News Clinton Vs Trump

[lostforgottensoul]

Hillary for Prison T-shirt. I wonder if any would assault me if I wear it?

Id buy it and i dont care if im assulted for it. Thats an assult charge lol!

She did indeed break the law (not saying im for Trump) but why in the hell do we allow someone that did indeed break the law then run for President? If someone effectivetly answered that (which ive only got retarded answers for) then i will stop saying it!

 

[lostforgottensoul]

Insights on Trump supporters?

My therapist showed me this speaking of my intellence level vs my dad's (my dad being the die hard, no matter what, Trump supporter).

Does this article explain it?

A neuroscientist explains what may be wrong with Trump supporters’ brains

 

[scout86]

Yes, I think that explains it perfectly! I hope it's widely read.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

My therapist know his stuff, eh @scout86?

It actually explains my dad perfectly, in general! Most call it "small minded". He isnt stupid, he actually has a lot of wisdom, but he cant expand himself much once he believes something.

As opposed to my self where i am naturally curious, question everything, research all.

 

[joeylittle]

...but why in the hell do we allow someone that did indeed break the law then run for President?

Seriously?

Ok. I'm not defending it. But:

I've read all the coverage on why what she did was, in fact, a major f*ckup of potentially disastrous proportions. But once you get past that and examine both the timeline and the law, it's not that hard to see why she wasn't indicted. No, it's not just because she's a power politician. Yes, what she did was ethically, morally, professionally, practically - a big, big, big mistake. But no, the way the law stands, she did not break the law.

It hinges on a few things relating to what was classified, when. And sure, people can and have called it a technicality.

But, if she wasn't indicted - it means the case did not have enough legal merit to warrant bringing it to trial.

In the last primaries, four of the other possibles had all been previously brought up on criminal charges, or were in the middle of them.

Donald Trump has had his criminal charges all (ultimately) dismissed - but some of those did go to trial. Technically, he's further in the weeds than any past candidate has been. He's a CEO, so he has proportionally a larger number of lawsuits in his life, mostly civil cases - but I believe the count is in the neighborhood of 3500. His current ones involve the infamous Trump University, where there are fraud charges, and some book-cooking on his latest Trump hotel venture set for DC (of all places).

(For comparison, Hilary has been named in around 600 court cases; most of those are typical of a secretary of state, where she has been named with others as representatives of the US in cases brought against the US involving international issues.)

This is a pretty balanced piece, worth reading:
Dead Link Removed

Should there be a law that you can't run for President if you've been indicted on criminal charges? Found guilty? Maybe. There kind of is, but very indirectly.

The US has elected felonious presidents before. We just impeach them, later. :banghead:

If Clinton had been indicted, it would have been an entirely different conversation. But, she wasn't. So, no-one has to like it - and it will no doubt affect her numbers at the polls - but, she didn't break the law. And neither did Donald Trump when he put his first wife, Ivana, under a gag order as part of finalizing their divorce - which made her rape allegations go away.

What really makes me angry, though, is the very careful stepping around the allegations about Trump's assault on a 13-year-old girl.
Why The New Child Rape Case Filed Against Donald Trump Should Not Be Ignored
(yeah, it's the Huffington Post, but the writer makes very good points, in my opinion)

 

[lostforgottensoul]

The US has elected felonious presidents before. We just impeach them, later.

Haha, true.

RussH advised in a thread somewhere in here why it indeed broke the law. I'll go find it and also will read better when i have more time in a bit. I admit i havent researched it well enough but i do know she put national security at risk having very classified material on a non-secured device inside of hostile territory. Very VERY stupid is what it was and id expect a future President to think better. Im not saying thats Trump, not at all. I think they both are horrific choices and i hate that they are the 2 standing on either side! Its what i was afraid of in the primaries.

 

[joeylittle]

Here's a good analysis of why it did not break the law:
Dead Link Removed
One, the case doesn't meet the standard for mens rea - essentially, 'state of mind' or knowledge-in-mind

As a general rule, most crimes require prosecutors to prove that an individual acted with a particular state of mind before they can be convicted of a specific crime. Most federal laws dealing with classified information require someone to “knowingly” violate that law in order to sustain a conviction. Thus, Clinton cannot be charged with transmitting or receiving classified information based on that fact alone. She had to have acted with knowledge that specific information was classified when it was transmitted. There is little, if any, evidence that Clinton possessed this state of mind.

The one law that does not require the defendant to have acted in this capacity says that, if anyone who has materials related to national defense either:

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer 

, they are guilty of a crime and should be fined, imprisoned, or both. (18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information)

Here's how that relates to Clinton's case:

a 1941 Supreme Court decision interprets the phrase “relating to the national defense” to require “’intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.’ This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.” That’s a high bar — there’s no apparent evidence that Clinton had reason to believe that her use of a private server would cause information to be obtained that advantaged a foreign nation or that would have caused injury to the United States. Additionally, the phrase “gross negligence” also requires prosecutors to clear a high bar — “a lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety.”

(also taken from the think progress piece referenced, above.)

I've read all the reasons why people thought she should be indicted, those are pretty easy to understand. This stuff, above, is the more complicated but accurate rendering of why they chose not to move forward.

I'd encourage reading the whole piece - it's not long - and clicking through to the relevant links - especially the one towards the end, covering Colin Powell.

 

[lostforgottensoul]

I'd encourage reading the whole piece - it's not long - and clicking through to the relevant links - especially the one towards the end, covering Colin Powell.

I will. I havent yet but i will before commenting about it again. :)

 

[scout86]

Just read the article. All I can think to say is, wow. If those accusations are anything close too the truth, I have very strong opinions on what should be done with someone capable of that kind of thing. And none of them are legal in this country, so I'll keep them to myself. But people need to know what the truth actually is, it shouldn't be swept under the rug .

 

[lostforgottensoul]

I just have to shake my head in disbelief.

Trump supporters excuse Putin by shooing it or by excusing it and thats not good.

But equally, I just saw how Clinton supporters shoo away and excuse the horrific actions & non-actions in Benghazi!

13 Hours is a movie that tells the story of Benghazi, but to be fair, Hollywood is Hollywood, right? So, this site tells of just the couple of inaccuratcies in reality and the movie 13 hours. But, in reality, we failed to send help and left our men there alone! A "stand down" or a "not yet", they never got relief!

I will say this:

Hillary Clinton has accepted responsibility for not arranging for better security in Libya, though she and the rest of the Obama administration have denied intentionally misleading the public in the days after the attack.

Until her emails came out and was found that she was telling Americans and the family one thing at the time and at the same time telling her family another!!

The True Story Behind the Benghazi Movie '13 Hours'

Taking 13 hrs out of it, it was a horrific failure that should NEVER have happened!

And so on both sides theres a lot of shooing that shouldnt be and its horrible that it is occuring by the American people!

 

[scout86]

It was a horrific failure. Probably starting with the decision that Libya was stable enough to HAVE an US ambassador on the groin ground. She has accepted responsibility after the fact. Those emails were written as things were unfolding, weren't they?

I think, in the beginning, our government may have actually believed that what was going on was a spontaneous riot, in response to some stupid anti-Islamic video. That may have been an honest mistake, not an attempt to trick anyone. Once they realized they were wrong and things had gone south, I'm sure there was a fair amount off butt covering going on. It's not something I, personally, respect or desire, but it's what people do. Most people. That way, I doubt Hillary Clinton is any worse that most people in government.

I like the idea that it "never should have happened". Something about war is that lots of stuff that happens shouldn't. Sometimes because of cowardice, sometimes because of stupidity, and sometimes because we're mortal, we can't see all ends, and we make the wrong choice.

If she deliberately left those people there, intending for them to die, it's a crime. Deliberately misleading the American people is wrong too IMO. But performing your job badly usually isn't a crime. Although it sometimes gets people killed. In the end, they told the American people what happened. It's been investigated to death. The Republicans are in control of congress and have been. Don't you think they'd have gone after her if they could? I'd be a lot more willing to believe in a grand conspiracy of some sort in the Democrats controlled Congress.

As it is, I'm not impressed with the whole Libya deal either, and not just Benghazi. It's part of why I'm planning to vote for a third party candidate.

Have you read the article about Trump's alleged rapes yet?

 

[The Albatross]

WHAT? Geez us. Republicans control ... and have been? Christ. Define "have been"... here's an assist or a reality check, you pick: Party divisions of United States Congresses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia