|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
I guess it's reasonable for dems to focus on the issue for a while to make things even. During that time, reps will point out dems' previous arguments that there was no wrongdoing and that it's silly to focus on the issue. The authorities will investigate but nothing will come of it.
|
To be clear, the argument here is that the Presidential Records Act, an act created post-Nixon to ensure presidents don’t destroy records from their administration, should no longer be considered law. The reason it should no longer be considered law is because Hillary Clinton, who was not president, handled administration files in a way which, whatever other laws it might have violated, did not violate the Presidential Records Act.
Sometimes I love this thread and sometimes I read this thread and those are basically never the same times.
|
On February 11 2022 00:36 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2022 00:19 JimmiC wrote:On February 11 2022 00:03 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 10 2022 23:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2022 23:31 Doc.Rivers wrote:
It does appear that the story about Trump's handling of documents is being treated as a major story in the dem-allied media sector. I think the reason is that the Presidential Records Act provides that violators can be barred from public office. So this is viewed not only as another avenue to put Trump in jail, but also to keep him from running again. Isn't it a crime to destroy federal documents and records though, even if a president does it? If Trump is committing crimes, especially while in office, then of course it's a "major story". "The bottom line here is simple. Destroying or stealing documents belonging to the United States government is a crime. Destroying or stealing documents to cover up another crime, or activity that may be under investigation, is also a crime. Lying about what happened to missing documents is yet another crime. A departing federal official may take personal property from the office but no more." https://www.justsecurity.org/73265/destroying-federal-documents-during-a-presidential-transition-is-a-federal-crime/ It may be a crime to mishandle and destroy documents, but due to the Hillary's Emails Precedent, it's a minor crime that presidents and presidential candidates should be able to get away with. No one who insisted that Hillary did nothing wrong with her email server can say with a straight face that Trump’s documents are a big deal. It's raw partisanship. So are you and the rest of the Republican base furious about Trump? Because you guys sure were (and are about Hilary). And you would think if this was a huge deal, and one of the main voices for it being a big deal wouldn't do it but worse (or same if you want). Constantly tear up documents, take them away and so on. Trump can plead ignorance a lot because he is very ignorant but on this one how can he? He and his cronies spent years explaining why it was so bad what she did. Then when he goes and does it everyone who wanted her hanged is now not upset at all? If anything the Dems are underplaying this, at least until they know more about the documents, which makes sense given how they reacted to Hilary. The blind partisanship is you. You should be calling for Trumps hanging and calling him out for his treasonous behavior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversyThere was also president with Hilary, no one had a server before but many had personal email accounts they used. Like I said, "the epic hypocrisy on this issue is on both sides the aisle." You are insisting that Hillary's emails and Trump’s boxes are meaningfully distinguishable, but it's just not the case. Both were attempts to dodge open records laws. By the way, the dems are definitely not underplaying this. Just take a gander on Twitter or cable news. It is the "lock him up" story of the week. The solution here is that Hillary's emails and Trump’s boxes should cancel each other out.
It's not the story of the week. We've known for months now that trump shredded a shit ton of documents between the moment he lost the election and january 20. Hillary sat in front of a commission for hours in a row. The republicans were literally screaming for her to go to jail. We get hard proof of presidential tampering, you just go "welp it just cancels each other i guess hehe". Wtf?
On February 11 2022 01:03 Doc.Rivers wrote:
I guess it's reasonable for dems to focus on the issue for a while to make things even. During that time, reps will point out dems' previous arguments that there was no wrongdoing and that it's silly to focus on the issue. The authorities will investigate but nothing will come of it.
How is it remotely even ? I can't wrap my mind around your arguments. Assume i'm some 5years old and walk me through your logic.
|
On February 11 2022 01:07 ChristianS wrote:
To be clear, the argument here is that the Presidential Records Act, an act created post-Nixon to ensure presidents don’t destroy records from their administration, should no longer be considered law. The reason it should no longer be considered law is because Hillary Clinton, who was not president, handled administration files in a way which, whatever other laws it might have violated, did not violate the Presidential Records Act.
Sometimes I love this thread and sometimes I read this thread and those are basically never the same times.
Just trying to bring the parties in line with each other. The dem argument, in effect, is that the records laws Hillary broke should no longer be considered law, at least when applied to politicians who are not expendable. I am at least willing to make that argument explicitly and honestly when transferring it to Trump's boxes.
|
On February 11 2022 01:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2022 01:07 ChristianS wrote:
To be clear, the argument here is that the Presidential Records Act, an act created post-Nixon to ensure presidents don’t destroy records from their administration, should no longer be considered law. The reason it should no longer be considered law is because Hillary Clinton, who was not president, handled administration files in a way which, whatever other laws it might have violated, did not violate the Presidential Records Act.
Sometimes I love this thread and sometimes I read this thread and those are basically never the same times. Just trying to bring the parties in line with each other. The dem argument, in effect, is that the records laws Hillary broke should no longer be considered law, at least when applied to politicians who are not expendable. I am at least willing to make that argument explicitly and honestly when transferring it to Trump's boxes.
There is nothing explicit or honest about what is happening here.
There’s a “company man” kind of phenomenon you can expect from all politicians, even relatively “honest” ones, where when their side takes a hit you can count on them to carry their side’s water to some extent. It’s obnoxious and embarrassing but I’ve long since given up being mad at them for it. It’s their job, they would wash the fuck out in 2 seconds if they couldn’t stomach a little PR-speak. It bugs me more when media figures do it, they’re nominally independent and yet they push the party line (first examples that popped into my head are, for whatever reason, “liberals think Michelle Obama invented the English language” and “it was just a phone call” but I’m sure everyone can think of plenty of examples).
The thing that’s stunning is ordinary voters/random internet posters doing it on pure reflex. Like, “but her emails” is such a meme at this point I’m almost floored by the brazenness of just pulling it out, no modifications, in 2022. Like, you’re not even pretending Trump didn’t do crime, you’re just saying you think a different person accused of different crimes 6 years ago should have been handled differently. Even if we took your assumptions about Hillary as fact, it’d be like if Joe Rogan murdered someone in cold blood and your defense was “but remember OJ Simpson”?
|
On February 10 2022 18:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 17:47 Silvanel wrote:
I wish people would stop comparing minor inconvincies to things done by Nazi/SS/gestapo. FFS noone is rounding up random citizens, putting them against wall and then executing. Those people have no idea what real persecution looks like. Then it's a good thing she didn't. She compared it to the infamous gazpacho police! She was probably referring to me, I often order the gazpacho in a restaurant, as it is often an easy way to judge the overall quality of the kitchen: it's fairly easy, but making it on the cheap leads to a very inferior flavor, and adding your own flair can be spectacularly good, or just fall really flat. Also, do they serve just a plain gazpacho without any toppings? Do they go all out with the toppings hoping you won't notice the inferior gazpacho under a mountain of toppings? It's great to be the gazpacho police!
Between this and the fashion police, criminals beware!
|
On February 11 2022 01:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2022 01:07 ChristianS wrote:
To be clear, the argument here is that the Presidential Records Act, an act created post-Nixon to ensure presidents don’t destroy records from their administration, should no longer be considered law. The reason it should no longer be considered law is because Hillary Clinton, who was not president, handled administration files in a way which, whatever other laws it might have violated, did not violate the Presidential Records Act.
Sometimes I love this thread and sometimes I read this thread and those are basically never the same times. Just trying to bring the parties in line with each other. The dem argument, in effect, is that the records laws Hillary broke should no longer be considered law, at least when applied to politicians who are not expendable. I am at least willing to make that argument explicitly and honestly when transferring it to Trump's boxes.
This is such a dumb take. You're supposed to vote for whichever party you believe to be the better of the two, and if one of them fucks up, you go and vote for the other one -- not say, 'well those other guys fucked up so it's okay if the guys I support fuck up too.' Like, political parties aren't your families nor are they your friends, they're officials you elect to do a job and having this absolute loyalty and a desire to protect them is just utterly idiotic and counter-productive. Also, like the poster above me pointed out, 'but these other guys did this bad thing too!' isn't even a defense at all unless you're a spoiled bratty kid in an elementary school playground somewhere. Even if you assume that the situations you're comparing are totally identical (I'm not saying they are, but let's say for the sake of argument that they are), it shouldn't mean it is now acceptable to do the said bad thing for everyone because, well, they did it first. To use everyone's favorite example, it's like saying 'well Hitler gassed jews and went on a total war against the world, I guess it's okay if we do the same.' That's just ridiculous.
|
On February 11 2022 01:50 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2022 01:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 11 2022 01:07 ChristianS wrote:
To be clear, the argument here is that the Presidential Records Act, an act created post-Nixon to ensure presidents don’t destroy records from their administration, should no longer be considered law. The reason it should no longer be considered law is because Hillary Clinton, who was not president, handled administration files in a way which, whatever other laws it might have violated, did not violate the Presidential Records Act.
Sometimes I love this thread and sometimes I read this thread and those are basically never the same times. Just trying to bring the parties in line with each other. The dem argument, in effect, is that the records laws Hillary broke should no longer be considered law, at least when applied to politicians who are not expendable. I am at least willing to make that argument explicitly and honestly when transferring it to Trump's boxes. There is nothing explicit or honest about what is happening here. There’s a “company man” kind of phenomenon you can expect from all politicians, even relatively “honest” ones, where when their side takes a hit you can count on them to carry their side’s water to some extent. It’s obnoxious and embarrassing but I’ve long since given up being mad at them for it. It’s their job, they would wash the fuck out in 2 seconds if they couldn’t stomach a little PR-speak. It bugs me more when media figures do it, they’re nominally independent and yet they push the party line (first examples that popped into my head are, for whatever reason, “liberals think Michelle Obama invented the English language” and “it was just a phone call” but I’m sure everyone can think of plenty of examples). The thing that’s stunning is ordinary voters/random internet posters doing it on pure reflex. Like, “but her emails” is such a meme at this point I’m almost floored by the brazenness of just pulling it out, no modifications, in 2022. Like, you’re not even pretending Trump didn’t do crime, you’re just saying you think a different person accused of different crimes 6 years ago should have been handled differently. Even if we took your assumptions about Hillary as fact, it’d be like if Joe Rogan murdered someone in cold blood and your defense was “but remember OJ Simpson”?
It is just an argument that presidents & presidential candidates should be treated fairly when it comes to enforcement of open records laws.
Murder and (to the other poster's point) genocide are distinguishable because those are not crimes for which non-enforcement can ever be tolerated. By contrast, there are a range of crimes for which we frequently tolerate non-enforcement. Prosecutorial discretion and all. For example, democrats were more than tolerant of Hillary not being prosecuted for violating open record/government document handling laws.
I'd also be fine with the solution of prosecuting both Hillary and Trump for violating open records laws, as opposed to prosecuting neither. That would be fair. People should just be nonpartisan and fair about it, is my point.
|
It should be non-partisan and fair to hang Trump from the rafters for shredding documents while he was still President. Obviously Republicans have shown by this point that the moon is sooner to crash into the Earth, but he was a sitting President who violated the law, interfering with archiving efforts and any investigations that have been underway. The fact that that falls on partisan lines is not indicative of the conclusions being drawn, it's a problem with who you're talking to. Down is up to Trump's gaggle of criminals.
|
On February 11 2022 02:37 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2022 01:50 ChristianS wrote:On February 11 2022 01:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 11 2022 01:07 ChristianS wrote:
To be clear, the argument here is that the Presidential Records Act, an act created post-Nixon to ensure presidents don’t destroy records from their administration, should no longer be considered law. The reason it should no longer be considered law is because Hillary Clinton, who was not president, handled administration files in a way which, whatever other laws it might have violated, did not violate the Presidential Records Act.
Sometimes I love this thread and sometimes I read this thread and those are basically never the same times. Just trying to bring the parties in line with each other. The dem argument, in effect, is that the records laws Hillary broke should no longer be considered law, at least when applied to politicians who are not expendable. I am at least willing to make that argument explicitly and honestly when transferring it to Trump's boxes. There is nothing explicit or honest about what is happening here. There’s a “company man” kind of phenomenon you can expect from all politicians, even relatively “honest” ones, where when their side takes a hit you can count on them to carry their side’s water to some extent. It’s obnoxious and embarrassing but I’ve long since given up being mad at them for it. It’s their job, they would wash the fuck out in 2 seconds if they couldn’t stomach a little PR-speak. It bugs me more when media figures do it, they’re nominally independent and yet they push the party line (first examples that popped into my head are, for whatever reason, “liberals think Michelle Obama invented the English language” and “it was just a phone call” but I’m sure everyone can think of plenty of examples). The thing that’s stunning is ordinary voters/random internet posters doing it on pure reflex. Like, “but her emails” is such a meme at this point I’m almost floored by the brazenness of just pulling it out, no modifications, in 2022. Like, you’re not even pretending Trump didn’t do crime, you’re just saying you think a different person accused of different crimes 6 years ago should have been handled differently. Even if we took your assumptions about Hillary as fact, it’d be like if Joe Rogan murdered someone in cold blood and your defense was “but remember OJ Simpson”? It is just an argument that presidents & presidential candidates should be treated fairly when it comes to enforcement of open records laws. Murder and (to the other poster's point) genocide are distinguishable because those are not crimes for which non-enforcement can ever be tolerated. By contrast, there are a range of crimes for which we frequently tolerate non-enforcement. Prosecutorial discretion and all. For example, democrats were more than tolerant of Hillary not being prosecuted for violating open record/government document handling laws. I'd also be fine with the solution of prosecuting both Hillary and Trump for violating open records laws, as opposed to prosecuting neither. That would be fair. People should just be nonpartisan and fair about it, is my point.
Screaming, 'the other guys did it so it's okay for our guys to do it, too!' is not being 'nonpartisan and fair.' Being nonpartisan and fair would be demanding justice be served for ongoing / recent crimes regardless whether or not a similar crime by a different party was prosecuted fairly 7 years ago.
I would assume most dem voters on this board would not, in fact, be okay with it if Biden started to call for a coup if he were to lose to a Republican few years down the line; regardless of what Trump has done when his time was up. If he does in fact do something like that in future, and they defend it with, 'well it was okay when Trump did it, it's the nonpartisan and fair thing to do now!', I would call them out in exactly the same way I am calling your comments out right now.
|
United States44291 Posts
On February 10 2022 22:53 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 18:38 WombaT wrote:On February 10 2022 18:28 smille wrote:On February 10 2022 17:47 Silvanel wrote:
I wish people would stop comparing minor inconvincies to things done by Nazi/SS/gestapo. FFS noone is rounding up random citizens, putting them against wall and then executing. Those people have no idea what real persecution looks like. To be fair, I wish people could differentiate between comparing and equating things. Although in this context, I guess you are right. Making a comparison without providing any reasoning or highlighting similarities is kind of pointless and dishonest. I like my analogies as anyone who’s a regular in this thread will know. 9/10 times though invocation of Nazism to compare phenomena is almost invariably way off the mark. And usually rather distasteful to boot. Although yes, you have a good point. Criticism of Trump’s use of the Fascist handbook gets roundly mocked as a ‘hey these idiots are saying Trump is literally Hitler’ when it’s not the claim being made at all. Well there were plenty of Trump is literally Hitler claims, in addition to the Trump is literally a fascist claims.
I really thought we’d settled the “is Trump literally a fascist” question after he attempted to overthrow democracy in a violent coup.
|
On February 11 2022 03:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 22:53 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 10 2022 18:38 WombaT wrote:On February 10 2022 18:28 smille wrote:On February 10 2022 17:47 Silvanel wrote:
I wish people would stop comparing minor inconvincies to things done by Nazi/SS/gestapo. FFS noone is rounding up random citizens, putting them against wall and then executing. Those people have no idea what real persecution looks like. To be fair, I wish people could differentiate between comparing and equating things. Although in this context, I guess you are right. Making a comparison without providing any reasoning or highlighting similarities is kind of pointless and dishonest. I like my analogies as anyone who’s a regular in this thread will know. 9/10 times though invocation of Nazism to compare phenomena is almost invariably way off the mark. And usually rather distasteful to boot. Although yes, you have a good point. Criticism of Trump’s use of the Fascist handbook gets roundly mocked as a ‘hey these idiots are saying Trump is literally Hitler’ when it’s not the claim being made at all. Well there were plenty of Trump is literally Hitler claims, in addition to the Trump is literally a fascist claims. I really thought we’d settled the “is Trump literally a fascist” question after he attempted to overthrow democracy in a violent coup.
Don't you know, that's legitimate political discourse now. Ergo, can't be a violent coup. Just another Wednesday.
|
On February 11 2022 03:06 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2022 02:37 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 11 2022 01:50 ChristianS wrote:On February 11 2022 01:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 11 2022 01:07 ChristianS wrote:
To be clear, the argument here is that the Presidential Records Act, an act created post-Nixon to ensure presidents don’t destroy records from their administration, should no longer be considered law. The reason it should no longer be considered law is because Hillary Clinton, who was not president, handled administration files in a way which, whatever other laws it might have violated, did not violate the Presidential Records Act.
Sometimes I love this thread and sometimes I read this thread and those are basically never the same times. Just trying to bring the parties in line with each other. The dem argument, in effect, is that the records laws Hillary broke should no longer be considered law, at least when applied to politicians who are not expendable. I am at least willing to make that argument explicitly and honestly when transferring it to Trump's boxes. There is nothing explicit or honest about what is happening here. There’s a “company man” kind of phenomenon you can expect from all politicians, even relatively “honest” ones, where when their side takes a hit you can count on them to carry their side’s water to some extent. It’s obnoxious and embarrassing but I’ve long since given up being mad at them for it. It’s their job, they would wash the fuck out in 2 seconds if they couldn’t stomach a little PR-speak. It bugs me more when media figures do it, they’re nominally independent and yet they push the party line (first examples that popped into my head are, for whatever reason, “liberals think Michelle Obama invented the English language” and “it was just a phone call” but I’m sure everyone can think of plenty of examples). The thing that’s stunning is ordinary voters/random internet posters doing it on pure reflex. Like, “but her emails” is such a meme at this point I’m almost floored by the brazenness of just pulling it out, no modifications, in 2022. Like, you’re not even pretending Trump didn’t do crime, you’re just saying you think a different person accused of different crimes 6 years ago should have been handled differently. Even if we took your assumptions about Hillary as fact, it’d be like if Joe Rogan murdered someone in cold blood and your defense was “but remember OJ Simpson”? It is just an argument that presidents & presidential candidates should be treated fairly when it comes to enforcement of open records laws. Murder and (to the other poster's point) genocide are distinguishable because those are not crimes for which non-enforcement can ever be tolerated. By contrast, there are a range of crimes for which we frequently tolerate non-enforcement. Prosecutorial discretion and all. For example, democrats were more than tolerant of Hillary not being prosecuted for violating open record/government document handling laws. I'd also be fine with the solution of prosecuting both Hillary and Trump for violating open records laws, as opposed to prosecuting neither. That would be fair. People should just be nonpartisan and fair about it, is my point. Screaming, 'the other guys did it so it's okay for our guys to do it, too!' is not being 'nonpartisan and fair.'
I just said I'd be fine with a solution in which Trump gets prosecuted. By the way, I assume you think it was misconduct for trump to mishandle or destroy government documents. Do you think Hillary's email server was A okay?
|
On February 11 2022 03:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 22:53 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 10 2022 18:38 WombaT wrote:On February 10 2022 18:28 smille wrote:On February 10 2022 17:47 Silvanel wrote:
I wish people would stop comparing minor inconvincies to things done by Nazi/SS/gestapo. FFS noone is rounding up random citizens, putting them against wall and then executing. Those people have no idea what real persecution looks like. To be fair, I wish people could differentiate between comparing and equating things. Although in this context, I guess you are right. Making a comparison without providing any reasoning or highlighting similarities is kind of pointless and dishonest. I like my analogies as anyone who’s a regular in this thread will know. 9/10 times though invocation of Nazism to compare phenomena is almost invariably way off the mark. And usually rather distasteful to boot. Although yes, you have a good point. Criticism of Trump’s use of the Fascist handbook gets roundly mocked as a ‘hey these idiots are saying Trump is literally Hitler’ when it’s not the claim being made at all. Well there were plenty of Trump is literally Hitler claims, in addition to the Trump is literally a fascist claims. I really thought we’d settled the “is Trump literally a fascist” question after he attempted to overthrow democracy in a violent coup.
While I ignored the Hitler comparisons early on, not accepting the outcomes of an election and the peaceful transition of power until after Jan6 definitely checks off a few boxes. Trump is someone morally bankrupt, where everything comes back to his Brand and Me! Me! Me! That's not really fascist, it's narcissistic to ungodly levels. He is his own beast, dredged up from the swamps of New York City real estate.
|
If nothing else, all of his rhetoric about what constituted true or good Americans, or what "makes America great" was definitely in fascist territory, solidly defining "other" groups, and arbitrating what defines national pride, to rally an otherwise baseless nationalism among his followers. It was also narcissistic in a way that bends gravity, that was the end Trump was after, but the tool to get there for him was fascism.
|
On February 11 2022 03:35 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2022 03:06 Salazarz wrote:On February 11 2022 02:37 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 11 2022 01:50 ChristianS wrote:On February 11 2022 01:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 11 2022 01:07 ChristianS wrote:
To be clear, the argument here is that the Presidential Records Act, an act created post-Nixon to ensure presidents don’t destroy records from their administration, should no longer be considered law. The reason it should no longer be considered law is because Hillary Clinton, who was not president, handled administration files in a way which, whatever other laws it might have violated, did not violate the Presidential Records Act.
Sometimes I love this thread and sometimes I read this thread and those are basically never the same times. Just trying to bring the parties in line with each other. The dem argument, in effect, is that the records laws Hillary broke should no longer be considered law, at least when applied to politicians who are not expendable. I am at least willing to make that argument explicitly and honestly when transferring it to Trump's boxes. There is nothing explicit or honest about what is happening here. There’s a “company man” kind of phenomenon you can expect from all politicians, even relatively “honest” ones, where when their side takes a hit you can count on them to carry their side’s water to some extent. It’s obnoxious and embarrassing but I’ve long since given up being mad at them for it. It’s their job, they would wash the fuck out in 2 seconds if they couldn’t stomach a little PR-speak. It bugs me more when media figures do it, they’re nominally independent and yet they push the party line (first examples that popped into my head are, for whatever reason, “liberals think Michelle Obama invented the English language” and “it was just a phone call” but I’m sure everyone can think of plenty of examples). The thing that’s stunning is ordinary voters/random internet posters doing it on pure reflex. Like, “but her emails” is such a meme at this point I’m almost floored by the brazenness of just pulling it out, no modifications, in 2022. Like, you’re not even pretending Trump didn’t do crime, you’re just saying you think a different person accused of different crimes 6 years ago should have been handled differently. Even if we took your assumptions about Hillary as fact, it’d be like if Joe Rogan murdered someone in cold blood and your defense was “but remember OJ Simpson”? It is just an argument that presidents & presidential candidates should be treated fairly when it comes to enforcement of open records laws. Murder and (to the other poster's point) genocide are distinguishable because those are not crimes for which non-enforcement can ever be tolerated. By contrast, there are a range of crimes for which we frequently tolerate non-enforcement. Prosecutorial discretion and all. For example, democrats were more than tolerant of Hillary not being prosecuted for violating open record/government document handling laws. I'd also be fine with the solution of prosecuting both Hillary and Trump for violating open records laws, as opposed to prosecuting neither. That would be fair. People should just be nonpartisan and fair about it, is my point. Screaming, 'the other guys did it so it's okay for our guys to do it, too!' is not being 'nonpartisan and fair.' I just said I'd be fine with a solution in which Trump gets prosecuted. By the way, I assume you think it was misconduct for trump to mishandle or destroy government documents. Do you think Hillary's email server was A okay?
There is a huge fucking difference between 'I'd be okay with a solution in which Trump gets prosecuted <as long as yadda yadda yadda>', and, 'Trump broke the law so he should be prosecuted, period.' No, I don't think Hillary's email saga was 'okay', but it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether what Trump did should be acceptable or not. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that, you know?
I mean, I get that in America's dumb as shit two-party system it can be hard to make your voice heard, but for what it's worth, I was okay with Trump getting elected over Hillary because Hillary has shown herself to be the sort of amoral, unethical, scheming piece of shit that I dislike more than just about anything else in politics. Of course, had I known what Trump's presidency would come to, I'd probably reconsider, but I was at least willing to give him the befit of doubt. It seems to me that there are plenty of folks who genuinely don't give a shit about who does what, and only care about 'their' side 'winning' -- ignoring the fact that they themselves are the ultimate losers as the government of the country has turned into a ridiculous circus.
|
United States44291 Posts
It was Standard Operating Procedure for Secretary’s of State to have their own email servers. It violated the White House IT policy but it wasn’t unusual. The endless email investigations were theatre to continue to build up the public perception of wrongdoing that surrounds Hillary. It’s no different than a prolonged psyops campaign manufactured by the Republicans to smear Hillary.
I don’t especially like her but the vitriol the right spewed at her is totally disproportionate to her role within American politics.
|
Colin Powell used personal email a little bit, but it was far from SOP to set up an email server on which to conduct all email communication, let alone for the purpose of evading government document laws. The FBI investigated, and then declined to prosecute on the basis of the facially invalid conclusion that "extreme carelessness" is different from "gross negligence."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
