Trump Investigations Thread
- Thread starter Rocinante
- Start date
Be less patronizing if you wanna be taken seriously.
evilchumlee
Well-known member
Being called a moron and "absorbed by propaganda" isn't patronizing? Why does this only roll one way?
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
I disagree with chumlee's response but I have my own problem with that evidence you posted, which is that it doesn't actually dispute the charge that people dislike Trump. Rather, it seems to be about Joe Biden having even lower likability than Trump in polling, which is a non sequitur. Trump does indeed seem to have majority unfavorable in favorable/unfavorable polling, just as he has for the vast majority of the past seven years. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html
Please let me know if I missed something about your evidence that would substantiate "the totality of major opinion polls over the past several months indicate that it's false that most people dislike Trump".
That was the actual quote?
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
No, but it is a paraphrasing.
'She did it, but without criminal intent' was what the FBI declared.
evilchumlee
Well-known member
Intent is absolutely something to take into consideration though, and it's very clear that what was done absolutely had no criminal intent and if it weren't the political agenda behind it, it would be a complete non-issue.
Not with classified information handling it doesn't.
If an airman or marine had been as careless as Clinton was with her server and passing classified info through it, they would have gotten decades in Leavenworth for it.
Intent is not needed for those laws, just carelessness, and that's all assuming Clinton wasn't doing anything nefarious with that classified info to enrich herself by selling state secrets.
Blasterbot
Well-known member
It could be taken into account for the purposes of sentencing guidelines. but not for the crime. there are many crimes that require no intent. this is one of them. I also doubt that she didn't intend it. but if they want to say she is a boomer and doesn't understand tech that still isn't actually a defense against the charges. it just says she is dumb not malicious in this instance.
edgeworthy
Well-known member
So let's see if I have this clear. Trump says that his son Eric will not be testifying because ...
Eric turns 40 in January.
Vyor
My influence grows!
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
He'd also have been around 32 when the "corrupt witch hunt" started, if you look at the history of nothingburger investigations into Trump.
edgeworthy
Well-known member
77, but afterall what is the significance of four years?
evilchumlee
Well-known member
Somewhat splitting hairs. It was determined that the "crime" occurred. Given the context, it was deemed that a sentence was unnecessary.
It's the hypocrisy part of it though that really gets me. You think Clinton should hang for mishandling classified information. Ok. How about Trump having classified documents just hanging around Mar-a-lago? Where's the outrage? It seems to be ok if some people do it...
(For the record, I think Trump's only real issue there was being difficult about giving them back. Having them there I don't see an issue... but... they needed to be returned when requested.)
Ummm...the investigators don't have the responsibility OR authority to determine that. The DoJ investigators refused to submit the charges to the Federal DAs for further pursuit of criminal charges.
emphasized the point at issue: The records were behind lock and key in a restricted area. Trump's group further restricted access upon the govt's request. There was no 'just hanging around' nonsense in regard to these documents.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
He actually had the authority to declassify it, and while I can't track down a citation I'm pretty sure there was a case confirming implicit use for close to exactly what Trump did with one of the many times an ex-president was found out to have had classified documents laying around. And as The Whispering Monk mentioned, he'd been contacted by the appropriate authority and did as requested.
Whereas Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton did not have any declassifying authority over the documents in their scandals, meaning no legal buffer for charges. Which would explain why the investigators passed nothing to prosecutors, because there is literally no way to charge Trump without an absolutely ironclad basis for sinking a lot of politicians over the same thing.
evilchumlee
Well-known member
Sounds to be like alot of stuff that, according to the logic presented here, should be taken into account in sentencing.
I don't actually think there needs to be any legal action there, just as there wasn't any need for legal action in Clinton's case. I just want people to apply things equally. Don't just find excuses because your side did it.
A former President has precisely zero authority to declassify anything. You don't keep powers retroactively. Had he declassified while he was President, there's absolutely no issue. That did not happen.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Hence the past-tense and reference to case law establishing implicit use. It's not that it's retroactive, but that the courts accepted "well you trivially could have made this perfectly above-board, we won't begrudge a missing boiler-plate statement".
evilchumlee
Well-known member
Sounds awfully similar to "there was no criminal intent."
Vyor
My influence grows!
No, because Trump declassified everything he took to MAL, as was his right as POTUS to declass anything he wanted, and the National Archives and Biden decided to play more fuck-fuck games with the DoJ to try to hit Trump for something they lied about and effectively ignored all previous precedent by POTUS's on declassing things.
Where as we don't even know what all Clinton had in her server, because she had her people destroy and wipe everything on it, in direct contempt of the subpeona's and such she had been served with.
Of course you'll ignore all this, and likely just ignore this post, because you aren't here to do any sort of good faith posting, just bad faith trolling and shit stirring while ignoring any fact that doesn't fit your MSM derived, TDS-suffering mindset.