I would call this debate a draw as both candidates drew blood. Given that a draw goes to the defender Trump can tally this one as an ugly win, ugly being the operative word. It will not be enough to change the trajectory of this campaign especially after this weekends firestorm.
I'm going to defend Trump on this. He said he would appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary's emails. Hillary then said it was a good thing Trump was not in charge of the laws in the US, whereupon Trump shot back, "Because you'd be in jail!"
I pretty much agree with you. Trump "won" in that he improved on his low, low current standing by showing up and being competitive. He fumbled the early questions, gained strength and scored some points on the emails, then flubbed up the Syria question.
Hillary did not harm herself, but didn't really land any punches. Trump "wins", but only because the bar is set so low.
I find it odd how he wiped the floor with them yet still never really answered any question that was asked with any substance. All he did was deflect.
But he's done because his apology wasn't an apology and did him no favors with women. They ask him about the tape and he says it was lockerroom banter?[emoji57] And then still tries to lessen his culpability by talking about Bill Clinton and ISIS?
The problem with this is that the President has NO authority to appoint a special prosecutor. If Trump actually knew anything about the office (and our justice system), he wouldn't make such a threat.
And it was indeed a threat.
Her point was absolutely valid.
He had already threatened her with a special prosecutor. How could the follow up not be part of that threat?
A Special Prosecutor is appointed by the Attorney General, who is part of the Executive Branch of government, and serves at the pleasure of the President.
If a sitting president instructed his Attorney General to appoint a Special Prosecutor, the AG would do so if he wanted to keep his job.
The attorney general can appoint a special prosecutor. You can bet that if Trump is President he would be sure to get an AG that would investigate Clinton.
Yes, we know that. But the point was that, as a sitting President, he could order his AG to appoint a Special Prosecutor. As the AG is part of the Executive Branch, and thus works for the President, he could give such an order.
On the other hand, as there is a separation of powers in the US, and Congress, being part of the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch, does not serve at the pleasure of the President, but at the pleasure of the electorate of his/her home district or state, and thus cannot be given an order by a sitting President.
So, the objection that Trump could not appoint a Special Prosecutor is moot.
"I built a new retirement home in Texas." I never lifted a hammer or held a saw. I told somebody else to do it (and paid dearly for them to do so). Did I build a new home in Texas? Yes, of course I did. Did I do so directly or indirectly? Indirectly, obviously. Just as Trump could, indirectly, appoint a Special Prosecutor.
Au contraire. The AG serves at the pleasure of the President and the President has the authority to order the AG to appoint a Special Prosecutor. The AG can either do so or resign.