|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Sept 1, 2019 15:43:43 GMT -5
I suspect we don't know the whole story.
Yet, its absurd to consider Trump's tweet "the same thing as" HRC's email saga...
HRC literally checked every box for violations of the Espionage Act. The FBI couched her conduct as “extremely careless,” rather than “grossly negligent.” Furthermore, we now know that "grossly negligent" was stricken from an earlier draft of James Comey’s public exoneration remarks because the phrasing of grossly negligent is all that the statute requires for a felony conviction. Mere weeks before the election, it wouldn’t do to have an “exoneration” statement read like a felony indictment.... right? (which he shouldn't have made that public anyways, but ya'll knew that)
This is how its different: HRC’s unlawful storage and transmission of classified information had been patently willful. She was bound by law and reguations to not only to honor that but to enforce it as secretary of state...yet, she systematically conducted her government business by private email, via a laughably unsecure homebrew server set-up.
HRC supporters, continually stress to this day, argues that it was not her purpose to harm national security, but that was beside the point. The crime was mishandling classified information, and she committed it. And even if motive had mattered (it didn’t), her real purpose was to conceal the interplay between her State Department and the Clinton Foundation, and to avoid generating a paper trail that would be FOIA'able as she prepared to run for president. No, that’s not as bad as trying to do national-security harm, like what Bradley Manning did, but it’s still an indictable case under the Espionage Act.
Whereas Trump's tweet with that satellite image appears to be a legit policy decision.
We can sit here and argue that what Trump's is doing is damaging to NatSec, even though we don't know the full story. However, it's indisputable that HRC, as secretary of state, broke numerous laws and regulations in setting up and using a non-government approved communications systems for years involving thousands of classified communications.
|
|
|
Post by tannhauser42 on Sept 1, 2019 15:47:55 GMT -5
And Trump has never heard of a category 5 hurricane before. Not this year, or the last few times just during his own presidency it's happened.
|
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Sept 2, 2019 5:58:53 GMT -5
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Sept 3, 2019 10:50:54 GMT -5
I suspect we don't know the whole story. Yet, its absurd to consider Trump's tweet "the same thing as" HRC's email saga... HRC literally checked every box for violations of the Espionage Act. The FBI couched her conduct as “extremely careless,” rather than “grossly negligent.” Furthermore, we now know that "grossly negligent" was stricken from an earlier draft of James Comey’s public exoneration remarks because the phrasing of grossly negligent is all that the statute requires for a felony conviction. Mere weeks before the election, it wouldn’t do to have an “exoneration” statement read like a felony indictment.... right? (which he shouldn't have made that public anyways, but ya'll knew that) This is how its different: HRC’s unlawful storage and transmission of classified information had been patently willful. She was bound by law and reguations to not only to honor that but to enforce it as secretary of state...yet, she systematically conducted her government business by private email, via a laughably unsecure homebrew server set-up. HRC supporters, continually stress to this day, argues that it was not her purpose to harm national security, but that was beside the point. The crime was mishandling classified information, and she committed it. And even if motive had mattered (it didn’t), her real purpose was to conceal the interplay between her State Department and the Clinton Foundation, and to avoid generating a paper trail that would be FOIA'able as she prepared to run for president. No, that’s not as bad as trying to do national-security harm, like what Bradley Manning did, but it’s still an indictable case under the Espionage Act. Whereas Trump's tweet with that satellite image appears to be a legit policy decision. We can sit here and argue that what Trump's is doing is damaging to NatSec, even though we don't know the full story. However, it's indisputable that HRC, as secretary of state, broke numerous laws and regulations in setting up and using a non-government approved communications systems for years involving thousands of classified communications. This happened exactly how I expected, yet I'm still disappointed. I suppose by this point it's my fault.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Sept 3, 2019 14:25:05 GMT -5
The denial is real. Trumptards will really defend anything I guess.
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Sept 4, 2019 13:55:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by adurot on Sept 4, 2019 14:11:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by steelmage99 on Sept 4, 2019 15:12:10 GMT -5
Trump congratulates Poland on their 80th anniversary of the German invasion.
"Happy 9/11, everybody!"
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 631
|
Post by carlo87 on Sept 4, 2019 16:20:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Sept 4, 2019 16:28:49 GMT -5
An admission that Ford was motivated by abortion politics all along....
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Sept 4, 2019 16:49:32 GMT -5
That's an interesting interpretation of the article. Did you actually read it? She knew it was her civic duty to explode her life and her privacy, and subject herself and her family to harassment and death threats, by bringing forward her credible accusation because she had been raped by this man and she wanted to demonstrate to the world (successfully) he is morally and tempermentally unfit for SCotUS. She also knew that cons gonna con, and her credible accusation would be met with "lalala I can't hear you!" from persons who only care about controlling women's bodies, and so even when her rape was belittled and dismissed, his unsuitability to provide ruling would still be noted by historians. She did not 'lie for political gain', which is spin some seem to be going for.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 631
|
Post by carlo87 on Sept 4, 2019 16:57:00 GMT -5
That's an interesting interpretation of the article. Did you actually read it? She knew it was her civic duty to explode her life and her privacy, and subject herself and her family to harassment and death threats, by bringing forward her credible accusation because she had been raped by this man and she wanted to demonstrate to the world (successfully) he is morally and tempermentally unfit for SCotUS. She also knew that cons gonna con, and her credible accusation would be met with "lalala I can't hear you!" from persons who only care about controlling women's bodies, and so even when her rape was belittled and dismissed, his unsuitability to provide ruling would still be noted by historians. She did not 'lie for political gain', which is spin some seem to be going for. Her accusation was full of holes, inconsistencies, and completely unsubstanciated. Nothing about it was "credible".
|
|
CommieCanUCK
Ye Olde King of OT
The poster formerly known as feeder
Posts: 979
|
Post by CommieCanUCK on Sept 4, 2019 17:03:47 GMT -5
That's an interesting interpretation of the article. Did you actually read it? She knew it was her civic duty to explode her life and her privacy, and subject herself and her family to harassment and death threats, by bringing forward her credible accusation because she had been raped by this man and she wanted to demonstrate to the world (successfully) he is morally and tempermentally unfit for SCotUS. She also knew that cons gonna con, and her credible accusation would be met with "lalala I can't hear you!" from persons who only care about controlling women's bodies, and so even when her rape was belittled and dismissed, his unsuitability to provide ruling would still be noted by historians. She did not 'lie for political gain', which is spin some seem to be going for. Her accusation was full of holes, inconsistencies, and completely unsubstanciated. Nothing about it was "credible". It is your belief she lied? She falsely accused him?
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Sept 4, 2019 17:06:10 GMT -5
That's an interesting interpretation of the article. Did you actually read it? She knew it was her civic duty to explode her life and her privacy, and subject herself and her family to harassment and death threats, by bringing forward her credible accusation because she had been raped by this man and she wanted to demonstrate to the world (successfully) he is morally and tempermentally unfit for SCotUS. She also knew that cons gonna con, and her credible accusation would be met with "lalala I can't hear you!" from persons who only care about controlling women's bodies, and so even when her rape was belittled and dismissed, his unsuitability to provide ruling would still be noted by historians. She did not 'lie for political gain', which is spin some seem to be going for. Her accusation was full of holes, inconsistencies, and completely unsubstanciated. Nothing about it was "credible". Correct. Here's the final report."After an extensive investigation that included the thorough review of all potentially credible evidence submitted and interviews of more than 40 individuals with information relating to the allegations, including classmates and friends of all those involved, Committee investigators found no witness who could provide any verifiable evidence to support any of the allegations brought against Justice Kavanaugh"...."In other words, following the separate and extensive investigations by both the Committee and the FBI, there was no evidence to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault made against Justice Kavanaugh."
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Sept 4, 2019 17:07:04 GMT -5
She did not 'lie for political gain', which is spin some seem to be going for. How do you know for sure?
|
|