Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Do you understand that the emails are a small example? It's about getting away with criminal conduct without a trial. Where is the justice in that.
Trump's Russian connections are troublesome, we should definitely keep focusing on what Trump is doing. But we have to also know how Trump got here, so that we can stop the next one.
edited 20th Nov '16 4:13:18 AM by StephanReiken
Except that in the rape cases we do not have any information on the validity of the claims and the Trump University is a civil matter isn't it? and either way was settled.
FBI Said these in the press. Quoting from https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
A leads to B. I'd be in jail had I done this. Hillary wasn't even put on trial for it.
edited 20th Nov '16 4:24:04 AM by StephanReiken
In four years Trump will have set climate change response back a decade, if we are very lucky.
In four years Trump will have replaced Scalia with someone at least as bad as him, and if you are unlucky he will replace two of the liberal judges and Kennedy.
In four years Trump is going to do irreparable harm, more than any email ever did.
![]()
Oh ffs, Trump flat out admitted to sexual assault. Funny how you are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that while being so "principled" on the email issue.
edited 20th Nov '16 4:26:50 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.I mean, really, the issue of climate change alone should automatically make Trump unelectable.
Oh God! Natural light!And yet they said they investigated for negligent handling of classified information and said that occured. But their reasoning for not pursing a case would be like, dismissing a case of fatal drunk driving because clearly the person did not 'intend' to commit negligent manslaughter.
"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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
A crime of negligence does not have anything to do with intent.
And it was deemed irrelevant enough to not warrant a trial or criminal action. It'd be like actually taking someone to court for jaywalking.
But if you really wanna push that we'd need to put most of the Senate and the House on trial along with most of Bush's administration and Pence for similar email servers.
edited 20th Nov '16 4:33:24 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?Wasn't the problem also, that practically every other Secretary of State did exactly the same thing? Leading to problems of legal retroactivity?
Anyway, this conversation always stinks of whataboutism. It's like fighting Russian trolls on every possible defence related website back here.
I counter with BLACK MAGIC!
edited 20th Nov '16 4:33:55 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleLook, I certainly don't agree with how Clinton handled that particular issue.
But I really don't think it matters, because the fact remains that what Trump will do as President will do far more damage that Clinton would have done.
It can't be that many Secretaries of State - not all of them have had email.
edited 20th Nov '16 4:33:05 AM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!
When you say it ranks higher, what exactly do you envision it to be worse than here?
edited 20th Nov '16 4:40:27 AM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!
And, Commander-in-Chief-Trump doesn't risk military lives with his general attitude and spoiled brat mentality?
The guy's made noises about DADT or worse coming back. That's an uptick in suicides, or I'm a melon. Then there's the risk of engagement in Iran. Which wouldn't be pretty.
edited 20th Nov '16 4:42:40 AM by Euodiachloris
He's kinda allowed to use his position for personal gain, uniquely to the president.
The biggest difference between them is I don't think Trump will get away with anything. We wouldn't know about what Clinton was getting away with until it was all over. Clintons sold Uranium to Russia somehow and that had to get a lot of approvals. So selling out to Russia is a possibility there as well. We can't know for sure, the real details never get made public.
Okay. Well, as bad as those are, I was more focused on the fact that Trump is a climate change denier and wants us out of the Paris Agreement, the fact that his VP is a Christian fundamentalist who has advocated for conversion therapy, the fact that his candidate for Chief Strategist is a white supremacist, the fact that his team is advocating a national registry of Muslims, the fact that he'll be picking at least one Supreme Court nominee, and the fact that both the House and the Senate are Republican-controlled, and both they and Trump are supporting a bill that will considerably push back LGBT+ rights.
Among other things.
Please, explain to me why electing Clinton would be worse than the possibility of any of this happening. Hell, just explain to me why she'd be worse than the climate change stuff.
edited 20th Nov '16 4:54:10 AM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!Because in all cases with Trump we still have a country in 4 years.
@Le: Its a matter of fact. The President is allowed to make decisions that would personally benefit him because originally it was viewed that the President could not be so burdened as other public offices are. He only can't accept bribes from foreign states.
edited 20th Nov '16 4:57:01 AM by StephanReiken

And what do you have to say about Trump and his collaboration with the Russian government in getting elected?
Nevermind that the FBI and the courts said no information got out and there was nothing to pursue.
Oh really when?