[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 21 NEXT
 

Schadrach:

Saelune:
It is corrupt because Republicans refuse to go against Trump.

Republicans as a party tend to strongly value party loyalty, moreso than Democrats. It's really the only reason they're a political threat in some places, because you can rely on them to come out and consistently vote for the party, pretty much regardless of what the party is doing or who's running under it. That's not exactly a positive quality, but it's an effective one.

Saelune:
The Electoral College was created to defend slavery and promote the power of slave states so that slaves could count without getting representation, which goes in the face of the supposed reason we revolted in the first place!

You've done this before, you're confusing the Electoral College and the 3/5 compromise. The 3/5 compromise was created to increase the effective population of slave states despite those slaves not having the rights of citizens. Slave states wanted them to count, other states did not, and the 3/5 compromise was the agreement that both were willing to go along with rather than risk splintering into at least two smaller nations immediately after the revolution.

The Electoral College was designed to both 1) make running the presidential election feasible at the time and 2) also prevent the largest population centers from concentrating too much power, and thus functionally ruling the country (this being necessary to get the smaller states to agree to membership in the first place). In fact early on it tamped down on the influence of Virginia in the same ways and for the same reasons it does California now and acted to benefit places like Rhode Island and Delaware for the same reasons it benefits Wyoming now. Which would suggest the actual opposite of your position, as the largest population states (like Virginia) also tended to have the largest slave populations and the largest economic reasons to persist the institution of slavery.

It's a thing I see you do pretty often, it's basically the "basket of deplorables" problem, wherein you take things you disagree with and just clump them together and pretend all are the same thing and there's no reason to give it any further though or consideration. It's why I'm deemed a Trump supporter by you because (despite openly agreeing he's a shitty president, albeit one legally elected according to the rules set forth and thus the one we're stuck with at least until the end of his term unless someone reveals serious proof of an impeachable offense).

Saelune:
So you do not deny being a Trump supporter? Good to know. I tire of people defending Trump all the time but complaining when I point it out.

Oh, I certainly deny being a Trump supporter, you just tend to attack him on incredibly poor grounds, most of the time. You confuse disagreeing with your arguments with supporting the guy you're attacking.

It would be like if I looked at your response to the accusation made against Neil deGrasse Tyson a while back and just said you were a rape supporter because you weren't demanding his career be immediately ended based on the accusation alone. Though I've gotten tired of repeating it, when Kavanaugh comes up I've pointed out time and again that SCOTUS justices are not immune to the law, and even pointed out the correct jurisdiction to investigate Ford's claims and that to date she has made no complaint to them and that prevents them from going anywhere with it. If Ford really wanted justice, that is who she needs to talk to to get the investigation in motion, but "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high bar.

Republicans are what they support. It is not wrong to criticize people of a political party for supporting their leaders when their leaders are terrible.

Both are there for the sake of abusing the slave population to count while not giving them their right to representation. There is no defense of slavery. The 3/5th compromise was a moral failing, the electoral college was and still is a moral failing disguised as 'state rights' BS.

If you aren't a Trump supporter, stop supporting him. You have done nothing but support Trump these last pages.

Trump is a racist, sexist, rapist and child killer. Those are not poor grounds. Even without all those things, he is also just flat out BAD AT HIS JOB.

Saelune:

Both are there for the sake of abusing the slave population to count while not giving them their right to representation. There is no defense of slavery. The 3/5th compromise was a moral failing, the electoral college was and still is a moral failing disguised as 'state rights' BS.

Yes, clearly something that tamps down the power of the largest states and reinforces that of the smallest is there to abuse the slave population in the fashion you describe despite the result doing exactly the opposite and depressing the power of the largest slave states when it was put into effect. The only way to even argue your position is to ignore entirely that the largest populations of slaves were also in generally the largest states already (like Virginia) as opposed to the states that actually had more relative legislative and electoral power per citizen (like Rhode Island) as a result of it.

You can't argue that something was designed to benefit the states that engaged in the most slavery while it also actually reduced the power of same. You're literally trying to make the Electoral College about slavery so that you can make an ill conceived moral argument against its existence and argue anyone who doesn't agree with you on that is defending slavery. It's ridiculous.

Saelune:
Trump is a racist, sexist, rapist and child killer. Those are not poor grounds. Even without all those things, he is also just flat out BAD AT HIS JOB.

I'll agree with you he's not a good president. If you'll notice all the times I've argued with you about it it's been things like "continuing a policy from the previous administration makes Trump uniquely evil" or "he said something stupid in what he thought was private before even running" or "impeaching the president should automatically impeach the vp" or "we don't know what will happen because we've never impeached before" or that sort of thing. Or when you defend "punching Nazis" (read: left wing violence) while ignoring that it in practice is often unnecessary or mistargeted ("Are you proud?").

Schadrach:
Or when you defend "punching Nazis" (read: left wing violence)

To be fair, "punching Nazis" qualifies as left, centre, and moderate right wing violence.

Frankly, the moderate right could well do plenty more Nazi punching, because at the moment the right seems interested in making itself sound more Nazi in order to win over the xenophobic nationalist demographic.

Agema:

Schadrach:
Or when you defend "punching Nazis" (read: left wing violence)

To be fair, "punching Nazis" qualifies as left, centre, and moderate right wing violence.

Frankly, the moderate right could well do plenty more Nazi punching, because at the moment the right seems interested in making itself sound more Nazi in order to win over the xenophobic nationalist demographic.

Right, except it's often mistargeted or targeted at people who aren't extreme enough to justify any kind of violence. Because "punching Nazis" these days includes anyone in a MAGA hat, right-wingers (even far right wingers) who are peacefully protesting, anyone in a generic red baseball cap who happens to be in the wrong place and approached from behind, anyone who doesn't understand what you're getting at when you ask them "Are you proud?" (including one case where it was a Marine - you know "the few, the proud"?), etc - then we just pretend like they're only attacking dangerously violent extreme right folks in self defense because of course we do.

Schadrach:

Right, except it's often mistargeted or targeted at people who aren't extreme enough to justify any kind of violence. Because "punching Nazis" these days includes anyone in a MAGA hat, right-wingers (even far right wingers) who are peacefully protesting, anyone in a generic red baseball cap who happens to be in the wrong place and approached from behind, anyone who doesn't understand what you're getting at when you ask them "Are you proud?" (including one case where it was a Marine - you know "the few, the proud"?), etc - then we just pretend like they're only attacking dangerously violent extreme right folks in self defense because of course we do.

Yeah well, people in MAGA hats aren't exactly shy of a bit of political violence themselves, are they?

And it's not just ordinary right-wing citizens, but also high ranking right-wing politicians, both of whom do so with the approval of the right-wing president. So you'll just have to accept that making a big deal about political violence from the left is especially feeble at the moment.

I'm actually fairly sanguine about much of it: politics generates strong feelings and a spot of low level political violence - the odd tussle or punch - is par for the course, and not really worth that much comment as long as it's sparse and without serious injury. Violence from elected officials, though, is pretty bad. And encouragement of either from the national leader is abominable, especially when someone's murdered and his salient description of the group the killer came from was "fine people".

Now we all know Trump's a bullying braggart with little conception of good conduct so we can hardly expect him to do the right thing, but we might expect Republican senators and congressmen to take a much stronger line. Oh well! Turns out just a handful of weak sauce mumbles of disapproval for appearances sake, before they quickly bury it and back him to the hilt everywhere it matters. Turns out it's not a big deal as long as the votes roll in.

I guess everyone is busy reading the report then?

Haven't had the chance to read more than excerpts of it just yet, but for anyone interested, the report can be read here. From what I have read, however, it definitely feels more damning than Barr's memo implied. For instance, the characterization of the Trump Tower meeting reads very much like the meeting was, in fact, illegal, but there would be difficulties in proving it beyond reasonable doubt due to difficulties in establishing that the team knew it was unlawful and did it anyway ("knowing and willful" being the operative terms), and difficulties in proving that the value of the promised information exceeded a specific threshold (owing to lack of precedence, it sounds like). So less "they didn't do anything wrong" and more "they did something wrong, but they'll just plead ignorance".

As I said though, I have not had time to read the full report yet, and I welcome the input of those with a stronger legal background.

Asita:
Haven't had the chance to read more than excerpts of it just yet, but for anyone interested, the report can be read here. From what I have read, however, it definitely feels more damning than Barr's memo implied. For instance, the characterization of the Trump Tower meeting reads very much like the meeting was, in fact, illegal, but there would be difficulties in proving it beyond reasonable doubt due to difficulties in establishing that the team knew it was unlawful and did it anyway ("knowing and willful" being the operative terms), and difficulties in proving that the value of the promised information exceeded a specific threshold (owing to lack of precedence, it sounds like). So less "they didn't do anything wrong" and more "they did something wrong, but they'll just plead ignorance".

As I said though, I have not had time to read the full report yet, and I welcome the input of those with a stronger legal background.

I've read through a lot of it. Barr definitely underplayed its severity, though truthfully it doesn't really bring up anything that hasn't been brought up before. Just more or less confirms it. I think the biggest take away is that it shows is just how stupid things really are behind the scenes.

The best way to describe it is Mueller went in looking to find a smoking gun tied to Trump, but instead found a gun that was used like a ninja star tied to him. Thrown with the intent to kill, but not quite getting the job done because Trump has no fucking clue how a gun works.

Asita:
Haven't had the chance to read more than excerpts of it just yet, but for anyone interested, the report can be read here. From what I have read, however, it definitely feels more damning than Barr's memo implied.

It's a lot more damning than Barr's memo, but it doesn't really matter.

It's just another a stone on the already mountain-sized pile indicating that Trump is at best an ignorant and amoral bull in a china shop. However material that would have sunk just about every other president postwar doesn't really seem to touch him.

Scarytown:

Asita:
Haven't had the chance to read more than excerpts of it just yet, but for anyone interested, the report can be read here. From what I have read, however, it definitely feels more damning than Barr's memo implied. For instance, the characterization of the Trump Tower meeting reads very much like the meeting was, in fact, illegal, but there would be difficulties in proving it beyond reasonable doubt due to difficulties in establishing that the team knew it was unlawful and did it anyway ("knowing and willful" being the operative terms), and difficulties in proving that the value of the promised information exceeded a specific threshold (owing to lack of precedence, it sounds like). So less "they didn't do anything wrong" and more "they did something wrong, but they'll just plead ignorance".

As I said though, I have not had time to read the full report yet, and I welcome the input of those with a stronger legal background.

I've read through a lot of it. Barr definitely underplayed its severity, though truthfully it doesn't really bring up anything that hasn't been brought up before. Just more or less confirms it. I think the biggest take away is that it shows is just how stupid things really are behind the scenes.

The best way to describe it is Mueller went in looking to find a smoking gun tied to Trump, but instead found a gun that was used like a ninja star tied to him. Thrown with the intent to kill, but not quite getting the job done because Trump has no fucking clue how a gun works.

From what I have read thus far, all it would really take to charge Trump would be to subpoena him to testify and make him answer the unanswered questions and due to what he has already stated publicly repeatedly he would incriminate himself if he said it under oath. While it is difficult to subpoena him while in office, this can be easily done once he is out of office and forfeits executive privilege. He can still be charged once he is out of office regardless. Mueller pretty much set it up for Congress to go further if they choose to do so, not actually ruled anything out.

Schadrach:

Saelune:

Both are there for the sake of abusing the slave population to count while not giving them their right to representation. There is no defense of slavery. The 3/5th compromise was a moral failing, the electoral college was and still is a moral failing disguised as 'state rights' BS.

Yes, clearly something that tamps down the power of the largest states and reinforces that of the smallest is there to abuse the slave population in the fashion you describe despite the result doing exactly the opposite and depressing the power of the largest slave states when it was put into effect. The only way to even argue your position is to ignore entirely that the largest populations of slaves were also in generally the largest states already (like Virginia) as opposed to the states that actually had more relative legislative and electoral power per citizen (like Rhode Island) as a result of it.

You can't argue that something was designed to benefit the states that engaged in the most slavery while it also actually reduced the power of same. You're literally trying to make the Electoral College about slavery so that you can make an ill conceived moral argument against its existence and argue anyone who doesn't agree with you on that is defending slavery. It's ridiculous.

Saelune:
Trump is a racist, sexist, rapist and child killer. Those are not poor grounds. Even without all those things, he is also just flat out BAD AT HIS JOB.

I'll agree with you he's not a good president. If you'll notice all the times I've argued with you about it it's been things like "continuing a policy from the previous administration makes Trump uniquely evil" or "he said something stupid in what he thought was private before even running" or "impeaching the president should automatically impeach the vp" or "we don't know what will happen because we've never impeached before" or that sort of thing. Or when you defend "punching Nazis" (read: left wing violence) while ignoring that it in practice is often unnecessary or mistargeted ("Are you proud?").

I am doing that thing where I get caught up in irrelevant things. The EC is bad, if even just for its opposition to Democracy.

Trump corrupting something is on Trump. You want to blame Obama for Trump's faults.

That this version of the report is the one that is supposed to defend Trump is really damning consider how poorly it defends him.

'Wait and see', remember that bullshit? 3+ years of waiting and seeing how we were right about Trump the whole damn time.

Scarytown:
Thrown with the intent to kill, but not quite getting the job done because Trump has no fucking clue how a gun works.

I'd say it's more that someone, or several someones, on Trump's team took the bullets out of said gun. From what I've read, at least one person on team Trump refused to carry out illegal orders.

Dems right now:

This issue is very partisan, which is why it seems like the Democrats misusing resources to pin the President because he was from the wrong party... Even with the Democrats using trumped up reasons to investigate Trump (Leaked dossier from the intelligence community, it had damning evidence against Trump, etc. etc.) at the end Mueller couldn't convict Trump for what he was sent to do...

You can continue this crusade, or you can win the next elections. In my opinion it is mutually exclusive. Divert attention away from Trump and Russia and into getting a solid candidate for the next general elections... Otherwise the socialist wing of the Democrats gets the reigns and you've forfeit the elections, again. Last time the Democrats ran on, um... being a woman, and progressiveness... Didn't convince most of the country, which was suffering from the lack of manufacturing and gathering (is that the correct word? Mining, deforestation, etc.) jobs... You can't raise the minimum wage for cafe baristas and then not be able to produce steel because it's too expensive to employ Americans in that industry...

I haven't even started with the opium addictions... Jesus, China fell because of drugs... A hundreds year old Empire, because its people got too high to even fight their invaders.

twistedmic:

Scarytown:
Thrown with the intent to kill, but not quite getting the job done because Trump has no fucking clue how a gun works.

I'd say it's more that someone, or several someones, on Trump's team took the bullets out of said gun. From what I've read, at least one person on team Trump refused to carry out illegal orders.

That is also the reason his Homeland Security team just quit. Trump expects people to break the law for him.

TheIronRuler:
This issue is very partisan, which is why it seems like the Democrats misusing resources to pin the President because he was from the wrong party... Even with the Democrats using trumped up reasons to investigate Trump (Leaked dossier from the intelligence community, it had damning evidence against Trump, etc. etc.) at the end Mueller couldn't convict Trump for what he was sent to do...

You can continue this crusade, or you can win the next elections. In my opinion it is mutually exclusive. Divert attention away from Trump and Russia and into getting a solid candidate for the next general elections... Otherwise the socialist wing of the Democrats gets the reigns and you've forfeit the elections, again. Last time the Democrats ran on, um... being a woman, and progressiveness... Didn't convince most of the country, which was suffering from the lack of manufacturing and gathering (is that the correct word? Mining, deforestation, etc.) jobs... You can't raise the minimum wage for cafe baristas and then not be able to produce steel because it's too expensive to employ Americans in that industry...

I haven't even started with the opium addictions... Jesus, China fell because of drugs... A hundreds year old Empire, because its people got too high to even fight their invaders.

Hillary got more votes.

TheIronRuler:
This issue is very partisan, which is why it seems like the Democrats misusing resources to pin the President because he was from the wrong party... Even with the Democrats using trumped up reasons to investigate Trump (Leaked dossier from the intelligence community, it had damning evidence against Trump, etc. etc.) at the end Mueller couldn't convict Trump for what he was sent to do...

You can continue this crusade, or you can win the next elections. In my opinion it is mutually exclusive. Divert attention away from Trump and Russia and into getting a solid candidate for the next general elections... Otherwise the socialist wing of the Democrats gets the reigns and you've forfeit the elections, again. Last time the Democrats ran on, um... being a woman, and progressiveness... Didn't convince most of the country, which was suffering from the lack of manufacturing and gathering (is that the correct word? Mining, deforestation, etc.) jobs... You can't raise the minimum wage for cafe baristas and then not be able to produce steel because it's too expensive to employ Americans in that industry...

I haven't even started with the opium addictions... Jesus, China fell because of drugs... A hundreds year old Empire, because its people got too high to even fight their invaders.

Party has nothing to do with it, put the koolaid down and think about this for a minute. Mueller and Comey are both REPUBLICANS. Most of the FBI that Trump has been attacking are republicans. Even Jeff Sessions is a republican.If Trump is impeached, Pence takes his place, not a democrat. " socialists" in congress have 0 power, and are very small in number. Most Democrats are not even remotely socialists. Currently most of congress is made up of conservative democrats and conservative republicans. Research each and every one of them and you would see this for yourself. I have no idea why you have been railing against socialists and spouting mindless propaganda about US politics that does not even remotely make sense, it doesn't even sound like the you I knew tbh, sounds like you just got out of a GOP talk radio brainwashing session.

Reality:
1) More US citizens voted for Clinton than did for Trump. Almost 3 million more.
2)Steel workers already make more than minimum wage.
3)Modern manufacturing does not employ the number of people it used to due to automation.
4)Clinton is not a progressive. She literally was the senator representing wall street's district.
5)The family responsible for the Opium addiction are Republican, and have spent a lot of money on the GOP.
6)It was already proven that the Dossier was not even what started the investigation.
7)Whatever news is telling you this stuff is true is nonsense and you need a new news source.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/dossier-not-what-started-all-of-this/

I miss when you actually talked about the issues and facts and not rile on about socialists, and other made up nonsense. The stuff you have been going on about lately sounds so crazy. I am not even sure why you would believe Trump on anything.. ever. He is a proven pathological Liar.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/04/president-trump-has-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/?noredirect=on
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

I know this is off-topic, but can anyone explain how someone(Trump Jr.) can be too stupid to break the law? Like, if attempted Murder is a thing, how is Attempted Conspiracy not a thing?
I know Stupid is hyperbolic, but the jist is that trump jr was too ignorant of election laws to knowingly violate them, when he violated them. So...excuse me?

Silentpony:
I know this is off-topic, but can anyone explain how someone(Trump Jr.) can be too stupid to break the law? Like, if attempted Murder is a thing, how is Attempted Conspiracy not a thing?
I know Stupid is hyperbolic, but the jist is that trump jr was too ignorant of election laws to knowingly violate them, when he violated them. So...excuse me?

That's just how it is for influential enough people. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse (unless you're rich)."

A bit surprising to read this from CNN of all places.

So much could improve if American leadership could focus on actually leading vs misleading.

crimson5pheonix:

Silentpony:
I know this is off-topic, but can anyone explain how someone(Trump Jr.) can be too stupid to break the law? Like, if attempted Murder is a thing, how is Attempted Conspiracy not a thing?
I know Stupid is hyperbolic, but the jist is that trump jr was too ignorant of election laws to knowingly violate them, when he violated them. So...excuse me?

That's just how it is for influential enough people. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse (unless you're rich)."

Yeah but why would Mueller care? That's lawyer/judge shit, payoffs and the like. He's a cop, for lack of a better term. Being rich=no laws isn't law, its practice from lawyering up. There is no law, that I know of, that says 'Being rich means laws don't apply' otherwise why are Hollywood moms being taken to jail?

Silentpony:

crimson5pheonix:

Silentpony:
I know this is off-topic, but can anyone explain how someone(Trump Jr.) can be too stupid to break the law? Like, if attempted Murder is a thing, how is Attempted Conspiracy not a thing?
I know Stupid is hyperbolic, but the jist is that trump jr was too ignorant of election laws to knowingly violate them, when he violated them. So...excuse me?

That's just how it is for influential enough people. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse (unless you're rich)."

Yeah but why would Mueller care? That's lawyer/judge shit, payoffs and the like. He's a cop, for lack of a better term. Being rich=no laws isn't law, its practice from lawyering up. There is no law, that I know of, that says 'Being rich means laws don't apply' otherwise why are Hollywood moms being taken to jail?

Because that's funny. As for this, it's exactly what happened with Hillary before. The investigation into her showed she broke the law, but she got off with "she didn't know the law was being broken" or some such nonsense.

crimson5pheonix:

Silentpony:

crimson5pheonix:

That's just how it is for influential enough people. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse (unless you're rich)."

Yeah but why would Mueller care? That's lawyer/judge shit, payoffs and the like. He's a cop, for lack of a better term. Being rich=no laws isn't law, its practice from lawyering up. There is no law, that I know of, that says 'Being rich means laws don't apply' otherwise why are Hollywood moms being taken to jail?

Because that's funny. As for this, it's exactly what happened with Hillary before. The investigation into her showed she broke the law, but she got off with "she didn't know the law was being broken" or some such nonsense.

The investigation showed she didn't break the law, that she was perhaps careless, but not criminal. Besides, the Trump family has done the same stuff she has.

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Silentpony:
Yeah but why would Mueller care? That's lawyer/judge shit, payoffs and the like. He's a cop, for lack of a better term. Being rich=no laws isn't law, its practice from lawyering up. There is no law, that I know of, that says 'Being rich means laws don't apply' otherwise why are Hollywood moms being taken to jail?

Because that's funny. As for this, it's exactly what happened with Hillary before. The investigation into her showed she broke the law, but she got off with "she didn't know the law was being broken" or some such nonsense.

The investigation showed she didn't break the law, that she was perhaps careless, but not criminal. Besides, the Trump family has done the same stuff she has.

Trump and his lot have done far worse than Hillary has ever done in terms of email, phones and cyber security. Don't you remember shortly after taking office he fired the guy who was trying to secure his phone because he didn't want to be told what he could and could not do with his phone and NEVER REPLACED HIM. He just fired the guy responsible and didn't hire another person to handle the job. In addition to not only using his personal unsecured phone and email, his family has done so as well. He seems to think that if he fires all the people responsible for cyber security, then he won't have anyone to tell people about how unsecure all the shat they are doing is. He just fires people and eliminates the role all together.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-white-house-secure-cell-phone-twitter-hack-iphone-hillary-clinton-a8362736.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/413044-china-and-russia-listen-in-on-trumps-phone-calls-nyt
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/trump-phone-security-risk-hackers-601903
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/04/trump-cybersecurity-leader-vulnerable-622813
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/donald-trump-security-cyberattacks-leaks-234973
https://qz.com/984309/a-list-of-the-donald-trump-administrations-security-breaches-so-far/
https://www.itgovernanceusa.com/blog/trump-fires-white-house-ciso
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/u-s-officials-concerned-trump-discussing-sensitive-information-unsecured-cellphone-n924376
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/20/669460336/ivanka-trump-reportedly-used-personal-email-account-for-official-white-house-bus

People were going on about how Hillary used a private email server, when that was far more secure than Powell using something as ridiculously insecure as AOL. Hell if Hillary hadn't used her private email server that was physically protected by secret service, Russia would have been far more successful at gaining access.

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Silentpony:
Yeah but why would Mueller care? That's lawyer/judge shit, payoffs and the like. He's a cop, for lack of a better term. Being rich=no laws isn't law, its practice from lawyering up. There is no law, that I know of, that says 'Being rich means laws don't apply' otherwise why are Hollywood moms being taken to jail?

Because that's funny. As for this, it's exactly what happened with Hillary before. The investigation into her showed she broke the law, but she got off with "she didn't know the law was being broken" or some such nonsense.

The investigation showed she didn't break the law, that she was perhaps careless, but not criminal. Besides, the Trump family has done the same stuff she has.

Lil devils x:

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Because that's funny. As for this, it's exactly what happened with Hillary before. The investigation into her showed she broke the law, but she got off with "she didn't know the law was being broken" or some such nonsense.

The investigation showed she didn't break the law, that she was perhaps careless, but not criminal. Besides, the Trump family has done the same stuff she has.

Trump and his lot have done far worse than Hillary has ever done in terms of email, phones and cyber security. Don't you remember shortly after taking office he fired the guy who was trying to secure his phone because he didn't want to be told what he could and could not do with his phone and NEVER REPLACED HIM. He just fired the guy responsible and didn't hire another person to handle the job. In addition to not only using his personal unsecured phone and email, his family has done so as well. He seems to think that if he fires all the people responsible for cyber security, then he won't have anyone to tell people about how unsecure all the shat they are doing is. He just fires people and eliminates the role all together.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-white-house-secure-cell-phone-twitter-hack-iphone-hillary-clinton-a8362736.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/413044-china-and-russia-listen-in-on-trumps-phone-calls-nyt
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/trump-phone-security-risk-hackers-601903
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/04/trump-cybersecurity-leader-vulnerable-622813
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/donald-trump-security-cyberattacks-leaks-234973
https://qz.com/984309/a-list-of-the-donald-trump-administrations-security-breaches-so-far/
https://www.itgovernanceusa.com/blog/trump-fires-white-house-ciso
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/u-s-officials-concerned-trump-discussing-sensitive-information-unsecured-cellphone-n924376
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/20/669460336/ivanka-trump-reportedly-used-personal-email-account-for-official-white-house-bus

People were going on about how Hillary used a private email server, when that was far more secure than Powell using something as ridiculously insecure as AOL. Hell if Hillary hadn't used her private email server that was physically protected by secret service, Russia would have been far more successful at gaining access.

That's nice speculation, but it's still illegal. And with that case shut and buried, it'll be harder to prosecute Trump over anything because the exact excuse coming up now worked before. So with the results equal so far, any attempt to actually prosecute Trump is going to hit a wall of legally enforceable whataboutism.

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Because that's funny. As for this, it's exactly what happened with Hillary before. The investigation into her showed she broke the law, but she got off with "she didn't know the law was being broken" or some such nonsense.

The investigation showed she didn't break the law, that she was perhaps careless, but not criminal. Besides, the Trump family has done the same stuff she has.

Lil devils x:

Saelune:
The investigation showed she didn't break the law, that she was perhaps careless, but not criminal. Besides, the Trump family has done the same stuff she has.

Trump and his lot have done far worse than Hillary has ever done in terms of email, phones and cyber security. Don't you remember shortly after taking office he fired the guy who was trying to secure his phone because he didn't want to be told what he could and could not do with his phone and NEVER REPLACED HIM. He just fired the guy responsible and didn't hire another person to handle the job. In addition to not only using his personal unsecured phone and email, his family has done so as well. He seems to think that if he fires all the people responsible for cyber security, then he won't have anyone to tell people about how unsecure all the shat they are doing is. He just fires people and eliminates the role all together.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-white-house-secure-cell-phone-twitter-hack-iphone-hillary-clinton-a8362736.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/413044-china-and-russia-listen-in-on-trumps-phone-calls-nyt
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/trump-phone-security-risk-hackers-601903
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/04/trump-cybersecurity-leader-vulnerable-622813
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/donald-trump-security-cyberattacks-leaks-234973
https://qz.com/984309/a-list-of-the-donald-trump-administrations-security-breaches-so-far/
https://www.itgovernanceusa.com/blog/trump-fires-white-house-ciso
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/u-s-officials-concerned-trump-discussing-sensitive-information-unsecured-cellphone-n924376
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/20/669460336/ivanka-trump-reportedly-used-personal-email-account-for-official-white-house-bus

People were going on about how Hillary used a private email server, when that was far more secure than Powell using something as ridiculously insecure as AOL. Hell if Hillary hadn't used her private email server that was physically protected by secret service, Russia would have been far more successful at gaining access.

That's nice speculation, but it's still illegal. And with that case shut and buried, it'll be harder to prosecute Trump over anything because the exact excuse coming up now worked before. So with the results equal so far, any attempt to actually prosecute Trump is going to hit a wall of legally enforceable whataboutism.

What Trump did and Hillary did are two different things. Other people not using a proper classified header before she opened it was not her doing, but the person who sent it. She had already opened the classified documents (there were 2 in question) prior to being able to access the classified marking within the body. That is in no way the same as Trump firing the people who tried to secure his devices and then doing whatever he pleased afterwards. Not even remotely comparable. Hell, In Hillary's case, her having her own private server very well may be the primary reason Russia was not able to breach it.

Trump did not even have the security Hillary did on her devices because he can't be bothered. Of course that is still minor in comparison to his other breaches, like say putting a foreign agent as head of National security. That one is a bit hard to top... Maybe openly discussing classified information in front of crowds at his Mar a Logo golf club where he charges for personal access to the president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-turns-mar-a-lago-club-terrace-into-open-air-situation-room/2017/02/13/c5525096-f20d-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.e82e8c249e96
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-maralago-idUSKBN15T2Y2
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/16/mar-a-lago-trump-season-end-controversy-ethics-concerns
https://qz.com/1586643/trumps-mar-a-lago-vulnerable-to-spies/

NOTHING Hillary has done has been anywhere near as bad as what Trump is repeatedly doing. He sets an entirely new low for just about anything at this point.

EDIT: Oh yea, remember how you were so worried about Clinton's arms deal with Saudi Arabia due to the Yemen war? Congress passed a resolution to end US involvement in the Yemen/Saudi War, Trump vetoed it. There is no way in hell Clinton would have vetoed it, but that is just how bad Trump truly is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/trump-veto-yemen.html

Lil devils x:

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:
The investigation showed she didn't break the law, that she was perhaps careless, but not criminal. Besides, the Trump family has done the same stuff she has.

Lil devils x:
Trump and his lot have done far worse than Hillary has ever done in terms of email, phones and cyber security. Don't you remember shortly after taking office he fired the guy who was trying to secure his phone because he didn't want to be told what he could and could not do with his phone and NEVER REPLACED HIM. He just fired the guy responsible and didn't hire another person to handle the job. In addition to not only using his personal unsecured phone and email, his family has done so as well. He seems to think that if he fires all the people responsible for cyber security, then he won't have anyone to tell people about how unsecure all the shat they are doing is. He just fires people and eliminates the role all together.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-white-house-secure-cell-phone-twitter-hack-iphone-hillary-clinton-a8362736.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/413044-china-and-russia-listen-in-on-trumps-phone-calls-nyt
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/trump-phone-security-risk-hackers-601903
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/04/trump-cybersecurity-leader-vulnerable-622813
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/donald-trump-security-cyberattacks-leaks-234973
https://qz.com/984309/a-list-of-the-donald-trump-administrations-security-breaches-so-far/
https://www.itgovernanceusa.com/blog/trump-fires-white-house-ciso
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/u-s-officials-concerned-trump-discussing-sensitive-information-unsecured-cellphone-n924376
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/20/669460336/ivanka-trump-reportedly-used-personal-email-account-for-official-white-house-bus

People were going on about how Hillary used a private email server, when that was far more secure than Powell using something as ridiculously insecure as AOL. Hell if Hillary hadn't used her private email server that was physically protected by secret service, Russia would have been far more successful at gaining access.

That's nice speculation, but it's still illegal. And with that case shut and buried, it'll be harder to prosecute Trump over anything because the exact excuse coming up now worked before. So with the results equal so far, any attempt to actually prosecute Trump is going to hit a wall of legally enforceable whataboutism.

What Trump did and Hillary did are two different things. Other people not using a proper classified header before she opened it was not her doing, but the person who sent it. She had already opened the classified documents (there were 2 in question) prior to being able to access the classified marking within the body. That is in no way the same as Trump firing the people who tried to secure his devices and then doing whatever he pleased afterwards. Not even remotely comparable. Hell, In Hillary's case, her having her own private server very well may be the primary reason Russia was not able to breach it.

Trump did not even have the security Hillary did on her devices because he can't be bothered. Of course that is still minor in comparison to his other breaches, like say putting a foreign agent as head of National security. That one is a bit hard to top... Maybe openly discussing classified information in front of crowds at his Mar a Logo golf club where he charges for personal access to the president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-turns-mar-a-lago-club-terrace-into-open-air-situation-room/2017/02/13/c5525096-f20d-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.e82e8c249e96
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-maralago-idUSKBN15T2Y2
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/16/mar-a-lago-trump-season-end-controversy-ethics-concerns
https://qz.com/1586643/trumps-mar-a-lago-vulnerable-to-spies/

NOTHING Hillary has done has been anywhere near as bad as what Trump is repeatedly doing. He sets an entirely new low for just about anything at this point.

EDIT: Oh yea, remember how you were so worried about Clinton's arms deal with Saudi Arabia due to the Yemen war? Congress passed a resolution to end US involvement in the Yemen/Saudi War, Trump vetoed it. There is no way in hell Clinton would have vetoed it, but that is just how bad Trump truly is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/trump-veto-yemen.html

There was more to it than that. Having classified information on her server was in itself illegal. She didn't follow multiple security requirements, including using unsecured devices abroad, she lied to investigators about this (committing perjury). This all came out with Comey's investigation, it was a long list of damning crimes. That ended with "and we don't think she should be prosecuted". So the scale really doesn't matter, we have a long list of "none of this was illegal before, why now?".

There is no way in hell Clinton would have vetoed it, but that is just how bad Trump truly is.

H a

She gave them the weapons to start this, but Hillary totally wouldn't want to be involved in the war. Yeah, sure. I believe that. She probably would pull out, the damage is already done, and she can look like a peaceful person to everyone who forgot how this started in the first place.

crimson5pheonix:
Because that's funny. As for this, it's exactly what happened with Hillary before. The investigation into her showed she broke the law, but she got off with "she didn't know the law was being broken" or some such nonsense.

No, it didn't.

There is no law saying she can't do any government business through a private email server (otherwise there are one hell of a lot of other guilty polticians). There are just regulations saying government appointees generally shouldn't.

The laws that may have been broken are things like maintaining appropriate security of classified information, or maintaining proper records of government business. The investigation looked at evidence these may have been broken, and concluded it was insufficient to pursue charges. The whole point of issuing charges is to determine whether a crime has been committed. Therefore one cannot reasonably interpret "case insufficient to bring charges" as "broke the law but we let them off".

What Mueller has said about Trump is manifestly different. In essence, he's said it's not his position to try the president over obstruction of justice, but here's the evidence if the appropriate body (i.e. Congress, or perhaps the courts after Trump's presidency ends) wants to.

Agema:

crimson5pheonix:
Because that's funny. As for this, it's exactly what happened with Hillary before. The investigation into her showed she broke the law, but she got off with "she didn't know the law was being broken" or some such nonsense.

No, it didn't.

There is no law saying she can't do any government business through a private email server (otherwise there are one hell of a lot of other guilty polticians). There are just regulations saying government appointees generally shouldn't.

The laws that may have been broken are things like maintaining appropriate security of classified information, or maintaining proper records of government business. The investigation looked at evidence these may have been broken, and concluded it was insufficient to pursue charges. The whole point of issuing charges is to determine whether a crime has been committed. Therefore one cannot reasonably interpret "case insufficient to bring charges" as "broke the law but we let them off".

What Mueller has said about Trump is manifestly different. In essence, he's said it's not his position to try the president over obstruction of justice, but here's the evidence if the appropriate body (i.e. Congress, or perhaps the courts after Trump's presidency ends) wants to.

But uhhh, that's what happened.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-comey-emails-1494374889-htmlstory.html

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
Clinton's emails included seven message chains with information classified as top secret.
"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system."
"The security culture of the State Department ...was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government."
Comey acknowledged that the FBI did not normally make public its recommendations to prosecutors as to whether to bring criminal charges. He added: "In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order."
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
"I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation."

I remember this, very well. They found Hillary had, in fact, broken the law. Several times in several places. But deemed it A-okay because she didn't mean to.

crimson5pheonix:

Lil devils x:

crimson5pheonix:

That's nice speculation, but it's still illegal. And with that case shut and buried, it'll be harder to prosecute Trump over anything because the exact excuse coming up now worked before. So with the results equal so far, any attempt to actually prosecute Trump is going to hit a wall of legally enforceable whataboutism.

What Trump did and Hillary did are two different things. Other people not using a proper classified header before she opened it was not her doing, but the person who sent it. She had already opened the classified documents (there were 2 in question) prior to being able to access the classified marking within the body. That is in no way the same as Trump firing the people who tried to secure his devices and then doing whatever he pleased afterwards. Not even remotely comparable. Hell, In Hillary's case, her having her own private server very well may be the primary reason Russia was not able to breach it.

Trump did not even have the security Hillary did on her devices because he can't be bothered. Of course that is still minor in comparison to his other breaches, like say putting a foreign agent as head of National security. That one is a bit hard to top... Maybe openly discussing classified information in front of crowds at his Mar a Logo golf club where he charges for personal access to the president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-turns-mar-a-lago-club-terrace-into-open-air-situation-room/2017/02/13/c5525096-f20d-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.e82e8c249e96
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-maralago-idUSKBN15T2Y2
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/16/mar-a-lago-trump-season-end-controversy-ethics-concerns
https://qz.com/1586643/trumps-mar-a-lago-vulnerable-to-spies/

NOTHING Hillary has done has been anywhere near as bad as what Trump is repeatedly doing. He sets an entirely new low for just about anything at this point.

EDIT: Oh yea, remember how you were so worried about Clinton's arms deal with Saudi Arabia due to the Yemen war? Congress passed a resolution to end US involvement in the Yemen/Saudi War, Trump vetoed it. There is no way in hell Clinton would have vetoed it, but that is just how bad Trump truly is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/trump-veto-yemen.html

There was more to it than that. Having classified information on her server was in itself illegal. She didn't follow multiple security requirements, including using unsecured devices abroad, she lied to investigators about this (committing perjury). This all came out with Comey's investigation, it was a long list of damning crimes. That ended with "and we don't think she should be prosecuted". So the scale really doesn't matter, we have a long list of "none of this was illegal before, why now?".

There is no way in hell Clinton would have vetoed it, but that is just how bad Trump truly is.

H a

She gave them the weapons to start this, but Hillary totally wouldn't want to be involved in the war. Yeah, sure. I believe that. She probably would pull out, the damage is already done, and she can look like a peaceful person to everyone who forgot how this started in the first place.

I am in no way saying Hillary is "peaceful" however, her doing what was expected of her as secretary of state was not the same as Trump not only making BIGGER arms deals with Saudi's but also promising them US Nuclear information as well as vetoing congress over US involvement in Saudi/Yemen war. If Hillary had not done her job as Secretary of State, she would have been replaced with someone who would. Trump on the other hand is overriding everyone else to bend over backwards to help Saudi Arabia and directly harm Yemen.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lawmakers-concerned-trump-administrations-authorization-nuclear-related-projects/story?id=62005538

And why is Trump so eager to please them? Oh yea his family stands to profit from it so that is where his priorities are.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-saudi-arabia-financial-interests-ties-hotel-bookings-sales-2018-10
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/16/whether-trump-has-financial-interests-saudi-arabia-he-has-plenty-with-country/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d37d82b51083
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/12/17964884/trump-saudi-money-khashoggi
https://www.salon.com/2019/02/20/house-democrats-target-jared-kushner-michael-flynn-for-saudi-arabian-nuclear-plot/
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/national/ct-kushner-cadre-softbank-funds-20180522-story.html
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/trumps-long-history-financial-dealings-saudis-complicates-khashoggi-affair-34292

This has already been discussed to death and I've pointed out why Hillary wanted to please the Saudi's herself several times, so I'm not going back into it. However,

If Hillary had not done her job as Secretary of State, she would have been replaced with someone who would.

"I was just following orders" is explicitly not an excuse. Pretending this situation is manufactured by Trump isn't fooling anyone. Acting like things would be a-okay if he wasn't in office isn't fooling anyone.

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Because that's funny. As for this, it's exactly what happened with Hillary before. The investigation into her showed she broke the law, but she got off with "she didn't know the law was being broken" or some such nonsense.

The investigation showed she didn't break the law, that she was perhaps careless, but not criminal. Besides, the Trump family has done the same stuff she has.

Lil devils x:

Saelune:
The investigation showed she didn't break the law, that she was perhaps careless, but not criminal. Besides, the Trump family has done the same stuff she has.

Trump and his lot have done far worse than Hillary has ever done in terms of email, phones and cyber security. Don't you remember shortly after taking office he fired the guy who was trying to secure his phone because he didn't want to be told what he could and could not do with his phone and NEVER REPLACED HIM. He just fired the guy responsible and didn't hire another person to handle the job. In addition to not only using his personal unsecured phone and email, his family has done so as well. He seems to think that if he fires all the people responsible for cyber security, then he won't have anyone to tell people about how unsecure all the shat they are doing is. He just fires people and eliminates the role all together.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-white-house-secure-cell-phone-twitter-hack-iphone-hillary-clinton-a8362736.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/413044-china-and-russia-listen-in-on-trumps-phone-calls-nyt
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/trump-phone-security-risk-hackers-601903
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/04/trump-cybersecurity-leader-vulnerable-622813
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/donald-trump-security-cyberattacks-leaks-234973
https://qz.com/984309/a-list-of-the-donald-trump-administrations-security-breaches-so-far/
https://www.itgovernanceusa.com/blog/trump-fires-white-house-ciso
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/u-s-officials-concerned-trump-discussing-sensitive-information-unsecured-cellphone-n924376
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/20/669460336/ivanka-trump-reportedly-used-personal-email-account-for-official-white-house-bus

People were going on about how Hillary used a private email server, when that was far more secure than Powell using something as ridiculously insecure as AOL. Hell if Hillary hadn't used her private email server that was physically protected by secret service, Russia would have been far more successful at gaining access.

That's nice speculation, but it's still illegal. And with that case shut and buried, it'll be harder to prosecute Trump over anything because the exact excuse coming up now worked before. So with the results equal so far, any attempt to actually prosecute Trump is going to hit a wall of legally enforceable whataboutism.

Everything Trump accuses others of he did. Trump already does 'whataboutisms' and thus HE is the hypocrite. If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did, or atleast he would condemn his daughter, OR apologize to Clinton. He didn't, because he is a hypocrite. The son of an immigrant, the husband of an immigrant, calls the truth fake news and cites fake news all the time. Bitches about people attacking him after he attacks others first, says lies and slander while moaning about being lied and slandered about.

Trump more than anything is a walking, talking hypocrite. And it is hypocritical to claim that everyone else is the problem.

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

Saelune:

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

You say that like you contradicted anything I said. In fact, it reads like you agree with me.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did

But the point of this exercise is that people only care about the laws being enforced when it's someone you don't like breaking them. And it's a bit early to say, but it's looking like it will shape up exactly how you would expect such behavior to turn out. A fat load of nothing for Trump.

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

You say that like you contradicted anything I said. In fact, it reads like you agree with me.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did

But the point of this exercise is that people only care about the laws being enforced when it's someone you don't like breaking them. And it's a bit early to say, but it's looking like it will shape up exactly how you would expect such behavior to turn out. A fat load of nothing for Trump.

Saelune:
If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did, or atleast he would condemn his daughter, OR apologize to Clinton. He didn't, because he is a hypocrite.

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

Maybe try not cutting parts out that disprove you.

I want Trump to be consistent. He is only consistently hypocritical. He COULD go 'I am sorry for criticizing Hillary for what she did. It was not wrong of her to do'. Or he could condemn his daughter. He could have principles. He doesn't.

You want to pretend both sides are the same, but the fact is, they aren't.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 21 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here