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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Donald J.
Zachary Porter
‏@ZacharyIvanPor1

Thank you Mr. President for all of your sacrifice, your hard work, and your thoughtful leadership. It means so much to us to have a President who truly cares for and represents us so faithfully. God bless you and your wonderful family. Keep up the GREAT work.
Love,
America
 
Belz... said:
She did? That would probably come as a shock to the FBI.
Click to expand...

Tax Fraud, Bank Fraud, Conspiracy Against The United States: mere process crimes (There's an R by their names, doncha know!)

Emailing yourself a copy of your own itinerary and a copy of a New York Times Article: She broke the law, lock her up, MAGA! (Clinton and a Democrat, must be utterly evil)
 
Trump's embrace of Ryanism is not going to help his 2020 bid.

In a stunning, two-sentence letter submitted to the Fifth Circuit today, the Justice Department announced that it now thinks the entire Affordable Care Act should be enjoined. That’s an even more extreme position than the one it advanced at the district court in Texas v. Azar, when it argued that the court should “only” zero out the protections for people with preexisting conditions.

The bad faith on display here is jaw-dropping. Does the administration really think that the very position it advanced just month ago is so untenable that it must now adopt an even crazier view?

…

Even apart from that, the sheer reckless irresponsibility is hard to overstate. The notion that you could gut the entire ACA and not wreak havoc on the lives of millions of people is insane. The Act is now part of the plumbing of the health-care system. Which means the Trump administration has now committed itself to a legal position that would inflict untold damage on the American public.
Click to expand...
 
Since he's showing off his newly fully engorged balls, we're back to hearing about the repeal of Obamacare again. I assume it's only a short time before he goes after Hillary with even more determination.
 
lomiller said:
Quite making stuff up. At worst she violated some record keeping statutes and the evidence suggests she didn't even do that.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
She did? That would probably come as a shock to the FBI.
Click to expand...


The Opening Arguments podcast did a very deep dive on the subject a while back.

My recollection is there was no doubt her actions with her server violated specific laws concerning the handling of classified information. And that other military personnel who had done similar things were successfully prosecuted and imprisoned. And that “intent” was not a necessary element of the federal statute.

But that, in the end it was decided not to prosecute based on the totality of the case, as Comey laid out publicly - and questionably.

That’s just a quick and incomplete summary of something I listened to - twice - well over a year ago. But the podcast is a good listen if one is still curious about how things played out.

Edited to add: relevant quote from Comey’s letter: “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.”

Just like Mueller’s statement that declining to prosecute Trump for Obstruction of Justice did not imply exoneration, neither did the DOJ’s decision not to prosecute Hillary.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
"Potential" violations.
Click to expand...

Weasel words. We know for a fact Hillary violated the statutes on handling classified materials. Hell, she did so even after the investigation began. For example, she deposited her emails with her lawyer, but those emails contained classified information, and that lawyer was not cleared to handle classified information.

Comey's excuse that there was a lack of intent isn't relevant, since the law doesn't require intent for a violation to occur. You can argue that his recommendation not to prosecute falls within legitimate prosecutorial discretion (prosecutors don't have to go after every single violation), but the fact that she broke the law is really not in any serious doubt.
 
Belz... said:
By the FBI? Why would they do that?
Click to expand...

By Comey. Because he didn't want to recommend indicting Hillary, and so he didn't want it to look like there was a reason to recommend indicting Hillary.

Correct my memory if I'm wrong but aren't we talking about three e-mails, here?
Click to expand...

There were more. I'm not sure why you think the number matters for these purposes. Mishandling one email with classified information is still a violation of the statutes.
 
Ziggurat said:
By Comey. Because he didn't want to recommend indicting Hillary, and so he didn't want it to look like there was a reason to recommend indicting Hillary.
Click to expand...

You have support for this accusation?

There were more.
Click to expand...

Not to the best of my knowledge.

I'm not sure why you think the number matters for these purposes.
Click to expand...

Because as usual it's a matter of degree. If there are, in fact, only three, it could be an honest mistake. If you get a ticket for driving 1 km above the speed limit, it doesn't make sense to get the book thrown at you. I'm much more of the opinion that the habitual criminals should get harsher treatment.
 
Belz... said:
You have support for this accusation?
Click to expand...

It's a reasonable inference from facts such as the DOJ's interference in the case. I think Comey got the message, and marched accordingly. Can I prove it? No. But it's certainly a possibility.

Regardless of the reasons, though, the FBI had what amounts to proof of violations of the statutes. Whether or not you agree with the decision to not prosecute (and again, I concede that there are legitimate reasons to not prosecute known crimes), the fact that she wasn't prosecuted isn't because no law breaking occurred. It did. We know this with as much certainty as you can have.

Because as usual it's a matter of degree.
Click to expand...

The decision to prosecute may be, and the punishment certainly should be. But whether or not a violation of the law occurred (which was the question I was addressing) is not.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's a reasonable inference from facts such as the DOJ's interference in the case. I think Comey got the message, and marched accordingly. Can I prove it? No. But it's certainly a possibility.
Click to expand...

That's quite the walkback. Now it's just your speculation. For all you know they weren't weasel words and all that you said here and before is just untrue.

Regardless of the reasons, though, the FBI had what amounts to proof of violations of the statutes.
Click to expand...

Is that more speculation?
 
Belz... said:
That's quite the walkback. Now it's just your speculation. For all you know they weren't weasel words and all that you said here and before is just untrue.
Click to expand...

You asked why he would use a weasel word. I gave you a reason. It's a speculative reason, but you asked a speculative question. Mine was an entirely appropriate response.

Is that more speculation?
Click to expand...

Nope. That depends entirely upon known facts of the case, not speculated motives.
 
Now that Trump is winning the Trade war (because as he says they are easy to win), lets take a look at the effect:

From: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/ny-...g-us-consumers-1point4-billion-per-month.html
The Trump administration's trade policies and tariffs reduced U.S. income at a rate of $1.4 billion per month by the end of November
...
"We find that the U.S. tariffs were almost completely passed through into U.S. domestic prices, so that the entire incidence of the tariffs fell on domestic consumers and importers up to now, with no impact so far on the prices received by foreign exporters," the economists wrote. "We also find that U.S. producers responded to reduced import competition by raising their prices."
 
Ziggurat said:
You asked why he would use a weasel word. I gave you a reason. It's a speculative reason, but you asked a speculative question. Mine was an entirely appropriate response.
Click to expand...

Except that no. I asked you why you said it WAS a weasel word, not hypothetically.

Nope. That depends entirely upon known facts of the case, not speculated motives.
Click to expand...

Ok, then: citation needed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom