SCHOCK POLL: Trump's Crimes addition

[jamesrage]

If things go as I suspect they will on the Dem side, where Hillary will completely disown her so-called "progressive" credentials and pivots hard right by bragging about her extreme war-hawkishness among other things, I'll be looking third party.

Wouldn't surprise me.That woman is just as bad as Trump is when it comes to flip flopping. My state screws 3rd party candidates so I am leaving that part of the ballot blank.

 

[cpwill]

I'm not. I thought from the very beginning this was going to be great entertainment, and I have not been disappointed.

I think the "my scum bucket is better that your scum bucket" arguments are at the least, funny. So, no, I don't see any reason to be depressed. I'll save my depression for what happens after the election; I will need it.

Pro Tip: Buy Stock in antidepressants and liquor.

 

[poweRob]

President Obama himself would sign the TPP. In fact it may be fully negotiated and signed before Clinton takes office.

Yes and I fully disagree with him as Hillary has said as well. We will find that out to be a lie of course I'm afraid.

They Keystone pipeline is irrelevant. That oil is going to be shipped out no matter what, by not building the pipeline you're just forcing it onto Tankers and Rail Cars which have a higher chance of spilling, and will likely cause far more damage if they do.

Its relevant enough for the candidates to take a position on it and we'll see if their mouths match their actions. And that is something that is relevant.

Lastly, let me just say. Back in 2000 I voted for president for the very first time. At the time I didn't really care for Gore or Bush that much. I decided to vote Nader. That year George Bush won the election by the skin of his teeth largely due to the votes cast for Nader that should have gone to Gore. He then proceeded to destroy the economy, hand out massive tax gifts to the wealthy, get us evolved with multiple protracted and expensive wars, and utterly destroy all respect for the United States of America around the world. I will never make the mistake of voting for a pointless 3rd party candidate again. Perfection cannot be the enemy of the good, and I assure you that if Donald Trump wins as a result of people like yourself you will deeply regret it. The Keystone pipeline and the TPP will pale in comparison to the destruction that Trump causes.

I voted for Nader in 2000 as well. It wasn't his fault Bush won. That is such a canard. Gore would've won in Florida if Pat Buchanan didn't run. Was it Nader's fault Gore couldn't even win his own home state? No. Gore was a terrible candidate and Donna Brazille was a terrible campaign adviser. Gore and Bush sat in those debates agreeing over and over and over again. It was infuriating. How the **** can a veep run for prez right after a highly successful economy and surplus was in place... and lose? That's not Nader's fault. Scapegoat all you want to ease your conscience but facts don't change with feelings.

 

[cpwill]

I detect sour grapes masked by anger.

:shrug: nah. I've gotten to the acceptance phase of mourning

 

[Ikari]

Could we possibly have an election where both candidates are under indictment?

Hillary v. Trump...a black eye for America.

 

[MrWonka]

Top Secret information is defined as that which, if exposed, would result in "exceptionally grave damage to National Security".

What Hillary did is a felony. It is, in fact, many felonies.

First, Hillary Clinton has not, and will not be charged with anything let alone a felony.

Second, David Patraeus wasn't even ultimately charged with a felony, and his actions are significantly worse than Hillary's. He didn't simply leave information in a non-standard debatably secure place he actually leaked it.

The laws that Hillary broke are the same laws that Robert Hanssen broke, the same laws that Aldrich Ames broke, the same laws that Bradley Manning broke, and the same laws that Edward Snowden broke.

False, again these people actually leaked classified information. There is no evidence that any of the information in Clinton's email was actually leaked, had a higher likelihood of being leaked, or that it was even classified at the time she was handling it.

The kind of information that Hillary spilled

Again, Hillary spilled nothing. At worst she should have been more careful with it.

The crimes that Trump University are accused of were intentional crimes where people were actually harmed.

It's kinda sorta pretty serious.

No, not really. Again all the people you have listed are people who intentionally leaked information they weren't supposed to.

 

[natsb]

I have usually been able to find the humor in it. The problem for me comes in when I remember that one of these people will actually be our president in real life.

Agreed! I am keeping my big boy pants and iron shorts at the ready. My belief is that those that can't hold on to a sense of humor in the next four years are doomed. I have been bulking up to make sure my grip is strong. I foresee many opportunities for it to be lost this November.

 

[natsb]

Pro Tip: Buy Stock in antidepressants and liquor.

Great tip. There is always someone who makes lemonade from the lemons. You sir, are an artist.

 

[cpwill]

First, Hillary Clinton has not, and will not be charged with anything let alone a felony.

Yup. This is what it usually comes down to.

Hence my original argument:

I've long said that Hillary Clinton could murder a child, on live television, and her supporters would claim that She Hadn't Been Convicted Of It So It Didn't Count.
Trump could murder a child on live television and his supporters would argue that children have it coming.

Thank you for being so quick to demonstrate the point

Second, David Patraeus wasn't even ultimately charged with a felony,

Oh hey look! A straw man! No one was talking about Patraeus!

However, yes, he plea bargained. Which was wise on his part, and set an unfortunate example for everyone else. If you are sufficiently important, it seems, the law applies to you less and less.

and his actions are significantly worse than Hillary's.

Actually no they aren't.

He didn't simply leave information in a non-standard debatably secure place he actually leaked it

:shrug: to a woman with a security clearance. The two actions, however, are legally the same, as they violate the same law. Hillary just did it many, many, many more times.

False, again these people actually leaked classified information.

Yeah. So did Hillary.

There is no evidence that any of the information in Clinton's email was actually leaked

Actually there are now more than 2,000 known examples of there being leaks of classified information in Hillary's email, up to and including 22 Top Secret documents, which in turn included SCI and SAP information.

Again, Hillary spilled nothing.

:shrug: thousands of known examples say otherwise.


You seem confused. Fortunately for you, I have a background in military intelligence, and this was part of my job. When you put classified information onto the unclassified internet or an unclassified system - that's called a spillage, it's considered a leak, and it's a violation of both federal law and the life-long legally binding contract that you signed with the government before you were given access to that information in the first place.

The crimes that Trump University are accused of were intentional crimes where people were actually harmed.

Sure. So were Hillary's actions in keeping her activity - to include the consumption and spreading of classified information - on an unclassified, private server.

No, not really. Again all the people you have listed are people who intentionally leaked information they weren't supposed to.

Yeah. So did Hillary. The law doesn't care why you chose to leak the information (a DA, Prosecutor, Judge, and/or Jury might when it comes to sentencing), it cares that you did.

 

[MrWonka]

I voted for Nader in 2000 as well. It wasn't his fault Bush won. That is such a canard. Gore would've won in Florida if Pat Buchanan didn't run.

Doesn't really matter. The point is that Bush won because of third party candidates who really shouldn't have even been in the race in the first place.

The primary is when third party candidates should try and make their case that they deserve one of the two major nominations. If Jill Stein or Gary Johnson wanted to run in the general election the right thing to do for the country would have been to run in either the Democratic or Republican primary like Trump, Ron and Rand Paul and Bernie did. All they are doing in the general is pointlessly playing spoilers and potentially getting the worst of all candidates elected.

Anybody thinking about running as a third party candidate need only to look at what happened in the Republican primary this year to see how stupid that idea is. Trump only won about 30% of the votes in Iowa, but he won because the other 16 candidates split the votes. If Rubio, Bush or Kasich would have been running one on one against Trump they would have likely creamed him and ultimately won the nomination. Instead too many cooks in the kitchen spoiled the meal. They ended up getting the worst possible candidate. The got the one that was the most extreme least reasonable and least like the others and now they're stuck with them. That is precisely what may happen if Bernie Bros don't get over themselves. I can assure you that if Bernie would have won the nomination every single solitary Clinton supporter would be 100% behind him whether they loved it or not. They sucked up in 2008 with Obama and they'd do it again for Bernie because it's what is in the best interest of the party and the country.

 

[poweRob]

Doesn't really matter. The point is that Bush won because of third party candidates who really shouldn't have even been in the race in the first place.

The primary is when third party candidates should try and make their case that they deserve one of the two major nominations. If Jill Stein or Gary Johnson wanted to run in the general election the right thing to do for the country would have been to run in either the Democratic or Republican primary like Trump, Ron and Rand Paul and Bernie did. All they are doing in the general is pointlessly playing spoilers and potentially getting the worst of all candidates elected.

Anybody thinking about running as a third party candidate need only to look at what happened in the Republican primary this year to see how stupid that idea is. Trump only won about 30% of the votes in Iowa, but he won because the other 16 candidates split the votes. If Rubio, Bush or Kasich would have been running one on one against Trump they would have likely creamed him and ultimately won the nomination. Instead too many cooks in the kitchen spoiled the meal. They ended up getting the worst possible candidate. The got the one that was the most extreme least reasonable and least like the others and now they're stuck with them. That is precisely what may happen if Bernie Bros don't get over themselves. I can assure you that if Bernie would have won the nomination every single solitary Clinton supporter would be 100% behind him whether they loved it or not. They sucked up in 2008 with Obama and they'd do it again for Bernie because it's what is in the best interest of the party and the country.

Ah so now we get down to the crux of your argument. You don't like democracy. Or you have the flawed view that democracy is a two party thing ONLY!

You also seem to be sporting the flawed notion that people who vote for third party candidates would even bother to vote at all if their candidate wasn't in the race.

Also, you can never assure 100% of anything. That you'd say that shows you aren't fully aware of how the electorate actually pans out in elections.

 

[MrWonka]

Thank you for being so quick to demonstrate the point

You don't have a point, you have very poor speculation.

Oh hey look! A straw man! No one was talking about Patraeus!

Please educate yourself on what a straw man is before you use the term. A straw man would be if I tried to mis-represent your position. What I have done is provide and example of someone who was actually found guilty of doing something close to, but actually worse than what Clinton did as a counterpoint to your assertion(which still isn't even close happening) that Clinton committed a felony.

However, yes, he plea bargained. Which was wise on his part, and set an unfortunate example for everyone else. If you are sufficiently important, it seems, the law applies to you less and less.

to a woman with a security clearance.

Which is only active when she is serving in her role as a reservist not ****ing General Patraeus and writing a biography about him. In fact everyone Clinton sent and received emails from did in fact also have a security clearance so no problem there.

The two actions, however, are legally the same, as they violate the same law.

Just because two people violate a the speed limit doesn't mean they are equivalent. Someone doing 100 in a 45 mph work zone will face significantly higher charges than someone going 63 in a 55.

Hillary just did it many, many, many more times.

Accept she didn't at all, because the documents were not classified at the time she was even using them, not to mention the fact that they were not leaked to anybody who did not have a clearance to read them.

Yeah. So did Hillary.

This is so factually false it is ridiculous. If you're not going to even try and tell the truth we're done her.

Actually there are now more than 2,000 known examples of there being leaks of classified information in Hillary's email, up to and including 22 Top Secret documents, which in turn included SCI and SAP information.

False, there are known examples of emails on her server(very different than leaked) which were retroactively classified.

The law doesn't care why you leaked the information (a DA, Prosecutor, Judge, and/or Jury might when it comes to sentencing), it cares that you did.

Wrong again, the law absolutely cares. Intent is incredibly important when determining guilt. Negligence alone unless it's gross negligence will almost certainly never get you in trouble unless something bad actually happens as a result of your negligence.

What you're accusing Clinton of is the equivalent of speeding, or texting while driving at best. Bad no doubt, but unless she actually caused an accident it is highly unlikely to get her more than a reprimand if that. You will not be getting an indictment and certainly not a conviction as a result of it. Please do come back here and let me see you cry when you learn that reality.

 

[MrWonka]

Ah so now we get down to the crux of your argument. You don't like democracy. Or you have the flawed view that democracy is a two party thing ONLY!

No, you have a flawed view of political parties. Party platforms change all the time. Lincoln was a Republican for god sake. Neither Reagan or Ike would be a republican today if they were alive. Hell Reagan was a Democrat and switched to a Republican at one point already.

There is plenty of room within the two individual parties for candidates who do not agree 100% with the average member of the party to run in the primary and try to sway the party as a whole to it's side. That is precisely what your boy Bernie did, and he almost won. When it comes to a general election however 3rd party candidates are idiotic and irresponsible. They serve no rational purpose besides playing spoiler and helping out demagogues like Trump.

 

[cpwill]

You don't have a point, you have very poor speculation.

:shrug: I've watched enough Hillary defenders ultimately resort to the "but she hasn't been charged/found guilty in a court of law!" as a defense for her behavior.

Which is only active when she is serving in her role as a reservist not ****ing General Patraeus and writing a biography about him.

Concur. She didn't have Need To Know. She did, however, have a clearance, and was an authorized depository for classified information.

Unlike Hillary's server, which wasn't.

everyone Clinton sent and received emails from did in fact also have a security clearance

That is also false - she sent emails back and forth to private adviser Sydney Blumenthal, for example (she initially tried to lie about this), as well as others with no clearance. Additionally (and, this is important) the placing of classified information into an unclassified system is considered a leak. All 2,000+ times.

Just because two people violate a the speed limit doesn't mean they are equivalent. Someone doing 100 in a 45 mph work zone will face significantly higher charges than someone going 63 in a 55.

Sure. Hillary violated the law many, many, many times more than Patraeus did. Her punishment (if we have rule of law. Which we don't) should be more severe.

Accept she didn't at all, because the documents were not classified at the time she was even using them

This is another Clinton claim that was a lie. Laughably so, which is why she later abandoned it. Information is classified at the point of collection and processing depending on the sources, means, and methods used. Retroactively classified information is exceedingly rare, and usually a result of the amalgamation of multiple pieces of unclassified information which, aggregated, can become Confidential or even Secret. It is not possible for this to apply to Top Secret or SCI information, which is an explicit production of one of the "INTs" (intelligence disciplines).

It's whatcha call "born classified". The only way that that information could have been unclassified at the time Hillary used it is if she collected it herself, using equipment that she herself designed and built and which hadn't been through the US Government Procurement process yet, but which she later sold to a member of the Intelligence Community.

So, unless you want to argue that Double-O-Hillary was running around the Libyan desert with a super-special set of SIGINT gear that she built in her backyard, the idea that the information wasn't classified when it was stored (illegally) on an unclassified server is.....

....well, to anyone who has ever actually dealt with the intelligence cycle, ridiculous.

This is so factually false it is ridiculous. If you're not going to even try and tell the truth we're done her.

It's not. If you are determined to ignore reality, then I suppose we are. If not, however (I am doubtful, but always happy to be proven wrong), I'd be happy to recommend some reading on the Intelligence Cycle, the Intelligence Community, what HCS, SI, TK, and all those other acronym's stand for, etc.

False, there are known examples of emails on her server(very different than leaked) which were retroactively classified.

This is incorrect on both counts. Classified information stored on an unclassified server constitutes a leak, and the information was born classified.

Intent is incredibly important when determining guilt. Negligence alone unless it's gross negligence will almost certainly never get you in trouble unless something bad actually happens as a result of your negligence.

Actually in this case, gross negligence is as much a violation of the law as intentionality is. All US Government employees and contractors allowed to access classified information receive training on it's recognition and handling, and sign a life-long legally binding contract with the United States government stating that they are both capable of properly following the procedures for handling classified information, and will do so.

What you're accusing Clinton of is the equivalent of speeding, or texting while driving at best

No, what I'm noting here is that Clinton violated multiple federal laws, and she seems to have done it thousands of times, for convenience.

You will not be getting an indictment and certainly not a conviction as a result of it.

Oh, I've always said that she'll slide on this. The Democrats are not about to hand over the White House to the Republicans over a petty little thing like Rule of Law.

 

[Cyrylek]

Trump has inoculated himself masterfully against virtually any scandalous revelation. For months now, the rule is simple: Every time there is a heated discussion about what he said yesterday (usually something ugly or incredibly stupid) or what he did ten years ago - he gets more support.

 

[clownboy]

Considering the little coverage the release of documents proving the scam has had... Doubt many Americans will even hear about it.

It is an absolute scandal that the media are defacto covering up massive fraud by anyone let alone a presidential candidate.

Of course Trump supporters will try to deflect with the Clinton email scandal but lets be real here... Did her possible problematic handling of classified information... something that former cabinet members also did... does that even compare to criminal activity that defrauded thousands of Americans?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Thousands of Americans were defrauded by the Rose Law Firm when Hillary was a partner there. That's why every one of the partners, except protected Hillary, went to prison. But none of that ever bothered you. Pretty sure some of those folks were veterans.

 

[PeteEU]

You don't see it do you? Read your post carefully.

You are causally dismissing the serious crimes Clinton is accused of while ignoring the way the media is treating them with little coverage. All the while, deflecting to minor Trump issues as if they were world class syndicate crimes.

Pot, meet kettle.

First off, the Clinton email issue is hardly being ignored. We even hearing about it over here in Europe. But as of yet there has not been any final ruling of wrong doing, nor any real evidence of a problem. Plus lets not forget that, what Clinton is being accused of doing, was also done by not only the last many Secretary of States (including Powel and Rice), but even people that ran the Bush White House (Rove and the GOP). So talk about pot meets kettle.

Secondly, what Clinton did or did not do, frankly had no impact what so ever on anyone.. prove that some one lost financially or even their lives by what she did. Did the enemies of the US get any secrets from the Clinton email server/issue? Not as far as I know.... but please prove me wrong with some sort of proof on that point.

Now Trump.. here we not only have proof of wrong doing.. there is absolutely no doubt about that, but it fits into a pattern that we have know for a long time about Trump. Have people been hurt by his actions.. financially and even physically? You betcha. People were conned into massive debt with false promises and lies by a Trump approved and controlled enterprise. That is fraud. And it is not the first time Trump has been linked to such things.

 

[PeteEU]

Are you really asking if thousands of felonies compare to thousands of violations of state law?

Because the answer is yes, though Hillary's crime is more severe.

Why is Hilary's alleged crime more severe? I mean Rove did it, but he was never punished.. so did many of the former Secs of State.. Was there any loss of life? Any financial implications for hundreds or thousands of people? Were people robbed of their livelihoods?

Are you seriously saying that massive fraud is a lesser thing than breaking so stupid government rules that others also broke over the years? Seriously?

 

[cpwill]

Why is Hilary's alleged crime more severe?

It involves thousands of felonies and exceptionally grave damage to US National Security?

I mean Rove did it, but he was never punished..

Rove never (to my knowledge) put Top Secret information onto an unclassified email system. If you have evidence that he did, I encourage you to contact the Federal Bureau of Investigations.

 

[PeteEU]

Thousands of Americans were defrauded by the Rose Law Firm when Hillary was a partner there. That's why every one of the partners, except protected Hillary, went to prison. But none of that ever bothered you. Pretty sure some of those folks were veterans.

When was this.. 40 years ago?

 

[natsb]

First off, the Clinton email issue is hardly being ignored. We even hearing about it over here in Europe. But as of yet there has not been any final ruling of wrong doing, nor any real evidence of a problem. Plus lets not forget that, what Clinton is being accused of doing, was also done by not only the last many Secretary of States (including Powel and Rice), but even people that ran the Bush White House (Rove and the GOP). So talk about pot meets kettle.

Secondly, what Clinton did or did not do, frankly had no impact what so ever on anyone.. prove that some one lost financially or even their lives by what she did. Did the enemies of the US get any secrets from the Clinton email server/issue? Not as far as I know.... but please prove me wrong with some sort of proof on that point.

Now Trump.. here we not only have proof of wrong doing.. there is absolutely no doubt about that, but it fits into a pattern that we have know for a long time about Trump. Have people been hurt by his actions.. financially and even physically? You betcha. People were conned into massive debt with false promises and lies by a Trump approved and controlled enterprise. That is fraud. And it is not the first time Trump has been linked to such things.

Your a hoot. You just keep delivering proof points for me.

No, no other State official or Rove did what Clinton did. That has been proven to you time and time again. Yet you hold on viciously to any grain of hope that Clinton is innocent based on the tired "he did it too" defense.

I am loving the second paragraph. Your notion is that revealing State secrets to enemies is harmless, therefore what difference does it make? Gee, where have we heard that before?

Sigh... No, there is no proof of any criminal wrong doing by Trump. But here is your opportunity to do what no journalist or prosecutor has ever done; prove it. The world is watching you, here is your big chance. Please don't leave us thinking all you have to offer is hyperbole.

 

[Excon]

Actually they already settled out of court with at least one Vet who was fired.

And?
That is not a point as the article also gives the other side of the story saying she was fired for poor performance which came after she had refused to work more hours. The article also points out that there was no admittance of wrong doing in the settlement on the Universities part.

Which brings us right back around to what I already said.

Assumptions based on the allegations of a few disgruntled individuals are not equal to a "Turns out" either.
​

That statement didn't just apply to the University Students.

Trump specifically may not go to jail because CEO's never get charged for the crimes of their corporations, but the fact of the matter is Trump University is guilty, the people he hired did in fact commit these crimes, and they have already settled lawsuits with the veterans who were fired.

Fact of the matter? iLOL
Thank you for establishing that you have no clue in regards to what you spoke.

 

[Mason66]

Are you serious? Trump is not only being investigated his university was in fact guilty of the exact thing we are stating. Hillary has been charged with nothing, yet the Benghazi/Email investigation has dominated Fox News for over two years.

And Trump has been charged with nothing.

You declared him guilty then went on to say Hillary hasn't been charged.

Why the double standard?

 

[Mason66]

That you for proving how little you actually understand about Hillary Clinton and how much you've been falling for the false characterization of Clinton. I can assure you that the last thing Hillary Clinton will be running on in the General election will be a pro-war stance. She will be running almost exclusively on the continued improvement of the Economy under president Obama, the fabulous economy of the 90's during her husbands presidency, fighting for the rights of women, minorities, and the middle class. With respect to foreign policy she will be running once again primarily on a continuation of Obama's foreign policy. She will talk about killing Bin Laden and the Iran Nuclear deal.

The only place she might even come close to looking hawkish is while talking about how we have to defeat ISIS. Her strategy will be similar to what President Obama has already done, whereas Trump's will be insane to the point where any thought you had about searching for a third party candidate will go out the window when the reality of him potentially winning if Hillary doesn't set in.

What is your official title with her campaign?

 

[Mason66]

Trump specifically may not go to jail because CEO's never get charged for the crimes of their corporations, but the fact of the matter is Trump University is guilty, the people he hired did in fact commit these crimes, and they have already settled lawsuits with the veterans who were fired.

Please link to the determination of a court on this matter.

Thanks