe something happened after the time that he announced it on the radio show.  Many people re-evaluate for many different reasons.

You are sinking deeper into your fantasy and have exactly no evidence to back it up.  The fact is,Trump has said the same crap in venues across nation that he said in NC and in doing so has crossed every line of moral, ethical, and decent, behavior . In none of those venues was he indicted.

That makes it clear that in crossing all those lines he has not crossed the line wherein he lost his free speech privilege and the Sheriff in NC had no case.

Time to move on.

mjh said:

EricH said:

There is no such thing as a Final Benghazi panel. So far they have spend more than $20 Million on investigations by 10 Congressional committees (not counting the 7 prior congressional investigations).

There have been 32 hearings and 11 published reports, totaling 784 pages.

ZERO of them have found any administration wrongdoing.

But Hillary is still running for president!!! What should they do?! 

Easy, answer: FORM ANOTHER COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE IT AGAIN!!

And BCC will find this to be a legitimate and totally captivating exercise of democracy.

So far you have put up 2 posts, both of which contributed exactly nothing to the conversation. All they contained were insults.

In the past you have been described as a 'dick'. It was an accurate description.

EricH said:

ridski said:

I'm waiting until the final(?) Benghazi panel's report comes out so I can read what it says

There is no such thing as a Final Benghazi panel. So far they have spend more than $20 Million on investigations by 10 Congressional committees (not counting the 7 prior congressional investigations).


There have been 32 hearings and 11 published reports, totaling 784 pages.


ZERO of them have found any administration wrongdoing.


But Hillary is still running for president!!! What should they do?! 

Easy, answer: FORM ANOTHER COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE IT AGAIN!!

There already is another committee. It's called the FBI and it is investigating her e-mails during the Benghazi disaster.

All i know is, if my IT guy gets transactional immunity, i start to worry.

Unless of course, my party runs the DOJ.

ridski said:

BCC said:

nohero said:

BCC said:
And obviously I beat JH over the head and

Beat over the head? How Trumpinista of you.

 You said one smart thing because you repeated what I had said.

Don't push your luck.

Or what?

BCC said:

ridski said:

One notes that the 4th post in this thread was made by BCC, so by his own admission this thread was not about Trump and free speech until BCC posted about it, which is again typical for BCC. 

And you neglected to note, you were so busy kvetching about my posting habits, that the first 3 posts were about trump and the line where free speech ended.

As far as your endless kvetching why don't you just shut up and stop reading what I write, or why don't you actually join the conversation. Tell us where you stand on Trump being indicted for what he has said and why. Tell us if you agree with a scenario where the appropriate law enforcement agencies are fearful of indicting Trump or they don't because they can't find a winning case.

And tell us about whether on Hillary lied about her handling of the e-mails and has something to worry about due to her actions at State or why she doesn't.

OR keep on kvetchin and piss and moan that I'm being a dictator.

Okay. I was in Boston over the weekend with my wife and some friends enjoying the sights and complete lack of outdoor water features (other than the river of course). I've read the threads here, but skipped the news mostly because I was away and having a nice time. As Trump hasn't been indicted for anything I can't really formulate an opinion on that. Does Hillary things to worry about? I'm sure she does, and I've mentioned that before. Like you, I'm waiting until the final(?) Benghazi panel's report comes out so I can read what it says and I'm sure, just like you, my judgment will wait until then.

Satisfied?

No.

Don't follow your logic in not being able to form an opinion.

BCC said:

EricH said:

ridski said:

I'm waiting until the final(?) Benghazi panel's report comes out so I can read what it says

There is no such thing as a Final Benghazi panel. So far they have spend more than $20 Million on investigations by 10 Congressional committees (not counting the 7 prior congressional investigations).

There have been 32 hearings and 11 published reports, totaling 784 pages.

ZERO of them have found any administration wrongdoing.

But Hillary is still running for president!!! What should they do?! 

Easy, answer: FORM ANOTHER COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE IT AGAIN!!

There already is another committee. It's called the FBI and it is investigating her e-mails during the Benghazi disaster.

The FBI isn't investigating the Benghazi communications.

BCC said:
You are sinking deeper into your fantasy and have exactly no evidence to back it up.  The fact is,Trump has said the same crap in venues across nation that he said in NC and in doing so has crossed every line of moral, ethical, and decent, behavior . In none of those venues was he indicted.

That makes it clear that in crossing all those lines he has not crossed the line wherein he lost his free speech privilege and the Sheriff in NC had no case.

Time to move on.

There is a difference between random Trump rantings in other venues, and those in one where someone was actually attacked and injured.  The latter circumstance was the basis for looking into whether criminal charges should be considered.

It'd be a riot if I don't win...

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump predicted on Wednesday that there would be "riots" if he does not secure the GOP nomination, given his lead among delegates.

"Once the battle is over, once the war is over, I think there really is a natural healing process," Trump said on CNN's "New Day," pointing to his business record. "I've gotten along very well with people."

"I think we'll win before getting to the convention. And if we're 20 votes short or if we're 100 short and we're at 1,100 and somebody else is at 500 or 400 ... I don't think you can say that we don't get it automatically."

"I think you'd have riots," Trump continued. "I'm representing ... many, many millions of people, in many cases first-time voters."

"I wouldn't lead it, but I think bad things would happen," Trump predicted, adding later, "After we win, I think a lot of feelings will be soothed."

Despite a strong performance Tuesday night winning several states and extending his delegate count, Trump is unlikely to finish with enough delegates to reach the 1,237 threshold before the party's convention in July.

If Trump continues to win at the pace he is now, he'd fall more than 100 delegates short, allowing rivals Ted Cruz and John Kasich to make a play for the nomination at a contested convention.

Cruz has predicted that he'd win the 1,237 delegates needed before the convention, and he currently places second in the overall delegate count, hoping to benefit from Marco Rubio's exit from the race Tuesday night.

thehill.com

Between the unseemly, and perhaps unlawful offer to.Ben Carson of a cabinet position in exchange for his endorsement; the exhortations to fans to punch people in the nose at rallies; the slimy, insulting language spoken publicly; the expressions of bigotry, Trump trumps Hillary's emails as a reason not to vote him in as President.

springgreen2 said:

Between the unseemly, and perhaps unlawful offer to.Ben Carson of a cabinet position in exchange for his endorsement; the exhortations to fans to punch people in the nose at rallies; the slimy, insulting language spoken publicly; the expressions of bigotry, Trump trumps Hillary's emails as a reason not to vote him in as President.

well, ALL that and the fact that Trump is ignorant of every issue, has no platform other than build a wall, and is obviously  a snake oil salesman of the highest order.