Posts by bohm

67

John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president

by Brokeback Watchtower in

jw
friends

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-lewis-trump-isnt-a-legitimate-president/ar-aalqsqs?li=bbmkt5r&ocid=spartanntp.

bohm

It's nothing like.
it's like believing that Iraq was behind 9/11 and going to war over it even though we know it was Al-Queda and most of the attackers were Saudi's

Was Tomothy McVeigh responsible for the bombings? Well, we can't know anymore because that was the FBI and we know they are full of it. Who was responsible for the original bombing of the WTC? Well, we can't know because all we got to go on is the FBI and a few other agencies and they are known liars. What about who killed JFK? Well, we can't know because the people who investigated that (FBI?) are known liars etc. etc.

You can't just say: Well, normally it would be nuts to just dismiss the findings of 17 agencies whose findings are accepted even by the people who has the most to loose (well, minus Trump) by accepting their findings, but just in this case we know they are full of it. That's not being consistent.

We don't need to see them. We know they were deleted. Guilty.

Can we just be crystal clear about which deleted emails we are talking about here (i.e. a source to the official investigation).

I know you don't trust the FBI, but this information has to come from somewhere. Insofar as I am aware the emails deleted were personal and determined not to be important.

I think we can focus on both. Clinton's email debacle is a fact. Trump's failures can also be a fact when they are uncovered and I hope they are. But whatever he does will never undo her crimes.
Worse though, making unverifiable and unprovable allegations will end up making him bullet-proof and be able to dismiss possibly future claims as "fake news".

The email thing was determined not to be a crime, the anti-money laundering thing was not a "failure" but a crime for which a 10M fine was handed out. Apples and oranges.

67

John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president

by Brokeback Watchtower in

jw
friends

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-lewis-trump-isnt-a-legitimate-president/ar-aalqsqs?li=bbmkt5r&ocid=spartanntp.

bohm

I have never convinced anyone who started from the premise the intelligence agencies are all lying and I don't think that will happen today. I will only make one observation:

All the talk recently has been about which celebrities will boycott the inauguration. WTF? Who gives a crap?

Please notice that of the two of us, YOU are the one who is bringing up this topic. That is another tendency I have seen in this election: Opponents of HRC keeps saying that they "keeps bringing up" some ridiculous side point. I don't give a shit about who does what at the election and the way you can tell is that I don't bring it up.

67

John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president

by Brokeback Watchtower in

jw
friends

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-lewis-trump-isnt-a-legitimate-president/ar-aalqsqs?li=bbmkt5r&ocid=spartanntp.

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.

67

John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president

by Brokeback Watchtower in

jw
friends

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-lewis-trump-isnt-a-legitimate-president/ar-aalqsqs?li=bbmkt5r&ocid=spartanntp.

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.

67

John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president

by Brokeback Watchtower in

jw
friends

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-lewis-trump-isnt-a-legitimate-president/ar-aalqsqs?li=bbmkt5r&ocid=spartanntp.

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.

67

John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president

by Brokeback Watchtower in

jw
friends

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-lewis-trump-isnt-a-legitimate-president/ar-aalqsqs?li=bbmkt5r&ocid=spartanntp.

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.

67

John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president

by Brokeback Watchtower in

jw
friends

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-lewis-trump-isnt-a-legitimate-president/ar-aalqsqs?li=bbmkt5r&ocid=spartanntp.

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.

67

John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president

by Brokeback Watchtower in

jw
friends

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-lewis-trump-isnt-a-legitimate-president/ar-aalqsqs?li=bbmkt5r&ocid=spartanntp.

bohm

She tried to sidestep the rules of governance and accountability and put herself above the law for her own benefit.

...as did Colin Powell, as did the people who send those emails in the first place. And how did she benefit, exactly?

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.

I don't trust the CIA, FBI or NSA - I believe they are politicized and on their own side, which is rarely that of absolute truth.

Sorry but this is just pure conspiracy. The same kind of sweeping dismissals can be used to dismiss official findings regarding 9/11 or any other similar incident.

Yes, the CIA failed during Iraq but the two situations are very different in that for Iraq it was not 17 agencies making statements and they were reacting largely based on bad second-hands accounts and Saddam Hussain having done his best to make it appear as if he had WMDs to scare of Iran. Why is the FBI untrustworthy because the CIA shat the bed 13 years ago?

If you don't like the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. just read the report and look at the available evidence.

67

John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president

by Brokeback Watchtower in

jw
friends

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-lewis-trump-isnt-a-legitimate-president/ar-aalqsqs?li=bbmkt5r&ocid=spartanntp.

bohm

Nevermind that she put secrets at risk (which people are in prison for) but she also destroyed evidence (which people are in prison for).

Well that's awful. Fortunately, HRC will not be handling classified material anymore.

But general Flynn will. Did you know he “inappropriately shared United States classified information with various foreign military officers and/or officials in Afghanistan.” according to an official report on the matter?

67

John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president

by Brokeback Watchtower in

jw
friends

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-lewis-trump-isnt-a-legitimate-president/ar-aalqsqs?li=bbmkt5r&ocid=spartanntp.

bohm

Plus, the complete absence of so many emails shows she is untrustworthy.

I don't get this statement. You are saying we can only trust a political candidate who publishes all his or her email communication?

That's not something I think ANY candidate has EVER done.

Plus, despite 3 months of huff and puffing I have yet to see any seriously troubling emails. Someone passing her questions isn't exactly watergate...

I have said it many times but I think there has been established an expectation of a double standard: If Hillary does not reveal all her emails communication we are supposed to faint. If Trump shit all over the minimal disclosure expected of all presidents (tax records) that's just how that is.