Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Does Trump Multiple Indictments change the race? 

There is no race for the GOP nomination save for Trump’s serious legal peril. Either he wipes the floor with everyone else (already polling > 50% among primary voters), or he DNF’s the race and now it’s actually a competition between DeSantis, Haley, Scott, Pence, et. al.

If there was maybe one serious challenger or two and some of the usual cranks, ok, normal race probably, Trump isn’t truly an incumbent although he kind of is as far as the GOP base is concerned.

But to have MANY serious challengers get in the race, your own former VP, large state sitting governor, former governor and ambassador, sitting senator, plus former governor Christie just got in and so did the sitting governor of ND Burgum, to me that indicates they all think there’s a fairly high chance Trump will be unable to be the nominee regardless of his level of support, and therefore it’s worthwhile to give it a shot.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

No one above the law (definitely applies to you if your last name is Trump)…doesn’t apply if your last name is Clinton or Biden.

I seriously can’t fathom how leftists (even those on here) can honestly say they’re ok with this happening to Trump and not Clinton, Pence, Biden, etc.  I mean, I get the fact that they hate Trump, but conservatives hated Clinton and never did anything like this when there was plenty of evidence to do so.   

I can’t stand Trump personally, and though I agreed with many (not all) of his policies, I don’t want to see him be the nominee next year…and truth be told, it would probably just be best for the country if he died peacefully in his sleep tonight.  But what’s happening right now can’t be seen as a good thing.

Not defending mishandling classified but in the others’ cases, they at least went through the motions of cooperating with investigators. In Pence and Biden’s cases there is a plausible explanation that the mishandling was accidental; the documents were swept up with unclassified docs when moving out of their respective offices. Again, not saying it’s ok, but there is a significant difference in that Trump was literally waiving classified documents in people’s faces and refusing to cooperate when investigators tell him to return said material. If he had been cooperative and made a statement to the effect of “we made a mistake. We are cooperating with investigators and will return all classified material in a timely manner” I’d agree with you. But he didn’t. When you see police lights in your rear view mirror, if you promptly pull over and speak to the officer politely, you at least have a chance of being let off with a warning. If you floor it, give the cop the bird, and tell him where he can shove it when he finally catches you, guess what? You’re gonna get that ticket & a whole lot more. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Not defending mishandling classified but in the others’ cases, they at least went through the motions of cooperating with investigators. In Pence and Biden’s cases there is a plausible explanation that the mishandling was accidental; the documents were swept up with unclassified docs when moving out of their respective offices. Again, not saying it’s ok, but there is a significant difference in that Trump was literally waiving classified documents in people’s faces and refusing to cooperate when investigators tell him to return said material. If he had been cooperative and made a statement to the effect of “we made a mistake. We are cooperating with investigators and will return all classified material in a timely manner” I’d agree with you. But he didn’t. When you see police lights in your rear view mirror, if you promptly pull over and speak to the officer politely, you at least have a chance of being let off with a warning. If you floor it, give the cop the bird, and tell him where he can shove it when he finally catches you, guess what? You’re gonna get that ticket & a whole lot more. 

You’re only helping to further my point—it’s very selective when saying “no one is above the law”.  Either what you did is an alleged crime, or it’s not.  Sure Trump is a jerk, but that should not determine whether or not he is tried for a crime and someone else (ie Hillary Clinton) isn’t.  You’re not saying it’s ok, but yet you’re giving reasons why you think it’s ok for one person to charged and not another.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

You’re only helping to further my point—it’s very selective when saying “no one is above the law”.  Either what you did is an alleged crime, or it’s not.  Sure Trump is a jerk, but that should not determine whether or not he is tried for a crime and someone else (ie Hillary Clinton) isn’t.  You’re not saying it’s ok, but yet you’re giving reasons why you think it’s ok for one person to charged and not another.  

I disagree. I think most of us have had the experience in life that most things we do, good or bad, along with their consequences, are proportional. Maybe you haven’t? Do really bad things, expect really bad consequences. Do less bad things, expect less severe repercussions. Stumble onto an active runway with out clearance? Bad. Expect a long conversation with the FAA and some extra sim time. Willfully disregard ATC, enter an active runway & do donuts while taking selfies, then tell tower to go fuck themselves?  That’s willful disregard and will get you arrested and grounded for life. That kind of activity will rightly make people question whether you should be anywhere near an airport or aircraft. So many of Trump’s actions have been absolutely full of willful disregard for the rule of law and are objectively worse than the others’ in this case. No, this does not appear unfair at all to me. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I disagree. I think most of us have had the experience in life that most things we do, good or bad, along with their consequences, are proportional. Maybe you haven’t? Do really bad things, expect really bad consequences. Do less bad things, expect less severe repercussions. Stumble onto an active runway with out clearance? Bad. Expect a long conversation with the FAA and some extra sim time. Willfully disregard ATC, enter an active runway & do donuts while taking selfies, then tell tower to go fuck themselves?  That’s willful disregard and will get you arrested and grounded for life. That kind of activity will rightly make people question whether you should be anywhere near an airport or aircraft. So many of Trump’s actions have been absolutely full of willful disregard for the rule of law and are objectively worse than the others’ in this case. No, this does not appear unfair at all to me. 

Just so I understand what you’re saying…are you suggesting what Hillary did was not willful disregard for the law?  Why wasn’t she also indicted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Just so I understand what you’re saying…are you suggesting what Hillary did was not willful disregard for the law?  Why wasn’t she also indicted?

I don’t know. Maybe she should’ve been. Maybe she played the game and cooperated just enough with investigators to avoid prosecution. Maybe she cooperated fully and was truly repentant. Are you suggesting that everyone who breaks the law from here on out should be given a pass because Hillary was let go with a slap on the wrist? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I don’t know. Maybe she should’ve been. Maybe she played the game and cooperated just enough with investigators to avoid prosecution. Maybe she cooperated fully and was truly repentant. Are you suggesting that everyone who breaks the law from here on out should be given a pass because Hillary was let go with a slap on the wrist? 

Wait, you’re ok with Trump being indicted and saying “maybe” Hillary should have been indicted?  I’m suggesting that if you go after one of the top politicians from one party and not one from another party, then the appearance for favoritism, corruption, etc is strong.  And I’m sorry, “truly repentant” shouldn’t matter when breaking the law.  Because who gets determine if someone is “truly repentant” and not someone else?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Wait, you’re ok with Trump being indicted and saying “maybe” Hillary should have been indicted?  I’m suggesting that if you go after one of the top politicians from one party and not one from another party, then the appearance for favoritism, corruption, etc is strong.  And I’m sorry, “truly repentant” shouldn’t matter when breaking the law.  Because who gets determine if someone is “truly repentant” and not someone else?

I understand your concern. What I’m confused about is the course of action you’re advocating for right now, today. Was the ball dropped with Hillary? Maybe. I don’t know. Does that mean DJT should not be prosecuted or held accountable? Do we give him a pass too in the interest of fairness? Or do we go back and re-litigate Hillary’s emails? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

I understand your concern. What I’m confused about is the course of action you’re advocating for right now, today. Was the ball dropped with Hillary? Maybe. I don’t know. Does that mean DJT should not be prosecuted or held accountable? Do we give him a pass too in the interest of fairness? Or do we go back and re-litigate Hillary’s emails? 

So it’s a “maybe” for Hillary and her crimes…but not a “maybe” for Trump and his?  What I’m saying is that when it comes to charging the leader of each majority political party, you apply the laws in the same way.  It’s scary that you and nearly half the country don’t share this same desire.  And then you’re surprised when nearly half the country doesn’t believe we have a non-political DOJ/FBI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

What I’m saying is that when it comes to charging the leader of each majority political party, you apply the laws in the same way.

I agree 100%. When do we start? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, uhhello said:

I got 10,000 schrute bucks that Biden doesn't campaign/run to the end.  Just watching his head movements and gait.  No way.  

 

If he is re-elected he will die in office, I feel fairly certain of that. 
 

What a travesty our electoral choices are these days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source?

If you want to know why a whole lot of people are calling out this action as dubious given the political protection granted to Clinton, it’s probably got something to do with this almost forceful way that people dismiss Clinton and her actions from discussion.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985

Absolutely nobody paying attention at the time could see what Clinton was ignorant of what was found on the 2/3 of her server that were actually investigated (because a lot was destroyed intentionally before it was turned over). But nah… totally on the up and up there. Nothing to see… in fact we can’t even remember it happened….


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Lawman said:


If you want to know why a whole lot of people are calling out this action as dubious given the political protection granted to Clinton, it’s probably got something to do with this almost forceful way that people dismiss Clinton and her actions from discussion.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm well aware. I followed politics much more closely at the time than I do now. I ask my question because ClearedHot's statement assumes the truth of something I've occasionally heard people say (bros around the squadron and randos on Twitter), but have never actually seen alleged by any of the investigations into the server (DOJ, State IG, Congress, etc.)

E.g. From the DOJ IG's Trump-era review of DOJ's handling of the case (same DOJ IG that uncovered the email doctoring used to justify the Carter Page FISA):

Quote

"Agent 2 told the OIG:
[F]rom like my level looking at it...you were hard-pressed to find the
intent of anyone to put classified information on that server.
And
again, sloppy security practices, for sure. Right? But, and, and
preventable? Yes. But somebody intentionally putting classified on it,
we just never found clear-cut evidence of somebody intending to do
that." (p. 165)

Quote

"Baker told the OIG that he thought that the conduct of former Secretary
Clinton and her senior aides was “appalling with respect to how they handled the
classified information...[and] arrogant in terms of their knowledge and
understanding of these matters.” He stated that he was concerned about former
Secretary Clinton’s level of knowledge and intent, and thought that she should have
recognized the sensitivity of information in the emails sent to her. Baker said that
he “debated and argued” with Comey and the Midyear team about former Secretary
Clinton’s criminal liability, but ultimately came to the conclusion that declining
prosecution was the correct decision after reviewing a binder of her emails. Baker
said that he recognized there was a lack of evidence establishing knowledge or
criminal intent, and that based on “the volume of...communications coming at
[Clinton] at all times, day and night, given the heavy responsibilities that a
Secretary of State has, isn’t she entitled to rely on [the classification determinations
by] her folks?” Baker stated that he “did not like it.... I eventually agreed with it,
but I did not like it.” (p. 166)

 

Quote

"There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton
believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified
information
. In the absence of clear classification markings, the
prosecutors determined that it would be difficult to dispute the
sincerity of these witnesses’ stated beliefs that the material was not
classified." (p. 255)

 

Quote

"The emails in question were sent to other government officials in
furtherance of the senders’ official duties. There was no evidence that
the senders or former Secretary Clinton intended that classified
information be sent to unauthorized recipients
, or that they
intentionally sought to store classified information on unauthorized
systems.
" (p. 255)

 

Quote

"Although some witnesses expressed concern or surprise when they
saw some of the classified content in unclassified emails, the
prosecutors concluded that the investigation did not reveal evidence
that any U.S. government employees involved in the SAP willfully
communicated the information to a person not entitled to receive it, or
willfully retained the same
." (p. 255)

 

Quote

"The senders used unclassified emails because of “operational tempo,”
that is, the need to get information quickly to senior State Department
officials at times when the recipients lacked access to classified
systems. To accomplish this, senders often refrained from using
specific classified facts or terms in emails and worded emails carefully
in an attempt to avoid transmitting classified information." (p. 255)

 

Quote

"There was no evidence that Clinton set up her servers or private email
account with the intent of communicating or retaining classified
information
, or that she had knowledge that classified information
would be communicated or retained
on it." (p. 255)

 

Quote

"All of the prosecutors and agents we asked told
us that they could not prove that Clinton had actual knowledge that the emails in
question were classified or that Clinton used private servers and a private email
account with the purpose or intent of receiving classified information on them." (p. 261)

One can rightly ask (as the DOJ IG did) whether the investigators used every tool at their disposal to look for evidence of intent or willful cross-pollenation of high side data to the unclass system. One can rightly be PO'ed at Hillary's arrogance. One can rightly think Jake Sullivan (who sent a lot of these emails) shouldn't have gotten to go on to lead the NSC. 

I still haven't actually seen anyone make a fact claim that, if accepted at face value, shows she intentionally transferred or caused the transfer of classified data to an unclass network.

To me the Occam's Razor explanation is she set up a private server to circumvent record-keeping requirements and a bunch of arrogant 20-something political appointees and aides tried more or less hard and more or less successfully to talk around a range of sensitive topics including a bunch of classified, probably a lot of which was already widely known via open source which is something we understand is a thing but retards with Ivy League international studies degrees at their first USG job may not. The private server didn't cause that to happen. They were sending stuff from both their state.gov NIPR emails and in some cases their personal accounts (Sullivan was one), and they would have CC'ed hillary@state.gov instead of hillary@gmail.com had that been the account she used.

Or as the IG Report says:

Quote

"According to Prosecutor 4, '[T]he problem was the State Department was so
screwed up in the way they treated classified information that if you wanted to
prosecute Hillary Clinton, you would have had to prosecute 150 State Department
people.
'"

None of that is defensible, none of that means I'd want to vote for those people (especially if they sell dumbass hats celebrating how arrogant and unrepentant they are) or invite them my birthday party, but it does mean they're not chargeable under the statutes Trump is charged under.

But to my original question, because I'm open to correction, if there's an incident that shows the Witch of Chappaqua intentionally/knowingly committed or directed a CMI, I'd love to know about it.

Edited by Disco_Nav963
added link to DOJ IG report
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s hard for conservatives to find common ground with liberals when the latter refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing from a member of their own party. A few acknowledge the wrongdoing but then refuse to admit there is a double standard in the application of the law. The few liberal voices on this board often lament that conservatives keep mentioning civil war, despite the fact that the majority of the media institution in America has continuously demonized the other side of the aisle and cast them as enemies of the people for the last 6-9 years. If you’re a liberal and you don’t think Hilary was let off the hook due to the FBI playing politics then you’re no better than a conservative that argues Trump is without fault. 
 

The liberals that refuse to uphold their party to the same standards that they weigh the opposition party against are nothing more than hypocrites, and are just as responsible for the erosion of trust in America as the forever Trumpers.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of that is defensible, none of that means I'd want to vote for those people (especially if they sell dumbass hats celebrating how arrogant and unrepentant they are) or invite them my birthday party, but it does mean they're not chargeable under the statutes Trump is charged under.
But to my original question, because I'm open to correction, if there's an incident that shows the Witch of Chappaqua intentionally/knowingly committed or directed a CMI, I'd love to know about it.

Again, you are either willfully or just ignorantly trying to give her a pass.

You assumingely (by being on this site) know personally of instances of persons being crucified, livelihoods lost, careers ended, because of stuff far more benign and innocent than anything Hillary did. We threw guys to the wolves in SOCOM for far less. Yet you spent god knows what time on Reddit or wherever digging up a wall of reasons why it’s ok she didn’t face any repercussions for intentionally setting up an illegal server in her house that classified material just happens to make it onto.

And then you excuse her actions quoting a guy saying “well if you charged her all these other people would have to be charged.”

Yeah bro, a whole lot of people would be fine with Trumps indictment had a whole lot of other people ever been charged. Instead this is absolutely standing as proof that if you are connected and protected or not, your actions carry different consequences.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lawman said:


Again, you are either willfully or just ignorantly trying to give her a pass.

You assumingely (by being on this site) know personally of instances of persons being crucified, livelihoods lost, careers ended, because of stuff far more benign and innocent than anything Hillary did. We threw guys to the wolves in SOCOM for far less. Yet you spent god knows what time on Reddit or wherever digging up a wall of reasons why it’s ok she didn’t face any repercussions for intentionally setting up an illegal server in her house that classified material just happens to make it onto.

And then you excuse her actions quoting a guy saying “well if you charged her all these other people would have to be charged.”

Yeah bro, a whole lot of people would be fine with Trumps indictment had a whole lot of other people ever been charged. Instead this is absolutely standing as proof that if you are connected and protected or not, your actions carry different consequences.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The quotes are from the DOJ's IG Report. The link is in the post. Jesus. 

Once again, ClearedHot said "she purposely took TS/SCI SAR/SAP off a classified server and transferred them to an open system." What is the evidence of that? (The Politico article you linked to does not say that.) I repeat myself, I am ready to admit my ignorance if there is something I wasn't previously tracking.

If as you say this case was an outlier and a double standard, please name the other people the DOJ has charged under the relevant statutes for the same fact pattern. (Civilian officials charged under the U.S. Code, not servicemembers charged under UCMJ or who got Article 15s.)

(If you're big mad that there is a double standard between mil and civilian or between federal criminal law and military law in this area, copy shot, I can agree. But I am under the impression you think there is a double standard between this case and the Mar-a-Lago docs case or earlier cases like Petraeus and Deutch.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quotes are from the DOJ's IG Report. The link is in the post. Jesus. 
Once again, ClearedHot said "she purposely took TS/SCI SAR/SAP off a classified server and transferred them to an open system." What is the evidence of that? (The Politico article you linked to does not say that.) I repeat myself, I am ready to admit my ignorance if there is something I wasn't previously tracking.
If as you say this case was an outlier and a double standard, please name the other people the DOJ has charged under the relevant statutes for the same fact pattern. (Civilian officials charged under the U.S. Code, not servicemembers charged under UCMJ or who got Article 15s.)
(If you're big mad that there is a double standard between mil and civilian or between federal criminal law and military law in this area, copy shot, I can agree. But I am under the impression you think there is a double standard between this case and the Mar-a-Lago docs case or earlier cases like Petraeus and Deutch.)

Yeah and again….

a637d0d81057dfbfea1810d758ca8701.jpg

Thats Reuters.

But we somehow can’t find “intent.” No reasonable person could understand that pulling classified markings of geospatial intelligence wasn’t an illegal action or whatever reason. We are saying the governmental agencies found a way to protect her and you’re quoting the same government agencies like it’s some sort of proof it was all on the up and up.

Also intent was never part of the US Code she violated and could be charged under. And you’ve completely avoided the deliberate destruction of her server entirely. Weird how that’s not just assumed as obstruction.


Again, the level of “oh she couldn’t possibly have been charged,” you and others seem to want to find a way to is just astounding. At the very least all of her staff flunkies at the time should have had their clearances pulled, and if you’d gotten on JPAS at the time you’d have seen that didn’t happen. Meanwhile over at USSOAC…. We’re crushing some E 4 for plugging a purple cable into a green printer. They could have thrown some weak toothless attempt at her and lost in court at least making the attempt at appearing to be an application of the justice system, but no, she never even faced indictment much less had to actually defend her actions in court.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, nsplayr said:

image.png.f1a98686e1c946a0df4e9d38432dc773.png

You’ve posted this face multiple times…In all seriousness, what the f@$k is it?  Also, I’ve been a member of this f&!?*ng forum since 2005 I think, you’re a mod right?  How long does a guy need to be a member here before he can drop some F-bombs, like the other kids??

Edited by O Face
Censorship
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...