Trump Will Eventuall Turn On You...

[Massena]

And now to emphasize Trump's inherent dishonesty, he's done it yet again:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/14/polit...lse/index.html

'President Donald Trump made 21 false claims last week, well below his recent weekly tallies, as he stayed largely quiet in the wake of the massacres in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.'

'Trump made 56 false claims the week prior. Twenty-one is the fewest he has made in the five weeks we have counted at CNN.'

'The pace of the President's dishonesty is strongly correlated with the total amount of time he spends talking. According to Factba.se, a website that tracks his utterances, Trump spoke for just 56 minutes last week, his lowest total for any week since a week in late January.'

'Trump averaged about six false claims per day when we were counting at the Toronto Star between his inauguration and the beginning of June. His record low for a week was two false claims, in March 2017.'

And people still support the moron...

[Nichols]

And now to emphasize Trump's inherent dishonesty, he's done it yet again:

Good grief, give it a rest.

CNN....twisting news again.....

[Massena]

The only 'twisting' going on here is the repeated nonsense posted by Trump supporters. Again, how can anyone support a serial liar, conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist?

[inevtiab1e]

It really doesn’t matter if Hillary knew the server wasn’t secure.
She never had a right to exclusive control over the information on the server.
It was always property of the government.

Correct, although intent was weighed in this decision compared to previous crimes and determining bringing charges.

Gross negligence doesn’t require intent, or even actual knowledge. The standard for negligence is “knew or should have known”.

Yes and Comey weighed previous cases compared. IOW, what she did was no where near as bad as other cases (and their recommended prosecution/sentencing)

Obama’s DOJ didn’t prosecute the democratic candidate for president during her campaign despite a clear and open violation of the law.

Or they took the word of the FBI and the FBI was the one to determine charges.

The fact that she had a private server is a violation of the law.

Doubtful.
--""A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email so long as relevant documents are preserved for history.""

"She isn’t allowed to conduct government business in secret like that.

There were no secrets. Documents/emails were preserved according to the law.

You may recall in 2008 there were accusations against Sarah plain for conducting government business on her private email, so it isn’t a new charge.

Right, because it's not illegal.

Having a private server was far worse than that.

Not sure it was illegal. As long as information was kept for records.

One wonders why Hillary felt the need to hide her government business from the government though.

Conspiracy theory pushed by radical RW media.

[Cambronnne]

Correct, although intent was weighed in this decision compared to previous crimes and determining bringing charges.


Yes and Comey weighed previous cases compared. IOW, what she did was no where near as bad as other cases (and their recommended prosecution/sentencing)


Or they took the word of the FBI and the FBI was the one to determine charges.

Doubtful.
--""A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email so long as relevant documents are preserved for history.""

There were no secrets. Documents/emails were preserved according to the law.

Right, because it's not illegal.

Not sure it was illegal. As long as information was kept for records.

Conspiracy theory pushed by radical RW media.

A couple of things. The FBI doesn't make prosecutorial decisions. The DOJ does.
In this case, Comey decided that hillary shouldn't be prosecuted because they couldn't prove "intent".
Given that they never had to prove intent, one wonders why he claimed that was the standard. He said she was being held to a standard that did not apply under the law.

My point remains accurate. Comey's statement supports my point that hillary broke the law.
Whether they decided to prosecute really isn't relevant to my original assertion, which was comey said all I needed.
He just gave her a pass.

He couldn't have relied on similar cases, because no one had ever done this before. This is akin to your taking all the records from your employer without notice or permission and keeping them at your home and then returning only some of them.

Your quote by the spokesperson is an attempt to sidestep the issue.
It wasn't the use of a personal email, it was a personal server. With personal email, there is always a 3rd party entity that preserves the emails even if in an unsecured manner. With a personal server, all the records of the emails are in her possession, except for the ones she sent to government employees. That was what exposed it. Those records were preserved.

Next, the use of personal email is only allowed "so long as relevant documents are preserved for history."
As the quote from comey made clear, there were thousands of emails that were not preserved. They were outside the reach of the government and the government didn't even know they existed until the investigation. That is a violation of the law.


I would agree that a private server could be acceptable "so long as relevant documents are preserved for history.".
The problem with the server is that the emails were not "preserved". (see comey's statement) Therefore, it was, by your definition, "illegal".

Hillary's choice not to use the secure and controlled government system required a lot of work and secrecy on her part.
One wonders why she would go to such trouble rather than simply use the mandated system that was in place.
Usually people don't go to extraordinary effort and expense for no reason.

Anyway, Comey's statement was enough to establish hillary should have been charged.
Your effort to try and minimize the impact of what he said doesn't change that fact.

[G David Bock]

I don't care for Scaramucci, but in this he is absolutely correct. Trump's only concern is himself.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/11/polit...ter/index.html

'"For the last 3 years I have fully supported this President," Scaramucci tweeted Sunday morning. "Recently he has said things that divide the country in a way that is unacceptable. So I didn't pass the 100% litmus test. Eventually he turns on everyone and soon it will be you and then the entire country."'

A look at the source, whom plays both sides and has some integrity and conviction issues of his own it would seem;
...
On July 21, 2017, Scaramucci was appointed White House Communications Director. He began work on July 25, although he had not yet been sworn in. Days into the job, Scaramucci provoked controversy after an expletive-laden interview with The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza, in which he made obscene and strongly derogatory statements about several members of the Trump administration. Ten days after the announcement of his appointment, he was fired by President Donald Trump on the recommendation of the new White House Chief of Staff, John F. Kelly. He is a recurring guest on the sports/comedy podcast Pardon My Take presented by Barstool Sports and was a "Fake HouseGuest" on Celebrity Big Brother 2.
...
Scaramucci supported the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.^[27] In 2008, Scaramucci also served as a fundraiser for President Barack Obama.^[28] In September 2010, however, Scaramucci asked Obama at a CNBC Town Hall meeting when he was going to "stop whacking Wall Street like a piñata."^[29]

Scaramucci has tweeted at various times that he has "always been for strong gun control laws", and that "Republicans should support gay marriage".^[30]

He served as the national finance co-chair for Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign.^[27]

In 2015, on a Fox Business Network television appearance, Scaramucci called Trump a "hack politician" whose rhetoric is "anti-American and very, very divisive." He further warned Trump to "cut it out now", and "stop all this crazy rhetoric." In December 2015, Scaramucci criticized Trump's call for a border wall between Mexico and the U.S. He also criticized Trump for "making a fundamental mistake of trying to blame all of Islam and all Muslims for what is the ideology and the actions of a minority."^[27]

Ahead of the 2016 election, Scaramucci tweeted that he hoped Hillary Clinton would be the next president.^[27] During the 2016 presidential election, Scaramucci first endorsed Scott Walker and later Jeb Bush. In May 2016, after both Walker and Bush had withdrawn from the race, Scaramucci signed on to Donald Trump's political campaign by joining the Trump Finance Committee.^[31] In November 2016, he was appointed to President-elect Trump's Presidential Transition Team Executive Committee
...
On July 21, 2017, President Donald Trump appointed Scaramucci White House Communications Director, to take office on July 25.^[50] The White House announcement of Scaramucci said he would "report directly to the President" rather than to the White House chief of staff, as White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer had.^[51][52] On the day that Scaramucci's appointment was announced, Spicer resigned.^[53]The New York Times reported that he had done so after advising Trump that he "vehemently disagreed" with the appointment of Scaramucci.^[53][54] Trump's chief of staff Reince Priebus also had "vehement objections" to his hiring.^[52]

In a July 26, 2017 phone call^[55] to Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker, Scaramucci said he would fire everyone on the White House communications staff if Lizza did not reveal the source of leaked information about who had attended a dinner with Trump.^[56] Scaramucci also accused Priebus of being "a leaker" who had committed "a felony", referred to Priebus as "a ****ing paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac", and said that Priebus "would resign soon". Priebus did not respond to Lizza's request for comment. Scaramucci also said "I'm not Steve Bannon, I'm not trying to suck my own cock" in an apparent reference to his lack of interest in media attention.^[52][57] The following day, Scaramucci tweeted, "I sometimes use colorful language. I will refrain in this arena but not give up the passionate fight for Donald Trump's agenda."
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Scaramucci

And more of interest can be found at the above.

Seems the guy whom will change sides and turn on anyone is calling out Trump on similar ...

[inevtiab1e]

A couple of things. The FBI doesn't make prosecutorial decisions. The DOJ does.
In this case, Comey decided that hillary shouldn't be prosecuted because they couldn't prove "intent".
Given that they never had to prove intent, one wonders why he claimed that was the standard. He said she was being held to a standard that did not apply under the law.

Once again, Comey said what you're looking for. The FBI gave a recommendation to the DOJ, which they don't always do publicly. But given the importance of the investigation, he thought he should be transparent.
You can say she was guilty of gross negligence and I agree. The FBI concluded the type of gross negligence was minimal compared to previous FBI investigations dealing with people handling classified information.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

[Cambronnne]

Once again, Comey said what you're looking for. The FBI gave a recommendation to the DOJ, which they don't always do publicly. But given the importance of the investigation, he thought he should be transparent.
You can say she was guilty of gross negligence and I agree. The FBI concluded the type of gross negligence was minimal compared to previous FBI investigations dealing with people handling classified information.

It would seem that you are agreeing with my original point that Comey gave me a reasonable basis for my opinion rather than any RW media.
If so.

.

[inevtiab1e]

It would seem that you are agreeing with my original point that Comey gave me a reasonable basis for my opinion rather than any RW media.
If so.

.

That comment was referring to your decision to support Trump because he 'wasn't Hillary." I simply stated that millions of Americans believe a lot of conspiracy theories and lies about Hillary.
I supported Hillary because she wasn't Trump. She was the 'responsible' choice.
The perception people have of Clinton to this day is shaped by conspiracy theory and disinformation. Most people just take the word of their media, without fact checking and/or looking to learn the truth.

The big lie is the name of a propaganda technique, originally coined by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, and denotes where a known falsehood is stated and repeated and treated as if it is self-evidently true, in hopes of swaying the course of an argument in a direction that takes the big lie for granted rather than critically questioning it or ignoring it.

Well-known forms of the big lie include Hitler's use of anti-Semitism in Nazi propaganda (blaming Jews for all of Germany's problems), communist propaganda blaming the "bourgeoisie" for all workers' problems, the frequent demonizing of the left-wing as communist and of the right-wing as fascist, religious fundamentalist claims of persecution, the Roman Catholic Church's claims that the clergy sex abuse scandal was a problem of liberal churches, and denial of Ken Ham's complicity in acts of piglet rape.^[2]

Ironically, Hitler asserted that the technique had in fact been used by the Jews to unfairly blame Germany's loss in World War I on German Army officer Erich Ludendorff.^[3]

[Cambronnne]

That comment was referring to your decision to support Trump because he 'wasn't Hillary." I simply stated that millions of Americans believe a lot of conspiracy theories and lies about Hillary.
I supported Hillary because she wasn't Trump. She was the 'responsible' choice.
The perception people have of Clinton to this day is shaped by conspiracy theory and disinformation. Most people just take the word of their media, without fact checking and/or looking to learn the truth.

I fully support your preference for Hillary and will not dispute the reasonableness of your logic.

My opinion of hillary is largely based on what happened before the internet became a thing and before RW sites really existed.
(Early to late 90s)

[inevtiab1e]

I fully support your preference for Hillary and will not dispute the reasonableness of your logic.

My opinion of hillary is largely based on what happened before the internet became a thing and before RW sites really existed.
(Early to late 90s)

I get that, but a lot of the stuff that happened back then were phony scandals. RW outlets have been going after the Clintons for decades, creating scandals, conspiracy theories, etc.

Some here even say the Clinton's are criminals. I'd bet the majority of conservatives would agree with that statement.
That's the product of years of propaganda shaping what people actually think/believe.

My opinion of Donald Trump is largely based on what happened before the internet and the presidency. It's almost like people didn't know who DT was before he ran from president.

They also believed all the confidence man talking points and lies.

[Trung Si]

My opinion of hillary is largely based on what happened before the internet became a thing and before RW sites really existed.
(Early to late 90s)

Same here, I knew what Hillary was by the end of 1993, and haven't seen anything that would change my mind since.

[G David Bock]

The only 'twisting' going on here is the repeated nonsense posted by Trump supporters. Again, how can anyone support a serial liar, conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist?

Counter point to the repeated nonsense posted by Trump detractors. On a similar note many of us spent eight years wondering how anyone could support a dis-informationist, traitor, seditionist, and racist "divider", whom wasn't executive material or qualified to be POTUS(and BTW, also never served in the military ) and then go on to support an equally corrupt, traitorous, criminal intended replacement.

Then again, since many of the supporters of these two engage in mostly pillage of the economy and debt creation, and aren't building economy/wealth, stands to reason they'd want similar thieves and defects in office.

[Cambronnne]

I get that, but a lot of the stuff that happened back then were phony scandals. RW outlets have been going after the Clintons for decades, creating scandals, conspiracy theories, etc.

Some here even say the Clinton's are criminals. I'd bet the majority of conservatives would agree with that statement.
That's the product of years of propaganda shaping what people actually think/believe.

My opinion of Donald Trump is largely based on what happened before the internet and the presidency. It's almost like people didn't know who DT was before he ran from president.

They also believed all the confidence man talking points and lies.

As to Hillary, my information all came from the MSM.
It could be inaccurate, but it certainly wasn't RW.
All that existed back then was conservative talk radio and that wasn't something I couldn't listen to at the time.

As I said, I will not dispute your opinions about trump, there is plenty there to dislike and I will never try to change anyone's mind about that.

[inevtiab1e]

As to Hillary, my information all came from the MSM.
It could be inaccurate, but it certainly wasn't RW.
All that existed back then was conservative talk radio and that wasn't something I couldn't listen to at the time.

Just sayin that people's perceptions are probably inaccurate, even though what people hear may sound convincing.

As I said, I will not dispute your opinions about trump, there is plenty there to dislike and I will never try to change anyone's mind about that.

I think most people's opinion of Trump was shaped decades before the election.

People's perception of the world can be shaped by propaganda. Propaganda's goal is to target human emotions.

The power of propaganda can be showed in this example:

Hillary Clinton

Now take note of which emotions happened after seeing the name.