Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

1…118119121123124…330

Comments

  • #3602
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    I believe at least 18 classified emails sent from the account of Clinton's aide Huma Abedin were found by the FBI on the personal laptop of Anthony Weiner, which is illegal in of itself...  with five previously unreleased classified emails.

    It actually isn't, the FBI investigated this and found no evidence of criminal misconduct in Abedin's actions.
    And why an investigation by the Justice Department into the FBI’s handling of the case involving the emails and classified data needs to take place.  Her intent, regardless of her motive, was clearly criminal, IMO.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #3603
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,251 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    notobtuse wrote: »
    And why an investigation by the Justice Department into the FBI’s handling of the case involving the emails and classified data needs to take place.  Her intent, regardless of her motive, was clearly criminal, IMO.

    Go open a Hilary Clinton thread instead of trying this whataboutery nonsense


  • #3604
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,725 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    notobtuse wrote: »
    And why an investigation by the Justice Department into the FBI’s handling of the case involving the emails and classified data needs to take place.  Her intent, regardless of her motive, was clearly criminal, IMO.

    But... intent isn't a crime. I intend all sorts of things that I'll never act on. Crime is what you do (commission.) And... this IS the Trump forum, so let's not worry about the Democratic candidate for POTUS in the 2016 election, it's "whataboutery" at its finest.

    Now, if you think it's all about intent what WAS Trump's intent when he asked Comey to back off on the investigation? I say criminal. Shall we bring Trump up on charges now?

    What WAS Trump's intent when he spouted "Grab them by the p*ssy?" To incite violence against women? Sounds like criminal intent to me.

    And so on and so on.


  • #3605
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,236 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    notobtuse wrote: »
    And why an investigation by the Justice Department into the FBI’s handling of the case involving the emails and classified data needs to take place.  Her intent, regardless of her motive, was clearly criminal, IMO.

    Her intent ? And what was her intent exactly ? HRC was careless but she isn't the first government official to delete emails. The bush 41 administration deleted thousands if not millions of them. But I don't hear republicans up in arms over those emails.


  • #3606
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    And why an investigation by the Justice Department into the FBI’s handling of the case involving the emails and classified data needs to take place.  Her intent, regardless of her motive, was clearly criminal, IMO.

    Her intent ? And what was her intent exactly ? HRC was careless but she isn't the first government official to delete emails. The bush 41 administration deleted thousands if not millions of them. But I don't hear republicans up in arms over those emails.
    According to Obama and then seemingly picked up and followed by Comey… That they had not intended to endanger American national security when they stored and transmitted classified information on a private unsecure system.

    But intent seems to be some new made up law by the FBI in this matter... As the principal felony offense in Clinton’s case is the willful retention or transmission of classified information, regardless of intent..

    The Espionage Act (section 793 of the federal penal code) prescribes a sliding scale of classified-information offenses, from the most to the least serious.  The principal felony offense in Mrs. Clinton’s case is the willful retention or transmission of classified information — subsections (d) and (e) of the act. Did Hillary have possession of the information?  Did Hillary and her aide have reason to believe it could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?  Did they transmit it to an unauthorized person or place, or failed to deliver it on demand to an authorized government agency?  And did they act willfully in the matter?  If the answers are yes, then their actions constitute a felony, IMO.

    There is no requirement to prove an intent to harm the United States. The statute calls only for an awareness that the information could be used to hurt the U.S. or benefit a foreign nation. To be guilty, the official does not need to want that to happen; but merely be aware that it could happen... and every government official who is privileged to hold a security clearance is well aware of this.

    President Trump is right to ask for an investigation into the FBI’s handling of the matter.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • #3607
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    notobtuse wrote: »

    President Trump is right to ask for an investigation into the FBI’s handling of the matter.

    The man who admitted to obstructing an investigation?


  • #3608
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »

    President Trump is right to ask for an investigation into the FBI’s handling of the matter.

    The man who admitted to obstructing an investigation?
    How exactly did he do that?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #3609
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,930 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Dear God, I hope this is true....

    https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/985857908154957824?s=19


  • #3610
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,725 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    notobtuse wrote: »
    According to Obama and then seemingly picked up and followed by Comey… That they had not intended to endanger American national security when they stored and transmitted classified information on a private unsecure system.

    But intent seems to be some new made up law by the FBI in this matter... As the principal felony offense in Clinton’s case is the willful retention or transmission of classified information, regardless of intent..

    The Espionage Act (section 793 of the federal penal code) prescribes a sliding scale of classified-information offenses, from the most to the least serious.  The principal felony offense in Mrs. Clinton’s case is the willful retention or transmission of classified information — subsections (d) and (e) of the act. Did Hillary have possession of the information?  Did Hillary and her aide have reason to believe it could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?  Did they transmit it to an unauthorized person or place, or failed to deliver it on demand to an authorized government agency?  And did they act willfully in the matter?  If the answers are yes, then their actions constitute a felony, IMO.

    There is no requirement to prove an intent to harm the United States. The statute calls only for an awareness that the information could be used to hurt the U.S. or benefit a foreign nation. To be guilty, the official does not need to want that to happen; but merely be aware that it could happen... and every government official who is privileged to hold a security clearance is well aware of this.

    Ahah, so you're backtracking on the criminal intent thing you posted then? And, as has been pointed out, the FBI investigated and found no reason to charge anyone. So, if the FBI did not find any reason to charge anyone, and you yourself say 'intent' is not an offense, can we move on?

    To someone that is actually trying to thwart an investigation into possible criminal collusion with a foreign power, that is, Trump. By firing the head of the FBI because he wouldn't stop investigating.


  • #3611
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,236 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    notobtuse wrote: »
    According to Obama and then seemingly picked up and followed by Comey… That they had not intended to endanger American national security when they stored and transmitted classified information on a private unsecure system.

    But intent seems to be some new made up law by the FBI in this matter... As the principal felony offense in Clinton’s case is the willful retention or transmission of classified information, regardless of intent..

    The Espionage Act (section 793 of the federal penal code) prescribes a sliding scale of classified-information offenses, from the most to the least serious.  The principal felony offense in Mrs. Clinton’s case is the willful retention or transmission of classified information — subsections (d) and (e) of the act. Did Hillary have possession of the information?  Did Hillary and her aide have reason to believe it could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?  Did they transmit it to an unauthorized person or place, or failed to deliver it on demand to an authorized government agency?  And did they act willfully in the matter?  If the answers are yes, then their actions constitute a felony, IMO.

    There is no requirement to prove an intent to harm the United States. The statute calls only for an awareness that the information could be used to hurt the U.S. or benefit a foreign nation. To be guilty, the official does not need to want that to happen; but merely be aware that it could happen... and every government official who is privileged to hold a security clearance is well aware of this.

    President Trump is right to ask for an investigation into the FBI’s handling of the matter.

    Mo he isn't. Intent isn't a recently made up law either. I think the FBI and justice dept know all about the espionage act to which you refer to, and if there had been cause to charge mrs Clinton they would have, which they didn't.

    Also do you think everything Donald trump does is perfect ? I'm just curious.


  • Advertisement
  • #3612
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Igotadose wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    According to Obama and then seemingly picked up and followed by Comey… That they had not intended to endanger American national security when they stored and transmitted classified information on a private unsecure system.

    But intent seems to be some new made up law by the FBI in this matter... As the principal felony offense in Clinton’s case is the willful retention or transmission of classified information, regardless of intent..

    The Espionage Act (section 793 of the federal penal code) prescribes a sliding scale of classified-information offenses, from the most to the least serious.  The principal felony offense in Mrs. Clinton’s case is the willful retention or transmission of classified information — subsections (d) and (e) of the act. Did Hillary have possession of the information?  Did Hillary and her aide have reason to believe it could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?  Did they transmit it to an unauthorized person or place, or failed to deliver it on demand to an authorized government agency?  And did they act willfully in the matter?  If the answers are yes, then their actions constitute a felony, IMO.

    There is no requirement to prove an intent to harm the United States. The statute calls only for an awareness that the information could be used to hurt the U.S. or benefit a foreign nation. To be guilty, the official does not need to want that to happen; but merely be aware that it could happen... and every government official who is privileged to hold a security clearance is well aware of this.

    Ahah, so you're backtracking on the criminal intent thing you posted then? And, as has been pointed out, the FBI investigated and found no reason to charge anyone. So, if the FBI did not find any reason to charge anyone, and you yourself say 'intent' is not an offense, can we move on?

    To someone that is actually trying to thwart an investigation into possible criminal collusion with a foreign power, that is, Trump. By firing the head of the FBI because he wouldn't stop investigating.
    I guess I'm confused because Comey testified that he agreed with Trump that, in fact, on three conversations, he told Trump that he was not being investigated in the Russia probe.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #3613
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    According to Obama and then seemingly picked up and followed by Comey… That they had not intended to endanger American national security when they stored and transmitted classified information on a private unsecure system.

    But intent seems to be some new made up law by the FBI in this matter... As the principal felony offense in Clinton’s case is the willful retention or transmission of classified information, regardless of intent..

    The Espionage Act (section 793 of the federal penal code) prescribes a sliding scale of classified-information offenses, from the most to the least serious.  The principal felony offense in Mrs. Clinton’s case is the willful retention or transmission of classified information — subsections (d) and (e) of the act. Did Hillary have possession of the information?  Did Hillary and her aide have reason to believe it could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?  Did they transmit it to an unauthorized person or place, or failed to deliver it on demand to an authorized government agency?  And did they act willfully in the matter?  If the answers are yes, then their actions constitute a felony, IMO.

    There is no requirement to prove an intent to harm the United States. The statute calls only for an awareness that the information could be used to hurt the U.S. or benefit a foreign nation. To be guilty, the official does not need to want that to happen; but merely be aware that it could happen... and every government official who is privileged to hold a security clearance is well aware of this.

    President Trump is right to ask for an investigation into the FBI’s handling of the matter.


    Also do you think everything Donald trump does is perfect ? I'm just curious.
    Absolutely not.  I'm just defending the things he does that are good and correct.  I'll let it to others to go after him for his mistakes. And heavens knows there's plenty of the 'others.'

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #3614
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,930 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    notobtuse wrote: »
    How exactly did he do that?

    When he said in a tweet that he was "fighting back" against the investigation.


    Anyway, i would consider myself more of a Democrat than Republican mindset and

    1) I was truly pīssed at Comey for making that announcement
    2) that it swung the election (as let slip by Kelly Anne Conway)
    3) that Comey is sanctimonious
    4) that his actions benefited Trump
    5) that Trump was delighted with Comey (he said as much in October

    I can think all those things, and yet still believe Comey when he says Trump asked for loyalty.. because that rings true. I also believe he made contemporanius notes of exactly what happened.


  • #3615
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Absolutely not.  I'm just defending the things he does that are good and correct.  I'll let it to others to go after him for his mistakes. And heavens knows there's plenty of the 'others.'

    Where have you been defending what Trump does that you believe is 'good and correct' everything I have read from you to date is obfuscation and whataboutery.


  • #3616
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    What a hard hitting interview by Clinton foundation donor and former aide George Stephanopoulos.

    ##Mod Note##

    Please don't just link dump.


  • #3617
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    everlast75 wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    How exactly did he do that?

    When he said in a tweet that he was "fighting back" against the investigation.


    Anyway, i would consider myself more of a Democrat than Republican mindset and

    1) I was truly pīssed at Comey for making that announcement
    2) that it swung the election (as let slip by Kelly Anne Conway)
    3) that Comey is sanctimonious
    4) that his actions benefited Trump
    5) that Trump was delighted with Comey (he said as much in October

    I can think all those things, and yet still believe Comey when he says Trump asked for loyalty.. because that rings true. I also believe he made contemporanius notes of exactly what happened.
    'Fighting back' seems to be just a term some non-lawyer type would use in place of 'standing up for justice.'  Did Trump actually stop any investigation with his actions?  Now that would be an obstruction of justice.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #3618
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,930 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    What a hard hitting interview by Clinton foundation donor and former aide George Stephanopoulos.


    OMG - what a brilliant comment! And dubbing over Snoop? A masterclass. Ffs...


    A whole 31 seconds. Wow. He managed to keep on topic for 30 seconds. Let him go off script and see what happens.. like the time he threw his attorney under the bus on airforce 1.

    Comey gave a 5 hour interview.

    I thought stephanopoulos was fairly neutral and didn't let Comey off the hook.

    You forget both sides are pìssed with Comey.

    If you want biased, try Hannity out golfing with DJT 2 weekends ago and then spouting complete nonsense on twitter while the Comey interview was ongoing?


  • #3619
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    notobtuse wrote: »
    'Fighting back' seems to be just a term some non-lawyer type would use in place of 'standing up for justice.' Did Trump actually stop any investigation with his actions? Now that would be an obstruction of justice.

    Remember kids, it's not obstruction of justice when blackberry's and laptops are smashed with hammers or email servers destroyed post subpoena's but it most certainly is obstruction of justice when Trump "hoped" Flynn was let go because he's a good guy.

    Mental gymnastics at it's finest.


  • #3620
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,930 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    notobtuse wrote: »
    'Fighting back' seems to be just a term some non-lawyer type would use in place of 'standing up for justice.'  Did Trump actually stop any investigation with his actions?  Now that would be an obstruction of justice.

    Like firing the director of the FBI.

    Like asking him to leave Flynn alone.. that he was a good guy.

    I mean.. since you asked


  • #3621
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    everlast75 wrote: »

    If you want biased, try Hannity out golfing with DJT 2 weekends ago and then spouting complete nonsense on twitter while the Comey interview was ongoing?

    Well Hannity has a point, did Georgie boy ask him about leaking those memos?

    He had no problem stating they were the modern watergate tapes a few months back.

    https://www.thewrap.com/george-stephanopoulos-says-comey-memos-are-the-modern-equivalent-of-nixons-tapes-video/

    And OF COURSE Hannity is hyper biased, he admits that. Georgie boy hid Clinton foundation donations and worked for them in the past. He's not neutral in the least.


  • Advertisement
  • #3622
    PropJoe10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,335 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    notobtuse wrote: »
    'Fighting back' seems to be just a term some non-lawyer type would use in place of 'standing up for justice.' Did Trump actually stop any investigation with his actions? Now that would be an obstruction of justice.

    He admitted in a televised interview that he fired Comey because of the "Russia Thing" and to ease the pressure that was on him over the Russia investigation. If that's not attempting to obstruct justice, I don't know what is anymore.


  • #3623
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,930 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    Well Hannity has a point, did Georgie boy ask him about leaking those memos?

    He had no problem stating they were the modern watergate tapes a few months back.

    https://www.thewrap.com/george-stephanopoulos-says-comey-memos-are-the-modern-equivalent-of-nixons-tapes-video/

    And OF COURSE Hannity is hyper biased, he admits that. Georgie boy hid Clinton foundation donations and worked for them in the past. He's not neutral in the least.

    There is a transcript of the 5 hour interview. You made the assertion he didn't.

    Go check and then come back to me


  • #3624
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,930 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    This is beautiful...


    https://twitter.com/SarahHuckabee/status/792062999372587008?s=19


  • #3625
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    everlast75 wrote: »
    There is a transcript of the 5 hour interview. You made the assertion he didn't.

    Go check and then come back to me

    I'd honestly prefer watch paint dry. I made my mind up on Comey a long time ago and some giggly virtue signalling interview with Clinton hatchet-man George Stephanopoulos isn't going to change that.


  • #3626
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,930 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    I'd honestly prefer watch paint dry. I made my mind up on Comey a long time ago and some giggly virtue signalling interview with Clinton hatchet-man George Stephanopoulos isn't going to change that.

    Ah, so you have decided he didn't ask those questions (even though he could have) because it fits in with your view of Comey which you had prior to the interview.

    Gotcha


  • #3627
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    Remember kids, it's not obstruction of justice when blackberry's and laptops are smashed with hammers or email servers destroyed post subpoena's but it most certainly is obstruction of justice when Trump "hoped" Flynn was let go because he's a good guy.

    Mental gymnastics at it's finest.

    Coming up later on "But Hillary" we'll be speaking with special guest Buttery Emails! After the break, we discuss Weiner's weiner with Huma Abedin and Newt Gingrich but up next, it's time for our new regular segment, Keeping that Dead Horse Down with killalljewshighenergyfullkek69! See you after the break.


  • #3628
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    notobtuse wrote: »
    How exactly did he do that?

    With a Tweet
    2 Scoops wrote: »
    Remember kids, it's not obstruction of justice when blackberry's and laptops are smashed with hammers or email servers destroyed post subpoena's but it most certainly is obstruction of justice when Trump "hoped" Flynn was let go because he's a good guy.

    Mental gymnastics at it's finest.

    Hey, look over there.


  • #3629
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    How exactly did he do that?

    With a Tweet
    .
    Would you explain your reasoning as to why you consider some Tweet to be an obstruction of justice.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • #3630
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,930 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Cohen is in court at the moment trying to protect the name of his 3rd client.

    The court ordered the name to be disclosed.

    And the 3rd client is......


    SEAN HANNITY!!!!


    https://twitter.com/eorden/status/985953454668570630?s=19


  • Advertisement
  • #3631
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    You couldn't make this stuff up. It's almost beyond farcical at this stage. Let's be honest, we've all wondered what skeletons Hannity has in his closet (maybe I've miss some controversies from the past but he seems to have avoided the same level of scandal of his other Fox / Republican colleagues and friends).


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement