The Trump Presidency 13: The (James) Baker's Dozen

Status
Not open for further replies.
SezMe said:
Is that really how you judge Trump in this matter? Just if he broke the letter of the law?
Click to expand...

I said nothing about how *I* judge anyone. I'm pointing out the logical requirement for concluding someone is using a double standard when they treat the cases differently. The use of consistent standards is never a guarantee that you're using the correct standards, and nothing I said suggests otherwise.
 
Ziggurat said:
... Which law (not protocol) did Kushner violate?
Click to expand...
You mean like divulging highly classified material to the Saudi Prince? Or have you made up an excuse claiming that was just violating a protocol? :rolleyes:

Felonious lying on his security applications, multiple times.

And he lied about the Trump Tower meeting, to Congress I believe.
 
Last edited:
The bookies have seen this one and have slashed the odds on President Trump winning re-election in 2020. Paddy Power cut the odds from $3-00 to $2-60 after the Mueller release.

Hail Emperor Trump! (Surely, if FDR can have 4 elections, His Exalted Orange Majesty can have three? Queen Ivanka can take over after that.)
 
Ziggurat said:
Not explicitly, but absent any such violation, there is a substantive difference between the two cases. Hillary violated security laws, as far as we know Trump didn't. No double standard is needed in order to approach them differently.
Click to expand...

You brought Trump into this part, not me. I didn't claim that Trump was breaking the security laws in the first place, much as that's likely only because they don't really apply to him. Hence why he can just... tell random top secret information to the Russian Ambassador in the White House without legal consequence.

Ziggurat said:
Which law (not protocol) did Kushner violate?
Click to expand...

At last check, to focus on the WhatsApp bit, at very best, we're working in the "Trust me, I'm totally honoring the Presidential Records Act" gray area, if and only if it doesn't have specific provisions to enforce the ability to verify that that's all that was said. Going further, there's likely violations of law involved when it came to what looks like him just handing classified information to the Saudis. Kushner (and at least 6 other of Trump's people in the White House) also used private e-mail to conduct government business. More could likely be mentioned, but that's a fair start to work with.

thaiboxerken said:
Are Mueller and Rosenstein Republicans again after this "conclusion" by Barr?
Click to expand...

Sounds like Jim Jordan's suddenly placing him next to Jesus and claiming that "everyone in town" had faith in him all along. :rolleyes:

In other slightly funnier news... looks like Nunes is cancelling an event in fear after there were threats of cow costumed protesters showing up. I think it's entirely appropriate to call him a cow-ard, again.
 
Last edited:
Trump Retweeted

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Good Morning, Have A Great Day!
 
Aridas said:
You brought Trump into this part, not me.
Click to expand...

This is a thread about Trump. He was part of this from the start.

I didn't claim that Trump was breaking the security laws in the first place
Click to expand...

Sure, but absent such a claim, there's a difference between Trump and Hillary which you ignored, and which undermines what you did claim about a double standard.

And again, so I'm not misunderstood, saying that someone is using a consistent standard doesn't mean that they're using a good standard.

At last check, to focus on the WhatsApp bit, at very best, we're working in the "Trust me, I'm totally honoring the Presidential Records Act" gray area
Click to expand...

I'm not actually trying to defend that, if you've noticed. There's plenty of room for criticism there.
 
alfaniner said:
Gee, I wonder if he's gonna keep that (and the other one) in his Saved Phrases so he doesn't have to retype them daily.
Click to expand...

Nah, he'll just retweet as he usually does with his MAGA ones.

Frankly, I'm quite happy that the Mueller investigation is over - now we can concentrate on the overriding issue: what a bell end he is.

ETA: OMG, he already retweeted that. I'm too slow.
 
EvilBiker said:
Frankly, I'm quite happy that the Mueller investigation is over - now we can concentrate on the overriding issue: what a bell end he is.
Click to expand...

We figured out what a bell end he is before the election. That might have been an overriding issue in late 2016, but at some point you have to bring yourself forward into the present.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not explicitly, but absent any such violation, there is a substantive difference between the two cases. Hillary violated security laws, as far as we know Trump didn't. No double standard is needed in order to approach them differently.
Click to expand...
Pretty much the only reason why Trump did not violate security laws is because as president, he has the authority to (for example) unclassify documents.

There may have been issues with how Clinton handled certain documents. But there is no evidence that classified information was actually released. And when you look at what Trump and his family have actually done (revealing previously classified information to the Russians, using unsecured communications devices, holding meetings in non-secure locations, as well as using non-government email for government work), then whatever Hillary has done pales in comparison. The only thing that makes what Trump has done legal is his position; he's a disaster when it comes to national security.
 
Segnosaur said:
Pretty much the only reason why Trump did not violate security laws is because as president, he has the authority to (for example) unclassify documents.
Click to expand...

Regardless, the fact is he didn't act illegally. Hillary did.

There may have been issues with how Clinton handled certain documents. But there is no evidence that classified information was actually released.
Click to expand...

Released into the wild? Maybe not. But she gave classified information to people who were not legally allowed to take custody of it. She broke the law.

You can argue all day long about what the proper standard for evaluating all of this is. But there is still a distinction between legal and illegal actions, and no double standard is required in order to evaluate them differently. And nothing in your post contests that point.
 
Ziggurat said:
Regardless, the fact is he didn't act illegally. Hillary did.



Released into the wild? Maybe not. But she gave classified information to people who were not legally allowed to take custody of it. She broke the law.

You can argue all day long about what the proper standard for evaluating all of this is. But there is still a distinction between legal and illegal actions, and no double standard is required in order to evaluate them differently. And nothing in your post contests that point.
Click to expand...

If Clinton had been President, none of the Server business would have mattered, right?
 
Ziggurat said:
You can argue all day long about what the proper standard for evaluating all of this is. But there is still a distinction between legal and illegal actions, and no double standard is required in order to evaluate them differently. And nothing in your post contests that point.
Click to expand...
That's not exactly something you should be proud of.

Since Trump is harming the U.S. because of his mishandling of security (and doing so more than Clinton ever did), the proper response is not to pat him on the back and say "good job... since what you're doing is legal". The proper course of action is to say "what you're doing is illegal and you should stop", regardless of how legal his actions are.

The fact that you're willing to give him a pass based on a very slim technicality speaks volumes about your true concerns about the U.S.
 
Segnosaur said:
That's not exactly something you should be proud of.

Since Trump is harming the U.S. because of his mishandling of security (and doing so more than Clinton ever did), the proper response is not to pat him on the back and say "good job... since what you're doing is legal". The proper course of action is to say "what you're doing is illegal and you should stop", regardless of how legal his actions are.

The fact that you're willing to give him a pass based on a very slim technicality speaks volumes about your true concerns about the U.S.
Click to expand...

Hey, it does not matter so long as Trumpy gives people their tax cuts.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom