First Mueller Charges Filed

[bennyonesix]

It is not false equivalency. It is actual equivalency. Are you as critical of Clinton as you are of Trump on this issue? The only difference is she used a cut out. I am not absolving anyone of anything based on other people. You are. You are absolving Clinton.

I say neither did anything wrong and both did the same damn things based on the evidence currently available.

My entire adult life, ever since whitewater, I have been opposed to these unsupervised witchhunts.

[JimZipCode]

I am not absolving anyone of anything based on other people. You are. You are absolving Clinton.

Where?

[bennyonesix]

"She was never elected president, so far as I'm aware."

This phrase absolves her based on her loss of the election. It is totally irrelevant. None of the conceivable charges being imagined being brought against Trump depend on his being president.

[JimZipCode]

Oh I see.

No, it "absolves" her from being worth a tremendous amount of investigative attention and resources. She's a private citizen peddling her book; she's not employing a team of crooks to run the country or using the office of the president for personal enrichment. I'd care more about her if if she were president, and about how she got there. Since she's out of the business, it's not important – to ME. But yeah, if she did the exact same things (we're stipulating here that Trump is a criminal?) then they would be just as criminal. Those actions would in some sense be "unimportant", because they didn't deliver her the presidency. I could see any administration not bothering to investigate, under the understanding that her political career is over. Usually we let election losers slink off into the quiet, to give lucrative speeches and make environmental documentaries. But that's not a moral or legal evaluation, just an assessment of politics as usual.

It also happens that I reject your "actual equivalency / only difference is a cutout" characterization. But that isn't my argument on "absolution"(?).

[JimZipCode]

...ever since whitewater, I have been opposed to these unsupervised witchhunts.

Yeah, that was enough to get one to swear off the stuff.

That independent counsel act expired, did it not? I thought the witchhunts were more supervised these days? Trump still has the authority to fire Mueller, I believe.

[nafod]

I am totally down with super lobbyists like Tony Podesta being charged with a crime, for the record.

Robert Mueller for head swamp drainer.

[dead man walking]

the guilty plea entered by Papadopoulos is further evidence of Clinton’s collusion with Russia because “George Papadopoulos” sounds like “George Stephanopoulos,” who once worked for Bill Clinton, who is married to Hillary Clinton.

[Herv100]

I am totally down with super lobbyists like Tony Podesta being charged with a crime, for the record.

Robert Mueller for head swamp drainer.

It's not just the lobbyists and campaign people. It the FBI, DOJ, and State Dept people. Taxes, economy, health care, etc don't matter for shit if these agencies continue letting people they like break the law and only bust those they don't like. IRS just had to pay settlements for wrongly targeting conservatives. Still no convictions.

[dead man walking]

as for paying settlements but never being convicted, you forget to mention wall st.

that's where the money is. that's where the power is. that's who routinely buys their way out of trouble.

[Herv100]

as for paying settlements but never being convicted, you forget to mention wall st.

that's where the money is. that's where the power is. that's who routinely buys their way out of trouble.

I remember when BOTH candidates in 2008 suspended their campaigns to go to DC and whine until the wall st banker bailout was passed

[DrDonkeyLove]

as for paying settlements but never being convicted, you forget to mention wall st.

that's where the money is. that's where the power is. that's who routinely buys their way out of trouble.

After the Great Recession one banker was convicted and some received reduced bonuses.

A terrible price was paid.

[bennyonesix]

Oh I see.

No, it "absolves" her from being worth a tremendous amount of investigative attention and resources. She's a private citizen peddling her book; she's not employing a team of crooks to run the country or using the office of the president for personal enrichment. I'd care more about her if if she were president, and about how she got there. Since she's out of the business, it's not important – to ME. But yeah, if she did the exact same things (we're stipulating here that Trump is a criminal?) then they would be just as criminal. Those actions would in some sense be "unimportant", because they didn't deliver her the presidency. I could see any administration not bothering to investigate, under the understanding that her political career is over. Usually we let election losers slink off into the quiet, to give lucrative speeches and make environmental documentaries. But that's not a moral or legal evaluation, just an assessment of politics as usual.

It also happens that I reject your "actual equivalency / only difference is a cutout" characterization. But that isn't my argument on "absolution"(?).

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/arti ... -was-legal

[nafod]

as for paying settlements but never being convicted, you forget to mention wall st.

that's where the money is. that's where the power is. that's who routinely buys their way out of trouble.

After the Great Recession one banker was convicted and some received reduced bonuses.

A terrible price was paid.

My favorite cartoon. Wall Street jumper...

[Yes I Have Balls]

You realize that Clinton did the exact same thing? The only difference being she used a cutout?

This stupid talking point needs to be taken from your mouth - by force if needed.

According to sworn testimony, Trump and Co. were offered "1000s of hacked emails about Hillary Clinton" from a Russian-linked agent. The member of Trump and Co. informed those higher up the food chain of the offer from Russia to provide these stolen emails. This is a crime. The person that offered this testimony has been indicted, has pled guilty and has been working with the FBI in secret for months.

On the other hand...

A lawyer linked to the Clinton Campaign paid an "Oppo" research firm to dig up dirt on Donald Trump and Co. This is not a crime.

See the difference?

[JimZipCode]

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/arti ... -was-legal

Did you intend to paste a link that says what Clinton's team did was legal, and what Trump's team did was not?
(I actually read most of it!)

[DrDonkeyLove]

Clinton deleting gov't emails so the gov't can never find them is OK.
Russians offering the deleted emails to Trump so the gov't can finally see what she hid from them is a crime.
"Farce: a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations".

[Turdacious]

Clinton deleting gov't emails so the gov't can never find them is OK.
Russians offering the deleted emails to Trump so the gov't can finally see what she hid from them is a crime.
"Farce: a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations".

[dead man walking]

Russians offering the deleted emails to Trump so the gov't can finally see what she hid from them

noble russia, a leader in transparency.

not at all motivated to disrupt democracy

Russian Influence Reached 126 Million Through Facebook Alone

[bennyonesix]

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/arti ... -was-legal

Did you intend to paste a link that says what Clinton's team did was legal, and what Trump's team did was not?
(I actually read most of it!)

No. You didn't read enough or well enough.

The only criminal allegation I have seen alleged against any Trump official (without proof), is that they DIRECTLY received assistance from a foreign gov.

Clinton's campaign did exactly the same thing via a cutout.

If one is wrong, both are wrong. Same same morally.

[Sangoma]

The best revenge USA could have is to hack Russian election next year and put someone offensive in charge. A transvestite cheerleader, for exsmple.

[JimZipCode]

No. You didn't read enough or well enough.

Ok, I'll try to do better.

Adav Noti, who served as a Federal Election Commission lawyer between 2007 and 2017, told me that all of this goes back to the ban on contributions and donations from foreign governments or foreign nationals in federal elections. The law has been on the books since the 1970s, and he said it applies to promises of deleted emails and other kinds of opposition research.

"There is a real meaningful distinction," said Noti, who is now senior director of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan group that monitors election law. "The Clinton campaign, based on what has been reported, paid for opposition research, which included paying people to dig up dirt in foreign countries." Unsavory? Perhaps. But not illegal.

Compare that to what we know about George Papadopoulos, a low-level Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser, who has pled guilty to lying to the FBI. The plea agreement, released Monday by Mueller, says Papadopoulos emailed a Russian professor and another Russian contact who promised to turn over Clinton's emails free of charge.

Or consider the meeting in the summer of 2016 between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian nationals who reportedly offered to hand over dirt on Clinton. Noti said that if the Trump officials solicited the information, "the act itself was unlawful."

How am I doing?

[bennyonesix]

Yeah so the point is they did the same thing.

[dead man walking]

russian gubmint money behind kusner venture

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/worl ... &smtyp=cur