Ivanka Trump used a personal email account to send hundreds of emails about government business last

[Bullseye]

It's not a witch hunt if member's of Trump's own party, specifically the lead congressional prosecutor - Trey Gowdy -- the man who investigated Hillary's use of a private email server - is now calling for Ivanka's private emails to be investigated. If they use the same level of scrutiny with Invaka as they did with Hillary, we should know fairly quickly if she's telling the truth.

Sorry, no. Just in case you're unaware being a member of "Trump's own party" doesn't guarantee the person likes or supports Trump - there is still a large faction of "never Trumper" on the right. I think Gowdy is just trying to short-circuit the loony left from turning Ivanka into another Kavanaugh travesty.

 

[Objective Voice]

Sorry, no. Just in case you're unaware being a member of "Trump's own party" doesn't guarantee the person likes or supports Trump - there is still a large faction of "never Trumper" on the right. I think Gowdy is just trying to short-circuit the loony left from turning Ivanka into another Kavanaugh travesty.

I'd like to think Gowdy's trying to be more of a straight shooter now that he's headed out the door.

 

[Bullseye]

I'd like to think Gowdy's trying to be more of a straight shooter now that he's headed out the door.

It's a free country, think what you want. I think Gowdy is trying to head off the Mad Dog Demagogues, er . . . Democrats from spinning this into another Kavanaugh saga. We'll see.
.

 

[Objective Voice]

It's a free country, think what you want. I think Gowdy is trying to head off the Mad Dog Demagogues, er . . . Democrats from spinning this into another Kavanaugh saga. We'll see.
.

Gee, thanks...I'm glad I have your permission to use my own mind. :roll:

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Seeing as how I stated irrefutable facts I fully understand your bloviating and refusing to answer the question. :thumbs:

The "indisputable fact" is that Ms. Clinton did something that she probably ought not to have done, but which was not prohibited.

The "indisputable fact" is that the material described as "classified" was not so classified at the time that Ms. Clinton did whatever she did with it.

The "indisputable fact" is that senior counsel determined that there was NO REASONABLE prospect of obtaining a conviction.

The "indisputable fact" is that commencing and then continuing a prosecution when you are of the opinion that there is NO REASONABLE prospect of obtaining a conviction is an "abuse of process".

Your list of "facts" was (allowing for deliberate semantic distortions arising from bias) essentially correct.

Your deliberate stopping of that listing of "facts" prior to the inclusion of the fact that senior counsel determined that there was NO REASONABLE prospect of obtaining a conviction was misleading (since you have exhibited as close to zero knowledge of the law and/or legal process, I'll skip "knowingly" [but if you want to maintain that you do actually have some knowledge of the law and/or legal process I'm most happy to include it]).

You do know what a knowingly misleading statement made knowingly is called don't you?

I'll give you a hint, it has three letters, starts with the letter "L", ends with the letter "E", and rhymes with the word "TIE".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I answered the question Cardinal asked, he has yet to answer mine as you refused to.

Considering that you didn't ask me any question, it's rather difficult for me to have answered it, isn't it?

You ask me if I care that Ms. Clinton did the same thing as Ms. Trump is accused of doing?

Now my answer to that would depend on several factors:

1. DID Ms. Clinton "do the same thing" as Ms. Trump is accused of doing?
2. Would the correct formulation of the question actually be "Do I care that Ms. Clinton IS ACCUSED of doing the same thing that Ms. Trump is accused of doing?
3. Has any investigation been made into the accusations against Ms. Clinton?
4. What were the results of those investigations, if any?
5. Have any investigations been made into the accusations against Ms. Trump?
6. What were the results of those investigations, if any?
7. What were the actual REGULATIONS at the time of the actions that MS. Clinton is accused of?
8. What were the actual REGULATIONS at the time of the actions that Ms. Trump is accused of?
9. Are there any differences between the actual REGULATIONS between those two times?
10. Is it a criminal offence to violate a "recommended practice" where that "recommended practice" is NOT mandatory?

So, taking all of those factors into account, I most certainly do "care" about whether the two situations are identical.

That being said, should the two situations be identical, then the judicial outcome arising from the two situations should also be identical.

That means that, assuming that Ms. Clinton and Ms. Trump did the same thing under the same REGULATIONS, then they should BOTH be sent for trial and, if convicted should be subject to the same penalty.

Now, let me ask you four questions:

On the assumption that the situations between what Ms. Clinton is accused of doing and what Ms. Trump is accused of doing and both are tried, and both are convicted

• "What penalty should be imposed on Ms. Clinton?";
• "What penalty should be imposed on Ms. Trump?";
• "After trial and sentencing of Ms. Clinton, should Mr. Trump issue her a pardon?"; and
• "After trial and sentencing of Ms. Trump, should Mr. Trump issue her a pardon?

Please be ready to explain why, if there is any difference between your answers to Questions A and B and if there is any difference between your answers to Questions C and D.

PS - I may well also ask you for legal citations to back up your answers.​

 

[hanger4]

The "indisputable fact" is that Ms. Clinton did something that she probably ought not to have done, but which was not prohibited.

The "indisputable fact" is that the material described as "classified" was not so classified at the time that Ms. Clinton did whatever she did with it.

The "indisputable fact" is that senior counsel determined that there was NO REASONABLE prospect of obtaining a conviction.

The "indisputable fact" is that commencing and then continuing a prosecution when you are of the opinion that there is NO REASONABLE prospect of obtaining a conviction is an "abuse of process".

Your list of "facts" was (allowing for deliberate semantic distortions arising from bias) essentially correct.

Your deliberate stopping of that listing of "facts" prior to the inclusion of the fact that senior counsel determined that there was NO REASONABLE prospect of obtaining a conviction was misleading (since you have exhibited as close to zero knowledge of the law and/or legal process, I'll skip "knowingly" [but if you want to maintain that you do actually have some knowledge of the law and/or legal process I'm most happy to include it]).

You do know what a knowingly misleading statement made knowingly is called don't you?

I'll give you a hint, it has three letters, starts with the letter "L", ends with the letter "E", and rhymes with the word "TIE".

Indisputable fact; HRC failed to archive her emails as required by the Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act.

Indisputable fact; HRC failed to comply with FOIA requests.

Indisputable fact; HRC sent received emails that were classified AT the time they were sent received. A 7 email chain was classified at the Top Secret SAP level.

Comey isn't a prosecutor, his opinion is irrelevant.

The indisputable facts I listed were not deliberate semantic distortions and substantiated, yours are simply untrue.

 

[hanger4]

Considering that you didn't ask me any question, it's rather difficult for me to have answered it, isn't it?

You ask me if I care that Ms. Clinton did the same thing as Ms. Trump is accused of doing?

Now my answer to that would depend on several factors:

1. DID Ms. Clinton "do the same thing" as Ms. Trump is accused of doing?
2. Would the correct formulation of the question actually be "Do I care that Ms. Clinton IS ACCUSED of doing the same thing that Ms. Trump is accused of doing?
3. Has any investigation been made into the accusations against Ms. Clinton?
4. What were the results of those investigations, if any?
5. Have any investigations been made into the accusations against Ms. Trump?
6. What were the results of those investigations, if any?
7. What were the actual REGULATIONS at the time of the actions that MS. Clinton is accused of?
8. What were the actual REGULATIONS at the time of the actions that Ms. Trump is accused of?
9. Are there any differences between the actual REGULATIONS between those two times?
10. Is it a criminal offence to violate a "recommended practice" where that "recommended practice" is NOT mandatory?

So, taking all of those factors into account, I most certainly do "care" about whether the two situations are identical.

That being said, should the two situations be identical, then the judicial outcome arising from the two situations should also be identical.

That means that, assuming that Ms. Clinton and Ms. Trump did the same thing under the same REGULATIONS, then they should BOTH be sent for trial and, if convicted should be subject to the same penalty.

Now, let me ask you four questions:

On the assumption that the situations between what Ms. Clinton is accused of doing and what Ms. Trump is accused of doing and both are tried, and both are convicted

• "What penalty should be imposed on Ms. Clinton?";
• "What penalty should be imposed on Ms. Trump?";
• "After trial and sentencing of Ms. Clinton, should Mr. Trump issue her a pardon?"; and
• "After trial and sentencing of Ms. Trump, should Mr. Trump issue her a pardon?

Please be ready to explain why, if there is any difference between your answers to Questions A and B and if there is any difference between your answers to Questions C and D.

PS - I may well also ask you for legal citations to back up your answers.​

What a word salad. My favorite part is right at the start, you said;

*Considering that you didn't ask me any question, it's rather difficult for me to have answered it, isn't it?*

And nearly quoted the question I asked;

*You ask me if I care that Ms. Clinton did the same thing as Ms. Trump is accused of doing?*

Have already stated the pertinent and indisputable facts concerning HRC regardless of how you wish to reframe the question to suit your answer.