It's shocking to read some Chinese applauding "jail Hillary," - if you like dictator, why come here?
######
Taking a page straight out of the Kremlin political playbook, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump said that if elected he will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate, prosecute and jail his political opponent Hillary Clinton. The threat violates virtually every more of American politics and democracy hearkening to brutal dictatorships like Russia.
The threat came as part of his response on her so-called email scandal (a faux scandal in which Republicans in Congress have completely exonerated Clinton of any wrongdoing).
Trump said:
If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation. There has never been so many lies, so much exception.There has never been anything like it. We will have a special prosecutor. I go out and speak and the people of this country are furious. The long time workers at the FBI are furious. There has never been anything like this with emails. You get a subpoena and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails and acid wash them or bleach them. An expensive process. We will get a special prosecutor and look into it. You know what, people have been—their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you have done. You should be ashamed.
When allowed to respond, Clinton said:
Everything he said is absolutely false. It would be impossible to be fact checking Donald all the time. I would never get to talk and make lives better for people. Once again, go to Hillaryclinton.com. You can fact check Trump in realtime. Last time at the first debate we had millions of people fact checking and we will have millions more fact checking. It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.
To which Trump threatened, “Because you would be in jail.”
This is the point we’ve reached as a nation where a political candidate threatens – during an active election cycle – to jail his opposition.
Threatening to jail a political opponent who has not committed or been convicted of a crime is a direct assault on democracy, full stop. More frighteningly, it aligns with his earlier statements threatening to take other unconstitutional actions including gutting the First Amendment to censor the press.
Moreover, Putin actually engaged in this exact sort of political maneuver in Ukraine after installing a new president and having his political opponent jailed.
This is everything we feared about Donald Trump. His long history of trying to silence critics with lawsuits, his inability to let personal slights go, his pettiness: The nightmare scenario is that these would incline him to use the power of the presidency to forcibly silence his critics and opponents. That’s what is done by tin-pot dictators spanning the globe from North Korea to Zimbabwe. That’s what happens in countries where peaceful transitions of power are the exception, not the rule.
Donald Trump just threatened to bring that to America.
Once again Trump has shown us just how much he admires Putin. He admires him so much he’d turn the United States into a hard line dictatorship that jails political opposition – an act that would literally begin the dissolution of our democracy.
Federal prosecutors have enormous power, none greater than their unfettered ability to conduct criminal investigations and to pursue criminal charges. The decision to prosecute can destroy lives, even when charges are later dismissed or when a jury acquits the defendant. Even the existence of a criminal investigation and the threat of criminal prosecution can irreparably damage reputations.
For that reason, there are few principles more sacred to the rule of law than the understanding that we should never politicize criminal prosecution and never deploy criminal charges as a political weapon. It is shocking that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, both of whom were United States attorneys, have argued as surrogates for Mr. Trump that Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted. As former prosecutors, they know better.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/clinton-trump-second-debate-election-2016/vengeance
TJKCB 發表評論於
to be a rambling, swaggering bully. Listening to him for an hour and a half is like being hit on the head constantly by a rubber hammer — or listening to a classic tavern drunk, full of bluster and bluff, plentiful exclamations and very few facts. To saddle this barstool blatherer up with the full force of the greatest military in the history of the world is to beg for one of Mr. Trump’s favorite words: “disaster.” http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/clinton-trump-second-debate-election-2016/the-barroom-brawl-in-st-louis
根據第五條修正案的規定，被告不能作為證人，也不能利用被告的言論為被告自己定罪，所以被告說話可以盡可能少或拒絕回答問題，以免對自己不利。修正案是這樣陳述的：“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,”
回複 '阿留' 的評論 : What you claimed here was wrong, period.
雅美之途 發表評論於 2016-10-10 14:28:53
回複 '阿留' 的評論 : How can you say that "英語一句隻有一個主語，增加主語必須用分句、分號或句號。"? Please read this sentence that I copied from the web, there were certainly two subjects, one for the first half and another one for the second half of the sentence:
"As Donald Trump's campaign reels over tapes of the presidential candidate's sexually aggressive comments about women in 2005, the Republican nominee now trails Hillary Clinton by double digits among likely voters, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. "
Please add "a" here. Thanks. 我說“一句一個主語”有點不準確，但多個主語在同一句時確實需要用分句(clause)或者分號，不能逗號到底。
文以止戈 發表評論於 2016-10-10 14:15:50
好文章！
雅美之途 發表評論於 2016-10-10 14:13:56
Although I welcome diverse messages for the discussions here, but those posts with insulting words, phrases or sentences will be deleted immediately. I am very tolerant person. It's my obligation to clean up my backyard.
阿留 發表評論於 2016-10-10 14:08:58
Your English needs improvement. : ) You cannot use so many "," as you do in Chinese. Just a friendly reminder to save the reviewers/editors more time in the future.
雅美之途 發表評論於 2016-10-10 14:06:14
回複 '阿留' 的評論 : What you said here was not right at all: "英語一句隻有一個主語，增加主語必須用分句、分號或句號。"
I have given you a real example below. :) So clearly you haven't read it.
One cannot propose to enjail his/her political opponent only because of the differences in political views. However, one could propose to prosecute that person because of his/her crime. In this debate, it is the latter case.
At the Republican Convention many were shouting "Put her in jail". That's also freedom of speech. : )
回複 '阿留' 的評論 : Your understanding on fifth amendment was wrong, my interpretation was accurate.
Although they are not exactly the same between Trump's comments and double jeopardy, I was more focusing on Trump's behavior to abuse his potential executive power, this was exactly the founding fathers' intention to prevent from happening.
雅美之途 發表評論於 2016-10-10 12:55:26
回複 'comeback' 的評論 : You should do your homework before you put anything here: http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/donald-trump-threatens-jail-hillary-clinton/
Democrats and Republicans Agree: Donald Trump Was Wrong to Threaten Hillary Clinton With Jail
The rule for mistrials depends upon who sought the mistrial. If the defendant moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial, unless the prosecutor acted in "bad faith," i.e. goaded the defendant into moving for a mistrial because the government specifically wanted a mistrial.[77]
If the prosecutor moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial if the trial judge finds "manifest necessity" for granting the mistrial.[78] The same standard governs mistrials granted sua sponte.
Retrials are not common, due to the legal expenses to the government. However, in the mid-1980s Georgia antiques dealer James Arthur Williams was tried a record four times for the murder of Danny Hansford and (after three mistrials) was finally acquitted on the grounds of self-defense. The case is recounted in the book Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil which was adapted into a film directed by Clint Eastwood (the movie omits the first three murder trials).”
comeback 發表評論於 2016-10-10 12:45:54
川普說的"Because you'd be in jail",根據上下文來看，就是一虛擬語氣。作者就這一爛英文水平，還成天在這裏指點江山，自以為進入了主流社會
昨天晚上的辯論，那位Anderson Cooper的第一個問題居然就是讓川普交代十年前的那番“黃色”講話。看來民主黨的媒體認為總統最重要的資格是由他是否講色情決定的。果真如此，當年比爾 克林頓就應該因為做的遠超於川普說的而被彈劾了。可當初就是因為民主黨們的力保才使克林頓立於不倒。可見民主黨們並不認為這類行為應當影響做總統的資格。既然如此，何以今天他們對川普發難，僅僅因言就要取消川普做總統的資格。
輪到希拉裏講話時，上來就講：they go low，we go high。結果她立馬開始評論川普的講話，剛說了她要go high，分明就衝著川普的low去了。她對她的丈夫的low 並無深惡痛絕，非但不認為應當影響他做總統的資格，也不認為應當影響做她丈夫的資格，卻對川普言論如此難以容忍，分明是利益驅使的雙重標準。
It's shocking to read some Chinese applauding "jail Hillary," - if you like dictator, why come here?
######
Taking a page straight out of the Kremlin political playbook, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump said that if elected he will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate, prosecute and jail his political opponent Hillary Clinton. The threat violates virtually every more of American politics and democracy hearkening to brutal dictatorships like Russia.
The threat came as part of his response on her so-called email scandal (a faux scandal in which Republicans in Congress have completely exonerated Clinton of any wrongdoing).
Trump said:
If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation. There has never been so many lies, so much exception.There has never been anything like it. We will have a special prosecutor. I go out and speak and the people of this country are furious. The long time workers at the FBI are furious. There has never been anything like this with emails. You get a subpoena and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails and acid wash them or bleach them. An expensive process. We will get a special prosecutor and look into it. You know what, people have been—their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you have done. You should be ashamed.
When allowed to respond, Clinton said:
Everything he said is absolutely false. It would be impossible to be fact checking Donald all the time. I would never get to talk and make lives better for people. Once again, go to Hillaryclinton.com. You can fact check Trump in realtime. Last time at the first debate we had millions of people fact checking and we will have millions more fact checking. It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.
To which Trump threatened, “Because you would be in jail.”
This is the point we’ve reached as a nation where a political candidate threatens – during an active election cycle – to jail his opposition.
Threatening to jail a political opponent who has not committed or been convicted of a crime is a direct assault on democracy, full stop. More frighteningly, it aligns with his earlier statements threatening to take other unconstitutional actions including gutting the First Amendment to censor the press.
Moreover, Putin actually engaged in this exact sort of political maneuver in Ukraine after installing a new president and having his political opponent jailed.
This is everything we feared about Donald Trump. His long history of trying to silence critics with lawsuits, his inability to let personal slights go, his pettiness: The nightmare scenario is that these would incline him to use the power of the presidency to forcibly silence his critics and opponents. That’s what is done by tin-pot dictators spanning the globe from North Korea to Zimbabwe. That’s what happens in countries where peaceful transitions of power are the exception, not the rule.
Donald Trump just threatened to bring that to America.
Once again Trump has shown us just how much he admires Putin. He admires him so much he’d turn the United States into a hard line dictatorship that jails political opposition – an act that would literally begin the dissolution of our democracy.
