Forums / Fun! / Memeory Lane

Obama totally could have gotten Guantanamo shut down if he'd wanted. The President is the commander-in-chief of the military, so they have the final say on all military matters. If Obama ordered an immediate shutdown, no one could have stopped it but him.

I suspect what really stopped him was internal pressure from military higher-ups who are still convinced extrajudicial detention and torture are necessary to combat terrorism, which dissuaded him from making the order in the first place. Either that, or he really did lie though his teeth and never intended to shut it down.

I'm not 100% clear on how it works, but I am pretty certain the President needs Congressional consent to close the Guantanamo detention facility. It is, at the very least, a murky legal situation that would wind up in the Supreme Court.

Regardless, he has sped up the relocation of many detainees, including 16 yesterday to the UAE. There are about 60 detainees left at Guantanamo: 20 of them are eligible for transfer, and 10 are in some stage of military prosecution.

According to ABC a major impediment to relocating many of the others is the fact that Yemen is in the middle of a civil war, which means Yemeni detainees cannot be securely held there (and, by inference, no other country wants them). Since Congress is blocking their transfer to American soil, they have nowhere to go.

So even if Obama did close Guantanamo, the US would still have about 30 detainees who would need transferring to some other overseas US facility or base, such as Okinawa.

Primal Snickerway said:

If Obama ordered an immediate shutdown, no one could have stopped it but him.

He can close it down via executive order (just as Bush opened it via executive order), but the problem is what to do with the prisoners there. Congress passed a bill banning the transfer of prisoners to the US. It was part of an appropriations bill that passed with veto-proof majorities in both houses, so Obama couldn't do anything about it.

Unless he wants to seriously piss off Congress, risk legitimate impeachment proceedings, and screw up the election, he'll just let that campaign promise slip by the wayside while millions of Americans will continue to not use it as an example of why campaign promises are meaningless when not factoring in Congress--the ones who'd actually make sure those promises become fact.

@Snickerway

I get your point, but none of that excuses people for taking "We should try to experience every now and then what others live with 24/7" to mean "We should no longer be the majority in this country to atone for the evils people generations ago did". That's just poor comprehension.

We're getting close to another weekend and we all know what that means:

Clinton Foundation Hired Cyber Firm After Suspected Hacking

It could be that they actually still need it, and it has generated a net positive for our intelligence agencies, despite what the political rhetoric is.

Or, and it's just my suspicion, but you have a serious logistical problem when you have to shut down a facility that houses a large body of terrorist leaders, jihadists, etc, that would love to nothing more than to get out and tell everyone about the horrid evil injustices (no matter how conflated they'd be believed) that Americans have committed. This would become a recruitment boon for all kinds of organizations.

Trump is gaining some ground. Hillary's lead on August 9th was 7.9 points, according to the RCP average. She is now at a 5.7 point lead. In the 538 polls-only model, he was at 10.8% chance of winning on August August 14th. Now, he is at 14.2% chance of winning (they place significance at a 1% chance). In their polls-plus model, which takes into account economic and historical data, he was at 20.5% on August 8th. He's now at 24.8% chance. The NYTimes predictive models agree with 538's polls-only model, and show Trump a bit up from the past.

Huffpost Pollster suggests Trump's kinda stagnated where he is in the averages, but given the others I'm inclined to think they're an outlier.

Let's keep something in mind: While it seems that Clinton is winning, this is by no means a guarantee she will win. If Clinton had even a gigantic 90% chance, people would be pretty confident. This is illogical. 10% chances happen all the time, let alone 14% or even 25%.

Trump to follow same practices of immigration from the Obama and Bush administration, Backpedaling hard for the Hispanic vote

>"Donald Trump told Fox News on Monday he wants to have a “firm, but fair” stance on illegal immigration, amid signs the Republican presidential nominee may be rethinking his approach on the hot-button campaign issue.

Trump’s newly installed campaign team has suggested in recent days possible changes in the candidate’s tough immigration proposals. The nominee had been scheduled to deliver a speech on the topic Thursday in Colorado, but has postponed it.

In an interview Monday night on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” Trump said: "I just want to follow the law.”

"The first thing we're gonna do, if and when I win, is we're gonna get rid of all of the bad ones. We've got gang members, we have killers, we have a lot of bad people that have to get out of this country. We're gonna get them out," he said.

"As far as everybody else, we're going to go through the process," he said, while citing the policies of President Obama and former President George W. Bush as examples.

“I’m going to do the same thing. We’re going to do it in a humane manner,” Trump said, adding that the “bad ones” are known by law enforcement."

>"Even Sen. Jeff Sessions," a hard-liner on immigration, "he doesn't deport 11 million people in his plan," Conway said on CNBC.

Truly an art of the deal.

also

He may be moving toward the center on pieces of the issue, but Trump is not backing down on two key pieces of his immigration policy: the construction of a border wall and more stringent vetting of a smaller number of refugees. Where comparable, neither of those two positions align with either Obama or Bush. So it would more accurate to say Trump is aligning himself with pieces of both President's immigration policies. Or, alternatively, he is softening his wording to avoid having certain narratives used against him in the media. Maybe it is a bit of both.

As someone who believes the US immigration system is broken, those two positions are more important to me than deporting every single illegal immigrant, because as it is deportees can return with relative ease. The illegal immigrant who murdered Kate Steinle was deported five times, for example. Deportations are largely meaningless when the deported can return repeatedly or be replaced by other illegals.

That's not even anything different than he's been saying, he just said it less aggressively. Deport the illegal immigrant criminals immediately, deport the non-criminal illegals as our federal laws prescribe, and establish an actual border. Literally everything he's been saying from the start is what our immigration policy already was before Obama executive ordered ICE to start admitting them as refugees instead, and the ones who couldn't be passed off as refugees they give a court date and release into the country to go wherever they were going because they pinkie promised to appear at that court date. It would be unsurprising for that to look like immigration under Bush or even the first couple years of Obama before big biz immigration activists spent billions lobbying for open borders.

@Sandor

We'll see. Once his numbers drop even harder, don't be surprised when his wall and vetting is out of the picture as well when we're seeing polls in South Carolina of all places tie him with Clinton. He clearly will say anything to win just like her. It's been proven.

@lisa

Clearly that's inaccurate. Trump has now switched to keeping the law abiding undocumented immigrants in the country while only deporting the bad ones. Multiple officials in the article are saying that he's focusing getting the criminal immigrants out. HE EVEN SAID THAT OBAMA HAS DONE A TREMENDOUS JOB GETTING THE CRIMINALS OUT OF THE COUNTRY In the article's video! What's hilarious is that he isn't denying he will also be using the executive order ICE program Obama put in place as well!

{ Trump has now switched to keeping the law abiding undocumented immigrants in the country while only deporting the bad ones. }

Where does he say that? "As far as everybody else [non-criminal illegal immigrants], we’re going to go through the process." That would be the deportation process, not the "process of ignoring illegal immigrants and our federal border laws a la Obama" or whatever your despie lib brain interpreted it to mean.

{ Once his numbers drop even harder, }

errrmmm even some MSM polls (UPI/CVoter is the latest) have them tied nationally now, a mere week after declaring Hillary's "clear victory" according to the same polls. & he's still ahead by over 10% in internet polls with hundreds of thousands of voters, in comparison to the media polls 1000 random phone calls.

See ya at the polls in Nov- oh wait, you're a Democrat, so I wont.

>Trump uses different words to describe his stance on immigration
>People who know nothing about Trump beyond what their favorite late night talk show hosts tell them try to push it as "Drumpf is backpedaling XD"

Been seeing this everywhere today lol.

Which is why you should be skeptical of polls. Many of them are re-weighting results to reflect the 2012 voter turn out, which may be a mistake considering how primary turnout has changed since the last presidential election.

For example, a recent Monmouth poll of Ohio voters had Trump up 41-39 before respondent ratio of 33.3 Rep/29.3 Dem /35.6 Indep. After reweighting party affiliation to 29 Rep/33 Dem /37 Indep Clinton was up 43-49. When asked about this, the pollster claimed he re-weighted based on region, age, race, gender, and voting reg history when in actuality the data shows he re-weighted based on party affiliation.

It remains to be seen if the changes in primary voting carries over into the general election, but it is something to keep in mind when considering polls.

4Chan trolls Clinton's Alt-Right Speech with Rare Pepe Appearance:

The four debates will be moderated byNBC's Lester Holt, CNN's Anderson Cooper with ABC's Martha Raddatz, Fox news Chris Wallace and CBS's Elaine Quijano will moderate the VP debate. Can't wait to see how this turns out.

So, this is Donald Trump's campaign website – donaldjtrump.com.

This is where you sign up to campaign for Trump in a certain way – talk.donaldjtrump.com.

If you click "Non Disclosure Agreement" on that page, this opens.

Now that I set up that this is legit, let me quote two great parts of it. Emphasis mine.

During the term of your service and at all times thereafter you hereby promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly the Company, Mr. Trump, any Trump Company, any Family Member, or any Family Member Company or any asset any of the foregoing own, or product or service any of the foregoing offer, in each case by or in any of the Restricted Means and Contexts and to prevent your employees from doing so.

Did… did that just say if I sign up for this, to call people for Trump, I can never say anything bad about Trump, his family, his companies, any companies his family owns, any services or products his companies provide, or any services or products his family's companies provide, in public, forever?

What the heck?

Oh but here's another fun part. They go on to define family member:

"Family Member" means any member of Mr. Trump’s family, including, but not limited to, Mr. Trump’s spouse, each of Mr. Trump’s children and grandchildren and their respective spouses, including but not limited to Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric F. Trump and Ivanka M. Trump, Tiffany Trump, and Barron Trump, and their respective spouses, children and grandchildren, if any, and Mr. Trump’s siblings and their respective spouses and children, if any.

Ah yes, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Tiffany Trump, Barron Trump… and Mr. Trump's spouse.

Now, there are two ways I see to look at this. Either Trump doesn't put a lot of stock in sticking with his spouse, and thus this is set up to say "Whoever his spouse is right now, might not be Melania in the future, you can bash her if he divorces her", or Trump really doesn't give much of a damn about Melania.

Either way, it goes to show Trump is definitely the family man Evangelicals are looking for.

You also forgot to mention the part where if your boss signs that agreement, he's supposed to reprimand you if you criticize Trump.

If you can sort through that, from what I can tell, your boss, if he signs this non-disclosure agreement, is supposed to prevent you from saying anything negative about Trump in public, forever and ever. This includes drawings (political comics), television broadcasts, websites (sorry personal blog!), radio broadcasts, Facebook posts, Twitter tweets, letters that aren't meant to be private, essays, speeches, group discussions not considered private, etc.

It's a non-disparagement clause, they're pretty standard in post-termination paperwork, and Hillary Clinton's NDA undoubtedly has similar wording. This is not news.

The news is that the FBI released its investigation notes into Hillary's scandal. Here's a list of 26 times during the report where Hillary told the FBI she could not recall key information. She told the FBI she could not remember if she was given State training on how to preserve classified documents because she had fallen and suffered a concussion. But she signed paperwork stating that she did receive that training. She also told the FBI she thought the classified markings in the emails were ALPHABETICAL PARAGRAPH NOTATIONS even though they were all C. The report also reveals she frequently lost her old cell phone when she transitioned to a new one, and those she didn't lose her aides went to town on with hammers which infers they knew there could be sensitive information stored on them (and thus the ones she lost).

I've been searching on Hillary's website, and using Google through the site:website function, and I haven't found anything about a NDA on their website. Searching "site:donaldjtrump.com disclosure" brings up the NDA where I got all this on the fist page. Doing the same for Hillary Clinton's website, and going through all 5 pages of google search results. The only seemingly relevant result is the Terms of Service, which has no such disparagement clause. Maybe she's hiding it, in which case I'd really like someone to dig it up, but maybe she just doesn't have one.

Now, I'm not a legal expert by any means, but I do have the internet. I checked out a bunch of definitions, examples, and even read a some real non-disparagement clauses. While the forever and ever part isn't irregular, the part about preventing your employees from doing so is. Also, many include statements clarifying that telling the truth during a government investigation is allowed, and some include statements saying it works the other way around – they can't disparage you either.

So, not only does it appear more restrictive and less clear than regular non-disparagement clauses in general, it also allows Trump to shit talk you, and your employees, but you're not allowed to speak badly back, and you are supposed to try to prevent your employees from doing so.

Also, I don't remember seeing a single thing saying that you can't disparage the relatives, or the relatives' companies, in all that I read.

Also, I guess you just don't care about that part, but the phrasing relating to "Mr. Trump's spouse" still amuses me. My parents are heavily conservative Christian. My dad heavily supports Trump. As such, this kind of thing just amuses me for seeming pretty hypocritical.

Not that the Religious Right has a very good pick in this election, but still. How can a standard Religious Right Republican confidently stand behind Trump and go "Yeah, this guy believes what I believe"? He's a rich (easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to get into heaven), vulgar (let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers) man who's been married multiple times (but I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery). I could go on, but I think I made my point – fundamentalist/conservative interpretations of the Bible paint Trump to be far from the savior some I know are treating him as.

This is not news.

I still find it funny.

I WANT TO GET OFF MR GALLUP'S WILD RIDE!

Remember that whole thing about Ailes (former Fox CEO, current Trump adviser) sexually harassing workers at Fox? Well, things don't look too good for Ailes' appearance.

From Reuters:

Fox News will pay $20 million to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit by former anchor Gretchen Carlson, whose allegations led to the resignation of network chief Roger Ailes in July, a source familiar with the agreement said on Tuesday.

The company also settled with two other women who were part of a Fox-initiated investigation by the law firm Paul, Weiss, Wharton & Garrison, according to the source, who wished to remain anonymous.

The settlements come less than two months after Fox News' parent company, 21st Century Fox, hired Paul, Weiss to investigate claims against Ailes. During that investigation, more than two dozen women described harassment by Ailes, according to New York Magazine.

In a move that legal experts said was unusual, 21st Century Fox offered a public apology to Carlson, who filed suit against Ailes in July, saying he took her off a popular show and cut her pay because she refused to have a sexual relationship with him.

"We sincerely regret and apologize for the fact that Gretchen was not treated with the respect and dignity that she and all of our colleagues deserve," the company said.

Many have noted an apology is not normal for something like this. In this case, it's just short of an outright admission of guilt for all complaints.

By extension, this doesn't reflect well on Trump. Reminder that he said this:

“Some of the women that are complaining, I know how much he's helped them. Now all of a sudden, they are saying these horrible things about him; it's very sad because he's a very good person."

It seems that the only direction this election is going, is down. With every new story I am merely convinced further that both big candidates are crap. I don't particularly buy Gary Johnson's statement that his brain farted with Aleppo, and even then he was a weak candidate before. Jill Stein's unwillingness to obey the law and her anti-vax views make me think she's about as bad as all the others.

Options, in my eyes:

1. A corrupt, lying, manipulating woman who will probably vote for things I sorta kinda like ish (at least more than the others)
2. A serial lying misogynist who surrounds himself with people I never want anywhere near the political scene
3. Someone who doesn't know very much about anything important
4. Someone who can't even not vandalize shit and panders to anti-vaxxers

What did we do to deserve this?

Oh also, update on polls. Clinton's head ~3% rn and Trump's got ~30% in the 538 election forecast model, which is huge gains. Clinton used to have ~8% lead and Trump before at his lowest had 10% chance of winning in that model.

And then this happened.

From one of the first reports:

But, as a law enforcement source stationed about “15 feet away” from Clinton told Fox News’ Rick Leventhal, Clinton left the Lower Manhattan, N.Y. ceremony early due to what was being called an apparent “medical episode.”

[…] Clinton appeared to need assistance getting into the vehicle, Leventhal said, losing her shoe.

An aide grabbed the shoe as her van pulled away and gave it to the next vehicle in her motorcade.

A second source later confirmed the event to Leventhal […]

Physical problems tend to be popularity killers in an election, and she might have to step down if it was serious. November might be Kaine vs. Trump. We'll see what the doctors say tomorrow.

If Clinton could step down due to health problem and let Bernie replace her, that'd be great. If not, I'm excited to see Trump 2016.

Kaine vs. Trump would be a massacre; as unpopular as Trump is, he'd have no problem defeating a virtual literallywho like Kaine. Sanders vs. Trump would be a lot closer, but Sanders has lost popularity since he endorsed Clinton, so I'm not sure how it'd turn out.

Update: She's healthy enough to hold a presser. She's not answering questions about it but of course, she's a politician. Whatever happened didn't look good, but it wasn't a campaign killer.

I believe the law is if she drops, the nominee becomes Bernie since he is the only one left with delegate votes. So lets see how this plays out.

I disagree.
The suggestion that McCain could drop dead was a huge contributing factor in his defeat, actual footage of a candidate collapsing is a huge fucking deal!
In the UK Ed Miliband weirdly eating a bacon sandwich cost him an election, people want their leaders to appear healthy, strong and photogenic at all times.

Not sure about this. Sanders isn't even a member of the Democratic Party right now; he went back to being an Independent shortly after the convention. Plus we would have to look into DNC rules. If Sanders endorsement included his delegates, then he has nothing.

Whatever is wrong with her, it is rapidly getting worse. The official line is that she has allergies which have now turned into pneumonia.

If clinton drops out and a less blatantly corrupt politician takes her place trump would be a lot less likely to win.

This might be the moment america dodges the bullet that was the terrible choice.

It's funny reading Huffpost comments like "It's perfectly normal for a post-menopause woman to faint become overheated in 80 degree heat." I can just imagine President Clinton fainting any time she has an outdoor speech, meeting, fundraiser, etc. in summer. The Chinese wouldn't have to withhold airplane stairs to embarrass the president, they could just have the meeting out in the sun.

Basilius said:

I believe the law is if she drops, the nominee becomes Bernie…

There is no law that governs nominees. It would fall on the DNC to pick. Article 3, Section 1 of the DNC Bylaws states:

The Democratic National Committee shall have general responsibility for the affairs of the Democratic Party between National Conventions… This responsibility shall include, but not be limited to:
(a) Issuing the Call to the National Convention;
(b) Conducting the Party's Presidential Campaign;
(c.) Filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of the President and Vice President;

If I had to guess, I'd say they'd pick Kaine as he's already the VP candidate and so could pull the "I know what Clinton wanted and I'll do it" card. If Clinton is elected, but dies prior to being sworn in, then per the 20th Amendment, Kaine becomes acting President "until a President shall have qualified." That presumably means months and months of SCOTUS and Congressional clusterfucks.

I've heard they might pick Joe Biden.

If she dies or drops out, the Obama administration will suspend the election per the regulation that let's them do so to give the party time to put forth another acceptable candidate or however it's phrased. It would be unprecedented for a Presidential candidate to do either.

Meanwhile…

^ Wow, almost like her health wasn't a problem that needed to be talked about until, well, it actually became a problem.

I read the second article. He admits he said in the past or wasn't an issue. There's no hypocrisy, just human changing minds when new info comes up.

She's been falling over and taking multi-minute hacking breaks in the middle of speeches all year, she used her fall and concussion as an excuse for not remembering classified info training during an FBI deposition, she's recently been hiding a pneumonia diagnosis (probably isn't even the real diagnosis) that she tried to pass off as menopause while calling those who questioned her health sexist conspiracy theorists, but it's only just now becoming a problem for you after she half fainted and lost her shoes being literally dragged away by Secret Service after collapsing at a 9/11 memorial??

Yeah the human who has been ignoring all of Hillary's health crises, contributing to the narrative that anyone who questions her health is sexist, simply changed his mind now that her own doctor is forced to offer a real medical excuse for her publicly declining health. I'm calling Parkinson's.

^ That's a good point actually. If the campaign didn't try to defame everyone who brought up this issue before, it wouldn't be treated as the vindicative point it is now. Instead of simply calling them wrong about her health, they had to spin it so that you were wrong, and you hated the person for being a woman, and fearing the first woman president.

Makes it much harder to sympathize with a person changing their mind when they were so irrationally hard lined about it earlier.

… Well now that it's put like that, yeah, I think I get your point.

I haven't spent much time reading about Hillary's health as other things lately. Slow season for politics so my regular reading of various articles hasn't been happening.

One thing I find rather hypocritical about her argument is if she can't remember classified info training because of her fall and concussion, then how does that mean she's still competent enough to be president?
I mean what if she "forgets" where she put the nuclear football?

Off topic, but how do you change title, such as Pundit and Political Analyst. ?

I'm gonna post on your wall with an explanation. For future reference, avoid going off-topic in threads, please.

Kinda unrelated, but Huffpost is now projecting a 59% chance the GOP maintains control of the Senate. That'd be a big defeat for the Dems even if Clinton gets in--especially since the midterms would solidify things.

I'm not an american citizen, but after seeing #BasketOfDeplorables, I'd seriously vote for Trump. That's all.

out of curiosity can you point to me which regulation that is.

@Chewybunny
I don't think one exists. Title 3, Section 1 of the US Code says:

The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.

Section 2 suggests the individual state legislatures get to pick a backup date if there's an issue with doing it on Election Day:

Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

But, Section 7 sets a hard date for the Electoral College to vote:

The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.

(This was part of the reason SCOTUS had the emergency meeting for Bush v Gore. They had to settle the legal issue before the Electoral College met.)

If a civil war--and a President who was already teetering on authoritarianism--didn't suspend the election, nothing will.

Of course it exists, I don't randomly pull BS out of my ass like the rest of this forum.

It was a hot hypothetical topic in the politisphere after Hillary's last multi-minute coughing fit, about a week before she even before she admitted her pneumonia diagnosis! Here's a breakdown of ways the election could technically be suspended/postponed, and how each party's rules say they should deal with a nominees death.

More Guccifer 2.0 dumps.

The most recent leak includes information about the DNC's finances, donors' personal contact information and the DNC's network infrastructure, according to CNN. The leak also includes vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine's cell phone number and the contact information for several top White House officials, NBC News reported. No emails appear to have been included.

Brazile also urged caution for anyone attempting to download the documents "given the potential malware risks."

Lol.

Brazile was not only convinced of a Russian role in Tuesday's leak, but she also indicated that Republican nominee Donald Trump deserved some of the blame.

"There's one person who stands to benefit from these criminal acts, and that's Donald Trump," Brazile said. "Not only has Trump embraced Putin, he publicly encouraged further Russian espionage to help his campaign. Like so many of the words Trump has uttered this election season, his statements encouraging cybercrime are dangerous, divisive, and unprecedented."

In July, Trump said, "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," in reference to emails from former secretary of State Clinton's private server. Many took the comment as an invitation for Russia to hack Clinton.

Brazile promised to tighten the DNC's information security and to "cooperate with law enforcement authorities so that those responsible for this crime can be held accountable."

From the other link…

The cache also includes purported memos on tech initiatives from Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine’s time as governor of Virginia, and some years-old missives on redistricting efforts and DNC donor outreach strategy.

She said the DNC legal team is reviewing the documents to confirm their authenticity, and warned that "it is common for Russian hackers to forge documents."

The file name included NGP VAN, a leading software firm used by Democrats, leading to speculation that the documents perhaps came from the data analytics firm.

Guccifer 2.0 had previously claimed that he was able to hack into the DNC through NGP VAN.

NGP VAN referred to a blog post from security firm ThreatConnect that concluded the DNC was not hacked through NGP VAN.

Despite anemic book sales the official Clinton Campaign publication is providing some Amazon Review Entertainment

"I'd write a bad review but I don't want to die in a car crash or commit suicide by shooting myself in the head twice"

"This book alternated from being incredibly safe and boring to getting all hot and bothered such that I nearly passed out into a getaway car. A must read for others like me that have basically given up on life."

"Regrettably this book does not contain any information about the defining event of Hillary Clinton’s life: the doomed struggle against a cartoon frog which marked her descent into madness and decrepitude."

"Spoiler alert--the title refers to her technique of getting into vans."

"I was pretty disappointed with this book. When the subject of the book is one of greatest criminals in American history I was really hoping for more.

Anyone can be a criminal, but how do you become the GREATEST criminal? that is what readers really want to know.

A step-by-step guide on how to monetize political influence, how to flaunt criminal behavior and even daringly project ones own criminal behavior onto other people -- specifically other political opponents -- is what I, and I think I can speak for everyone, would really want from Hillary.

For example, How do I get the head of the FBI to conjure up non-existent legal standards for my law breaking? What kind of dirt do I need on the FBI for the head of the organization to lie under oath about the need for "intent" to mishandle classified information when an intent requirement is nowhere to be found for this law? Furthermore, how do I get the FBI director to look the other way from the obvious intent of setting up the server in the first place, telling staffers to remove classified headings, telling the company monitoring my server to use bleachbit to delete all the emails AFTER getting a subpoena? This is truly groundbreaking criminal excellence that needs to be explained and shared. Hillary claims to be about fairness so her keeping all these tips to herself isn't very "fair" to the rest of us aspiring criminals.

How about a step-by-step explanation for how I can project my illegal dealings with the Russians into a negative narrative for my political opponent? Hillary was able to sell 25% of an American strategic mineral (uranium) while coincidentally receiving a large donation to her foundation from people associated to the deal and the Russian company purchasing the large stake of US uranium, but that is not all! Hillary's husband went to Russia to give an AMAZING speech at a russian gov owned bank, I don't really know if it was amazing but I imagine it had to be for them to be willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 45-90 min speech wink wink. Yet despite all this obviously nefarious and clearly dangerous for US Nat security behavior Hillary has successfully been able to shift her Russian ties onto her political opponent, another incredible feat!

How is it done?

How can we do it?

5 stars when I can get those answers!"

Florida Congress candidate Charlie Crist (D) says he's voting for Hillary Clinton because "she's honest" during a debate… which drew gasps, jeers, and laughs from the crowd.

Watch his face