45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2
Discussion
rscott said:
Isn't the difference that the HRC emails didn't actually show they'd carried out unlawful activities (just pretty ruthless ones..) whereas the leaks about Trump's team so far appear to be evidence of unlawful activities (lying to Senate hearings, breach of lobbying rules,etc).
I don't know about the Trump ones, but my understanding is that the HRC ones should not have existed AT ALL, and that they contained sensitive intelligence data that she should not have been holding on a non US Govt server, and that she at first denied sending them, (quickly exposed as a lie) then denied that there was anything secret in them (quickly exposed as a lie) then said she had fully cooperated with the investigation (subsequently exposed as a lie) and finally tried everything she could to remove all evidence of her wrong doings.. Now, you MIGHT take the view that it's "just a few e mails"..... but given that some in the USA have been jailed for doing on a much smaller scale EXACTLY what HRC did, then you have to wonder why the law of the land does not apply to HRC as it does to others.
if Trump has broken the law then he too should be punished
andymadmak said:
rscott said:
Isn't the difference that the HRC emails didn't actually show they'd carried out unlawful activities (just pretty ruthless ones..) whereas the leaks about Trump's team so far appear to be evidence of unlawful activities (lying to Senate hearings, breach of lobbying rules,etc).
I don't know about the Trump ones, but my understanding is that the HRC ones should not have existed AT ALL, and that they contained sensitive intelligence data that she should not have been holding on a non US Govt server, and that she at first denied sending them, (quickly exposed as a lie) then denied that there was anything secret in them (quickly exposed as a lie) then said she had fully cooperated with the investigation (subsequently exposed as a lie) and finally tried everything she could to remove all evidence of her wrong doings.. Now, you MIGHT take the view that it's "just a few e mails"..... but given that some in the USA have been jailed for doing on a much smaller scale EXACTLY what HRC did, then you have to wonder why the law of the land does not apply to HRC as it does to others.
if Trump has broken the law then he too should be punished
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36299929
Sadiq Khan calls Trump "ignorant".
Trump counters with a challenge that they take an IQ test.
Surely clever old Trumpet should know that intelligence and ignorance aren't antonyms?
Sadiq Khan calls Trump "ignorant".
Trump counters with a challenge that they take an IQ test.
Surely clever old Trumpet should know that intelligence and ignorance aren't antonyms?
Greg66 said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36299929
Sadiq Khan calls Trump "ignorant".
Trump counters with a challenge that they take an IQ test.
Surely clever old Trumpet should know that intelligence and ignorance aren't antonyms?
May 2016?Sadiq Khan calls Trump "ignorant".
Trump counters with a challenge that they take an IQ test.
Surely clever old Trumpet should know that intelligence and ignorance aren't antonyms?
andymadmak said:
Greg66 said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36299929
Sadiq Khan calls Trump "ignorant".
Trump counters with a challenge that they take an IQ test.
Surely clever old Trumpet should know that intelligence and ignorance aren't antonyms?
May 2016?Sadiq Khan calls Trump "ignorant".
Trump counters with a challenge that they take an IQ test.
Surely clever old Trumpet should know that intelligence and ignorance aren't antonyms?
Greg66 said:
andymadmak said:
Greg66 said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36299929
Sadiq Khan calls Trump "ignorant".
Trump counters with a challenge that they take an IQ test.
Surely clever old Trumpet should know that intelligence and ignorance aren't antonyms?
May 2016?Sadiq Khan calls Trump "ignorant".
Trump counters with a challenge that they take an IQ test.
Surely clever old Trumpet should know that intelligence and ignorance aren't antonyms?
andymadmak said:
lol, no. Just curious as to why you're putting up a link to a story that's 10 months old
TBH I didn't see the date. It popped up in the BBC's byline area, I assume because of yesterday's events. And because I regard Trump's claims to have a really high IQ, like a tremendous, beautiful IQ, to be almost certainly a giant crock of fresh steaming s
t. rscott said:
With HRC, the illegal act was the location of the emails - a private server, not the government one. Yes, an offence, but she's not the only one... I'm sure it was reported that a certain VP used an aol address for confidential emails too.
It wasn't illegal. It was ill advised but not illegal at that time. Not an offense.Big night for Donald and the GOP.
Donald wants to get this boring health malarky sorted ASAP to move onto something more fun and interesting for him, which is the tax changes for people/business; fair enough, he comes from that sector.
The issue is that although the Republicans have good control over the edifices of power they are very split. The battered democrats are at least all of a voice.
It's a bit like when the injuns surrounded the wagon train but then started refusing to shoot arrows.
Donald wants to get this boring health malarky sorted ASAP to move onto something more fun and interesting for him, which is the tax changes for people/business; fair enough, he comes from that sector.
The issue is that although the Republicans have good control over the edifices of power they are very split. The battered democrats are at least all of a voice.
It's a bit like when the injuns surrounded the wagon train but then started refusing to shoot arrows.
Edited by Gandahar on Thursday 23 March 17:59
jmorgan said:
Looks like Nunes is on Fox for an interview with Hannity tonight.
Credibility of an independent investigation down in the depths now.
Sorry - I have watched clips of Hannity. Under no circumstances can what he does be described as an "interview". Credibility of an independent investigation down in the depths now.
He spouts off a monologue at someone, who then agrees with it but is even more extreme. So Hannity ups his extremism levels, and then the other person does, and so on. They fall over each other to come up with and then agree with the most incredibly right wing things possible. It's a complete joke. But without the funny bits that jokes have.
unrepentant said:
It wasn't illegal. It was ill advised but not illegal at that time. Not an offense.
The fact they tried to cover it up and lied every step of the way says to me they knew it was illegal. Everytime i bash HRC i seem to be a trump supported. Im not, but what HRC done should be investigated properly and not covered up. Greg66 said:
Sorry - I have watched clips of Hannity. Under no circumstances can what he does be described as an "interview".
He spouts off a monologue at someone, who then agrees with it but is even more extreme. So Hannity ups his extremism levels, and then the other person does, and so on. They fall over each other to come up with and then agree with the most incredibly right wing things possible. It's a complete joke. But without the funny bits that jokes have.
Yeah, I know what he is and probably why the President likes him. This is playing to an audience of one.He spouts off a monologue at someone, who then agrees with it but is even more extreme. So Hannity ups his extremism levels, and then the other person does, and so on. They fall over each other to come up with and then agree with the most incredibly right wing things possible. It's a complete joke. But without the funny bits that jokes have.
mickytruelove said:
unrepentant said:
It wasn't illegal. It was ill advised but not illegal at that time. Not an offense.
The fact they tried to cover it up and lied every step of the way says to me they knew it was illegal. Everytime i bash HRC i seem to be a trump supported. Im not, but what HRC done should be investigated properly and not covered up. What was legal and what was not, what was sailing close to the wind? Problem is, many just scream jail her, which is ironic given people supposed to have a fair trial and all that, the lynch mob alive and well.
jmorgan said:
mickytruelove said:
unrepentant said:
It wasn't illegal. It was ill advised but not illegal at that time. Not an offense.
The fact they tried to cover it up and lied every step of the way says to me they knew it was illegal. Everytime i bash HRC i seem to be a trump supported. Im not, but what HRC done should be investigated properly and not covered up. What was legal and what was not, what was sailing close to the wind? Problem is, many just scream jail her, which is ironic given people supposed to have a fair trial and all that, the lynch mob alive and well.
I don't know about being prosecuted, seems money does talk for some unless it is clear cut, what was the case here. If it was a cert then could the anti not find the money to do the deed in court. Trump show boated on it, though he did say a lot of other things that I thought he would have problems with at the time.
Irony here is it seem the New York Times run a story saying what happened. You know, the ailing fake news everything is lie New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hil...
I suppose you can discount it as they hate Trump.
Irony here is it seem the New York Times run a story saying what happened. You know, the ailing fake news everything is lie New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hil...
I suppose you can discount it as they hate Trump.
minimoog said:
Interesting that Nunes went and immediately blabbed to Trump about what he'd learned, then held a press conference, but didn't tell the House Intelligence Committee which is investigating Russian interference in Trump's election, of which he is chairman.
Apparently the surveillance activity Nunes has learned of, which is a bit vague but is stated to be both legal and 'incidental', was obtained from - get this for irony - an anonymous source within the intelligence community. No-one but Nunes knows who it is, and no-one can prove it's true. Still, this revelation has handed Trump a golden opportunity to claim his allegations of 'wiretapping' were right. And it's been handed to him by the chairman of the committee supposedly investigating him and his campaign.
Drain that swamp.
Nunes wasa one of the people sent out to kill the russian story by the whitehouse previously.Apparently the surveillance activity Nunes has learned of, which is a bit vague but is stated to be both legal and 'incidental', was obtained from - get this for irony - an anonymous source within the intelligence community. No-one but Nunes knows who it is, and no-one can prove it's true. Still, this revelation has handed Trump a golden opportunity to claim his allegations of 'wiretapping' were right. And it's been handed to him by the chairman of the committee supposedly investigating him and his campaign.
Drain that swamp.
Edited by minimoog on Thursday 23 March 07:49
This could backfire by forcing an independent investigation?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/f...
FBI have uncovered 'evidence of treason' among alt-right websites, says George W Bush's ethics lawyer
Richard Painter, who was part of George W Bush's team says there is "no other word for it'
FBI have uncovered 'evidence of treason' among alt-right websites, says George W Bush's ethics lawyer
Richard Painter, who was part of George W Bush's team says there is "no other word for it'
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff