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

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
TheIronRuler said:
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.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
TheIronRuler said:
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/
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
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?
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,555
3,768
118
Silentpony said:
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)."
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
A bit surprising to read this from CNN [https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html] of all places.

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

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
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?
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,555
3,768
118
Silentpony said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
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.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
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.
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_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
Saelune said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
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.
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.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,555
3,768
118
Saelune said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
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.
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 said:
Saelune said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
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.
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.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
crimson5pheonix said:
Saelune said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
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.
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 said:
Saelune said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
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.
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
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,555
3,768
118
Lil devils x said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Saelune said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
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.
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 said:
Saelune said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
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.
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
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.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,398
6,661
118
crimson5pheonix said:
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.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,555
3,768
118
Agema said:
crimson5pheonix said:
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.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
crimson5pheonix said:
Lil devils x said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Saelune said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
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.
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 said:
Saelune said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
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.
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
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
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,555
3,768
118
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.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
crimson5pheonix said:
Saelune said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
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.
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 said:
Saelune said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silentpony said:
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.
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.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,555
3,768
118
Saelune said:
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

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
crimson5pheonix said:
Saelune said:
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 said:
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.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,555
3,768
118
Saelune said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Saelune said:
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 said:
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.
How does that disprove anything? How is that anything like an argumentative statement? What matters here is you just admitted that you know Hillary broke the law and just don't care. And that apathy is haunting the Mueller investigation.