John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president

by Brokeback Watchtower 67 Replies latest jw friends

bohm

Here is an example of the double standard:
Clinton's use of emails in the state department was investigated by the FBI and discussed ad nausea. At the end of the day, no criminal charges were filed.
Trumps casinos were also investigated, by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and found GUILTY for "significant and long-standing anti-money laundering violations" and fined 10M.
How much did we hear about that during the campaign? which of those two things are potentially worse given all we know about Trump is that
(1) he has significant financial ties to Russia and associate with known shady Russian people
(2) one of his companies was found guilty of anti-money laundering violations
(3) Russia interfered on his behalf during the election
(4) he has not released 1 page of tax documents.
(5) his first acts as president will be to go to Russia, he has appointed some of the most pro-Russia people to highest positions in his government and he is already talking about lifting sanctions despite the recent hacking.
This is looking shady as hell but for some reason the narrative that the emails are of the utmost importance keeps getting pushed even by the left.
Simon

Are you claiming that the FBI, NSA, Homeland Security, Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security, etc. are in collusion with the CIA with the same or similar motives? It sounds suspiciously like a conspiracy theory.
I would not be the least surprised if they were, but common sense is that whatever political wind is blowing will blow on all of them and produce similar results. They are all just branches of the government and I'm sure swap personnel just like any other 'industry' does.
...as did Colin Powell, as did the people who send those emails in the first place. And how did she benefit, exactly?
erm, by stepping out of the normal rules where people can examine what she sent. We don't know what she deleted.
There has been a number of official investigations into her use of emails. The conclusion of those investigations is that she was "careless" and no charges have been filed.
Because she deleted them? And being careless is a crime - motivation is no defence, neither is incompetence.
The CIA don't just fail during Iraq. They are liars. They lie all the time. They overthrow governments. They deal in drugs and arms. Hullo, Iran-Contra ... who d'ya think was running that little illegal op?
But suddenly, because of some wild and whacky claims about Trump, the left suddenly love them. The world is insane.
I have looked at the available evidence and it points more to it *not* being the Russians that it points to them. But some people seem very adamant that it has to be the Russians even though it isn't anywhere neat conclusive.
Seems convenient.
Simon

Here is an example of the double standard: [blah blah, stuff about Trump]
I have no doubt that Trump is guilty of many violations and he should be held accountable for them.
But newsflash for the left: guilt is not a pendulum!
Clinton isn't absolved of anything she did by making Trump guilty of other things.
Why is it hard to say "yes, she should not have acted that way and should be held accountable for her actions"?
Why should we expect Trump to be held accountable if she isn't? Does it help or hurt justice by excusing her actions?
Here's an idea: how about we prosecute and incarcerate politicians in the same way that they are happy to prosecute and incarcerate everyone else?!
Trumps casinos were also investigated, by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and found GUILTY for "significant and long-standing anti-money laundering violations" and fined 10M.
So already dealt with then?
How much did we hear about that during the campaign? which of those two things are potentially worse given all we know about Trump is that
"potentially" worse.
(1) he has significant financial ties to Russia and associate with known shady Russian people
Not proven and not illegal although should definitely be investigated.
(2) one of his companies was found guilty of anti-money laundering violations
Already dealt with and fined.
(3) Russia interfered on his behalf during the election
Unproven. Obama tried to interfere with the Brexit vote ... what should we do with him?
(4) he has not released 1 page of tax documents.
And he doesn't have to, there is no law, the electorate decided it wasn't a blocker to voting for him.
(5) his first acts as president will be to go to Russia, he has appointed some of the most pro-Russia people to highest positions in his government and he is already talking about lifting sanctions despite the recent hacking.
He's free to visit wherever he wants - Russia seems to be important right now. I don't think better relations with Russia are bad. Russian hacking is unproven, repeating claims doesn't make them true or proven.
The left would be better focusing on important issues and policy / appointments rather than endless personal and character attacks. He's probably a horrible slimeball, but even if you prove that it accomplishes nothing. It's all distraction and the left is showing themselves to be ineffective and inconsequential right now.
"OMG, we'll stop celebrities showing up for his inauguration by sending a blind singer death threats ... ha ha, see, we're much better than Trump !!!"
bohm

I would not be the least surprised if they were, but common sense is that whatever political wind is blowing will blow on all of them and produce similar results. They are all just branches of the government and I'm sure swap personnel just like any other 'industry' does.
I don't feel we are having this argument on a presumption that we each have to provide the same amount of evidence for our views. I am assuming this supposed conspiracy involving the CIA, FBI, homeland security, NSA, etc. etc. is not based on any evidence but more of a hunch?
Can you explain why, then, the FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, etc. etc. first conspired to make it seem like Trump was being helped by Russia and then, a few days before the election, the FBI said they would open an investigation in Clintons emails (which helped Trump a lot)?
erm, by stepping out of the normal rules where people can examine what she sent. We don't know what she deleted.
But people can examine what was sent because the classified emails were send from other departments (even though they also handled the communication in a way not fully consistent with all rules). Regarding the supposed deleted emails thats another smokescreen. from the FBI investigation:
Comey testified that the FBI "didn't find any evidence of evil intent and intent to obstruct justice."
So again: Is there any actual evidence that points to bad intentions that you got that the FBI don't have?
I am sorry to repeat myself, but we got 0 emails from Trump, 0 years of tax returns. Are HRC and Trump being treated with the same presumption of guilt/innocence?
There has been a number of official investigations into her use of emails. The conclusion of those investigations is that she was "careless" and no charges have been filed.
Because she deleted them? And being careless is a crime - motivation is no defence, neither is incompetence.
The claim of deleted emails was also investigated. By the FBI. Who are such great friends of HRC that they arguably cost her the election: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The CIA don't just fail during Iraq. They are liars. They lie all the time. They overthrow governments. They deal in drugs and arms. Hullo, Iran-Contra ... who d'ya think was running that little illegal op?
But suddenly, because of some wild and whacky claims about Trump, the left suddenly love them. The world is insane.
I have heard nearly the same argument being used to dismiss the official findings in 9/11: we "know" that "they" (CIA, NSA, FBI, etc.) lie and therefore whatever they have to say can't be trusted.
I don't "love" the CIA and I don't claim they have a perfect record. But it ain't the case that the CIA either "lie all the time" or that I have to "love" them. In this case the available evidence is in my view pretty clear on it's own and the claims are backed up by many different agencies.
Heck, even Trump seems to accept it, and certainly all the people close to him do.
bohm

Why is it hard to say "yes, she should not have acted that way and should be held accountable for her actions"?
That's exactly what I think and what happened: She has been the subject of intense investigations whose conclusions I trust (but do you?) which determined no charges should be filed.
Why should we expect Trump to be held accountable if she isn't? Does it help or hurt justice by excusing her actions?
My basic claim is that Trump and HRC should be subject to the same amount of scrutiny, evaluated with the same assumptions of guilt/innocence and be expected to hand over the same amount of information. So far on all counts HRC is being treated much, much worse than Trump.
Simon

Can you explain why, then, the FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, etc. etc. first conspired to make it seem like Trump was being helped by Russia and then, a few days before the election, the FBI said they would open an investigation in Clintons emails (which helped Trump a lot)?
They didn't - it was the media that fed the Russian conspiracy. Again, there is ZERO evidence.
Why did Comey help Trump? Possibly because of his close ties to Rudy Giuliani? Maybe he's just an idiot - there's apparently an investigation and hopefully we'll find out more.
But people can examine what was sent because the classified emails were send from other departments (even though they also handled the communication in a way not fully consistent with all rules). Regarding the supposed deleted emails thats another smokescreen. from the FBI investigation:
Not really ... what about the emails sent between Clinton and oooh, maybe some head of state or someone contributing to her "foundation" (which they are now still shutting down ... no influence to sell? what happened to the desire to do good now they have so much free time?)
We don't know because she deleted so many emails. It's her fault there is a black hole.
The claim of deleted emails was also investigated. By the FBI. Who are such great friends of HRC that they arguably cost her the election: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Are you aware that this so called "investigation" didn't involve them ever having access to the server themselves? Everything went through a 3rd party that (I think) was paid by the Clintons. They only got what they were given by the Clinton's so hardly a thorough job and hardly likely that she would hand over incriminating material.
Why do you think she deleted emails? Because they were cooking recipes?
Heck, even Trump seems to accept it, and certainly all the people close to him do.
Well no, he said it may have been the Russians ... but could have been the China (or Jayna as he says it) or some guy in his parents basement in Jersey.
It doesn't seem like they were using the most advanced techniques or the latest tools. Lots of reasons to doubt it was Russia although sure, the stance of Trump towards Russia could be smoke.
I am sorry to repeat myself, but we got 0 emails from Trump, 0 years of tax returns. Are HRC and Trump being treated with the same presumption of guilt/innocence?
You seem to want lack of something to equal guilt. It doesn't work that way. I don't think they have been treated equally but then they are not equal - not being hacked is not a crime, there's no reason Trump has to hand over any emails or tax returns (now that he won without doing so). But you seem to think these are equal "crimes"?
BTW: Were Clinton and Sanders treated equally?
bohm

(1) he has significant financial ties to Russia and associate with known shady Russian people
Not proven and not illegal although should definitely be investigated.
According to his own son he has significant ties to Russia. As for shady people here is just one: he signed to do business with Bayrock Group, owned by Felix Sater, who has mafia ties:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-mafia-linked-figure-describes-association-with-trump/2016/05/17/cec6c2c6-16d3-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html?utm_term=.5b303562f920
(2) one of his companies was found guilty of anti-money laundering violations
Already dealt with and fined.
I will say it now and I will say it again: HRC have not been found guilty of anything. Trumps companies have. Who of the two should draw more suspicion?
(3) Russia interfered on his behalf during the election
Unproven. Obama tried to interfere with the Brexit vote ... what should we do with him?
Believed by 17 agencies and all high-ranking members of the Trump campaign but hey, I will agree that they might all be colluding in a giant coverup.
There is no evidence Obama hacked the Brexit movement and instigate a gigantic campaign of mis-information.
Simon

She has been the subject of intense investigations whose conclusions I trust (but do you?) which determined no charges should be filed
She has been subject to political theatre for TV, not an intense investigation. Go look at what the investigation of her email server actually consisted of - it's an utter joke.
You are unhappy that Comey was able to re-ignite the email server issue near the end of the campaign. Why was that possible? Why was Clinton unable to say "this is BS - you have already had ALL the evidence, it's impossible that something new has appeared"?
Because they hadn't. There COULD have been something new - again, her own shenanigans prevented her from being able to put out a strong defence from accusations. It's her fault and her failure that she was in that situation.
My basic claim is that Trump and HRC should be subject to the same amount of scrutiny, evaluated with the same assumptions of guilt/innocence and be expected to hand over the same amount of information. So far on all counts HRC is being treated much, much worse than Trump.
Yes, I agree to the same level of scrutiny. But there was actual evidence with Clinton, you want lack of evidence to be 'evidence' when it comes to Trump. That is not equality.
As I said, much of the attention on Clinton and her email server was political theatre by the republicans. The dems could do things like that but they can't be bothered and instead let people swan off and recover politically (e.g. fatso bridge-gate, Bush with Iraq war).
Also, the media choses to focus on salacious nonsense and identity politics which is why so much of the attention on Trump is vacuous. Did he say something bad or crude? Yes ... and? Where's the crime? It is a failure of the main-stream media to focus on actual important issues and we should be demanding better from them. They do it for clicks, the dems do it for attention. It's bad tactics.
All the talk recently has been about which celebrities will boycott the inauguration. WTF? Who gives a crap? Meanwhile important appointments are made and decisions are being made with little media attention.
So far Trump is guilty of manipulating the media better than Clinton could. Sadly, it's not a crime.
Simon

There is no evidence Obama hacked the Brexit movement and instigate a gigantic campaign of mis-information.
And I never said there was. I said he tried to influence the brexit vote, which he certainly did.
I'm quite sure that Russia tried to influence the US election. That doesn't mean it proves they tried to hack it. If you read the reports, they make that leap over and over and reinforce the idea that "influence" = "hacked" which is simply wrong but maybe why you think you have seen convincing evidence of something when you really haven't.
bohm

They didn't - it was the media that fed the Russian conspiracy. Again, there is ZERO evidence.
Look. This is like first dismissing anything any agency or politician has ever said about 9/11 and then saying there is ZERO evidence that Al-Queda was involved. I can't really make a rational argument against that view.
Why did Comey help Trump? Possibly because of his close ties to Rudy Giuliani? Maybe he's just an idiot - there's apparently an investigation and hopefully we'll find out more.
Okay so let me get this straight. He first signed on to the story about Russia helping Trump which is damaging for Trump. Then he decided to help Trump because of his ties to Rudy Giuliani. I don't think that makes any sense at all.

Not really ... what about the emails sent between Clinton and oooh, maybe some head of state or someone contributing to her "foundation" (which they are now still shutting down ... no influence to sell? what happened to the desire to do good now they have so much free time?)
You are right: Clinton could have had hidden communication with Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, North-Korea and ET and then hid that communication and we wouldn't know because it was hidden. As could any other US official. I can't make a rational argument against that except saying that the FBI investigated it and concluded she didn't delete any emails of importance (by the way, she did not delete emails, she instructed the people handling her emails to hand over all emails related to her job), and you can then dismiss those findings because you believe the head of FBI is in on it or is run by idiots. I can't make an argument against that view except point out I doubt you will accept that type of argument when it is made in favor of the JFK or Roswell conspiracy.
Heck, even Trump seems to accept it, and certainly all the people close to him do.
Well no, he said it may have been the Russians ... but could have been the China (or Jayna as he says it) or some guy in his parents basement in Jersey.
Well: "President-elect Donald Trump acknowledged for the first time here Wednesday that Russia was responsible for hacking the Democratic Party during last year’s election"
I will grant you Trump is fussy on the details...
It doesn't seem like they were using the most advanced techniques or the latest tools.
Well I am not a security expert like you who can evaluate what tools the GRU uses but I suggest you give that information to e.g. Rex Tillerson or someone else who I am sure will be happy to know his boss wasn't helped by Russians as he now believes.

You seem to want lack of something to equal guilt. It doesn't work that way. I don't think they have been treated equally but then they are not equal - not being hacked is not a crime, there's no reason Trump has to hand over any emails or tax returns (now that he won without doing so). But you seem to think these are equal "crimes"?
Well I be damned a moment ago I could have sworn we were talking about what might be in some emails of Clintons none of us have ever seen ;-).
I don't think not handing over tax returns is a crime, of course, but it has been the norm for all other presidents since IIRC Carter and given all the other facts surrounding his business ties to Russia and the conviction for violating anti-money laundering rules it baffles my mind you focus on HRCs hypothetical emails.

John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president

Share this