IGX

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:00 am I am not absolving anyone of anything based on other people. You are. You are absolving Clinton.

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:00 am...ever since whitewater, I have been opposed to these unsupervised witchhunts.

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.

nafod wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:42 am 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 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:05 pm 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.

dead man walking wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:05 pm 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.

JimZipCode wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:15 am 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"(?).

DrDonkeyLove wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:56 pm

dead man walking wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:05 pm 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 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:03 am
You realize that Clinton did the exact same thing? The only difference being she used a cutout?

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:02 pmhttps://www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/arti ... -was-legal

DrDonkeyLove wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:57 pm 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".

DrDonkeyLove wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:57 pm Russians offering the deleted emails to Trump so the gov't can finally see what she hid from them

Russian Influence Reached 126 Million Through Facebook Alone

JimZipCode wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:39 pm

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:02 pmhttps://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!)

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:35 amNo. You didn't read enough or well enough.

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."