TrumPutinGate

#14,126
#14,126
lawgator1 said:
Carlos, fact is that Trump supporters here and around the country will never admit that he's done anything justifying his removal from office. They dodge the ever mounting evidence. They deflect with what about Obama/Clinton. And they just ignore it when another story erupts showing yet another effort to collude or a close financial tie to Putin.

They just aren't going to admit that they were wrong about him, and that the rest of us were right. They don't have the character to admit that.
Click to expand...

The last sentence might be the most disappointing thing I've ever seen you post. Political disagreements are one thing, but . . . damn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14,128
#14,128
MT LeConte said:
What you say is true but if you owe 600M you might be tempted to influence policy that is beneficial to you. And if that weren't the reason you supported a particular policy the appearance that you did is still there.

I'm pretty sure we've never had a top Federal Government official 600M in debt. In the history or our country there's probably very few that were in the red at all.
Click to expand...

Let's just put things in perspective, if you owed $6,000 would you be tempted to break the law? Hell let's just say I'm way underestimating your net worth and call it $60,000.
 
#14,129
#14,129
volinbham said:
They were not preserved by her. She deleted them. Was it a mistake or intentional? Who knows.

As for the on a server that had clearance we know that her entire server was at some point in time housed (and maintained) by a company that did not have clearance at all!. All of her communications (even the classified stuff) was in the hands of people with NO clearance whatsoever.

She could have been prosecuted; Comey chose not to.
Click to expand...

He didn't think she had any intent to do anything nefarious. Her a actions were irresponsible and created risk, yes, but in the end she had no intent to cause any harm or knowingly disclose anything.

Juxtapose to Petraeus who gave secret info to his mistress for her book. That is the difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#14,130
#14,130
lawgator1 said:
He didn't think she had any intent to do anything nefarious. Her a actions were irresponsible and created risk, yes, but in the end she had no intent to cause any harm or knowingly disclose anything.

Juxtapose to Petraeus who gave secret info to his mistress for her book. That is the difference.
Click to expand...

You think Petraeus intended to cause harm?

And further, that shouldn't be a decision a bureaucrat makes. That decision should have rested in the hands of a grand jury.
 
#14,131
#14,131
lawgator1 said:
He didn't think she had any intent to do anything nefarious. Her a actions were irresponsible and created risk, yes, but in the end she had no intent to cause any harm or knowingly disclose anything.

Juxtapose to Petraeus who gave secret info to his mistress for her book. That is the difference.
Click to expand...

Next time I get pulled over for speeding I will just tell the officer I didn't intend to break the speed limit. I'm sure that will keep me from getting a ticket. Did you get your law license from an overseas correspondence course?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#14,132
#14,132
lawgator1 said:
He didn't think she had any intent to do anything nefarious. Her a actions were irresponsible and created risk, yes, but in the end she had no intent to cause any harm or knowingly disclose anything.

Juxtapose to Petraeus who gave secret info to his mistress for her book. That is the difference.
Click to expand...

1. Intent was not required to show violation of the law.

2. He felt he couldn't prove intent. We can not conclude she had no intent. Also you left out intent to shield her communications from normal inquiries (such as FOIA) by not only using private email but by using her own server as opposed to a typical ISP that could be subpoena'd. For having no intent she sure took a ton of steps to make sure no entity could access government communications.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14,133
#14,133
MT LeConte said:
What you say is true but if you owe 600M you might be tempted to influence policy that is beneficial to you. And if that weren't the reason you supported a particular policy the appearance that you did is still there.

I'm pretty sure we've never had a top Federal Government official 600M in debt. In the history or our country there's probably very few that were in the red at all.
Click to expand...

You mean like say if you ran a foundation while being Secretary of State and many foreign governments and large international corporations who would be affected by your decisions gave hundreds of millions of dollars to said foundation and also paid your husband crazy amounts of money for "speeches"?

I get it now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#14,134
#14,134
luthervol said:
"Clinton’s email habits look positively transparent when compared with the subpoena-dodging, email-hiding, private-server-using George W. Bush administration. Between 2003 and 2009, the Bush White House “lost” 22 million emails. This correspondence included millions of emails written during the darkest period in America’s recent history, when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons."

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

I'm just saying that the Clinton e-mail story was blown out of proportion and that the facts were twisted and manipulated in a way to cause as much damage to Clinton as possible. Same with every other right wing story about a Clinton "scandal".

However you feel about the current treatment of the trump/Russia story by the media, magnify that 10 times and you will still not approach the right wing's attempts to discredit and bring down Clinton.
Click to expand...

lock them up too. If someone is guilty of crime they should be punished.

Clinton earned the hate she receives.

and how on earth does your math check out to 10 times. The media is 1 vs 6 or so in favor of clinton. She had the president and Attorney General protecting her. and she was investigated for what she did while in office, not some nebulous investigation into every dark corner of her past.
 
#14,136
#14,136
LouderVol said:
Did you not read Comey's quote? He said the FBI had to put back together a bunch of work emails. including a number of classified ones. Also how is putting work emails on non secure non government servers not removing it from its proper place of custody? He also talks about how he only found some emails by looking at other people's archives and he couldnt find those same emails on hers. That is also clearly deleting emails.

also she lied under oath about all of this.
Click to expand...

Delete is not destroy and as I said by not archiving is the worst she did. Nothing Was Removed it just was not put in its proper place for archiving. The server was secure according to gov standards but it was no in a secure location. I see more procedural and guideline problems than criminal.

She should be locked up because you think there is more. She didn't lie, she didn't delete anything. Her IT person did. Case closed. Lock up the server administrator.
 
#14,137
#14,137
Mick said:
Delete is not destroy and as I said by not archiving is the worst she did. Nothing Was Removed it just was not put in its proper place for archiving. The server was secure according to gov standards but it was no in a secure location. I see more procedural and guideline problems than criminal.

She should be locked up because you think there is more. She didn't lie, she didn't delete anything. Her IT person did. Case closed. Lock up the server administrator.
Click to expand...

:eek:hmy:

she didn't lie? She continually lied and each time it was found out she changed her story to another lie.

as for who did the deleting do you think the server admin did this on his/her own? She directed it. Also IIRC she had some of her lawyers do the purge of "personal" emails.

You can't be serious in saying that if an official directed an underling to destroy some documents that the official has no culpability because they asked (paid) someone else to do it.

C'mon man.
 
#14,139
#14,139
Mick said:
Delete is not destroy and as I said by not archiving is the worst she did. Nothing Was Removed it just was not put in its proper place for archiving. The server was secure according to gov standards but it was no in a secure location. I see more procedural and guideline problems than criminal.

She should be locked up because you think there is more. She didn't lie, she didn't delete anything. Her IT person did. Case closed. Lock up the server administrator.
Click to expand...

Uh...bleach bit, hammers...

Why? Something to hide obviously.
 
#14,145
#14,145
LouderVol said:
I figured that's what you were swinging for.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really - I just find it interesting that after pages and pages of how much of a POS Manafort is that if he implicated Trump in a plea deal without any other corroborating evidence for what he testifies to that Manafort suddenly becomes credible.

It's all part of the "any means necessary" approach to election nullification.

To date no one has been able to put together a coherent explanation of what Trump and Russia actually did together - it's just "they colluded".

If Mueller lays it out with supporting evidence then I'll buy it (as I've said since the beginning).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14,146
#14,146
A recap of Trump's many lies about Russia--including the last discovery or emails indicating efforts to build an office tower in Moscow while Trump was running for president. Trump had said, still says, that he had no dealings with Russia. His own lawyer confirms that there were dealings--but no deal consummated--and this confirms another lie.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...mpaign_to_make_trump_tower_moscow_happen.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14,147
#14,147
carlos86 said:
[twitter]https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/903394723343237125[/twitter]
Click to expand...

Neo-McCarthy witch hunt

Let's not pretend the NSA hasn't been spying on everyone for the last two decades. And the fact that the Obama IRS acted as a politicized tool of the last administration. Trump was getting extra electronic anal probing prior to the election. Given the sieve-like nature of the bureaucracy, anything serious - especially regarding his tax returns - would have been know.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top