In a world where facts don't matter to so many, there is still fiction and non-fiction.

[AU9377 4,979]

I am less shocked every day at how much information so many accept from completely unreliable sources, like Facebook or Youtube.  Real leadership is supposed to guide people away from the nonsense and toward an honest debate.  As with so many things in this country, Americans in large numbers are finding truth to be too bothersome and would prefer their sources of information reinforce their already formed beliefs.  So many will support a man that has no reservations at all when it comes to lying to them about any topic any day.  If America had this little respect for truth in our history, we would have never survived.  Where is the sense of honor that some once had?  Is all that secondary now when the choice is hating the other side and it is now all about them and us?  Is hating someone different from yourself so important that you will sacrifice all sense of decency?  Why do so many self proclaimed evangelical Christians support a man that goes against every facet of their faith?  We need to grow up and look at the real problem and the real problem is the society we are building and not the one that our grand parents left us.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/13/politics/fact-check-trump-federal-documents-indictment/index.html

[jj3jordan 2,056]

Possibly because two massively corrupt individuals exist in todays political world. With one: Trump, being attacked daily by the full power and strength of the US government and agencies plus media. The other: Biden, given a pass, excused, crickets, lauded, and believed. 
 

Until people can see that this exists on both sides, with both people, there will be no resolution. Standards must be applied equally to all cases. They aren’t. 

[DKW 86 7,431]

20 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I am less shocked every day at how much information so many accept from completely unreliable sources, like Facebook or Youtube.  Real leadership is supposed to guide people away from the nonsense and toward an honest debate.  As with so many things in this country, Americans in large numbers are finding truth to be too bothersome and would prefer their sources of information reinforce their already formed beliefs.  So many will support a man that has no reservations at all when it comes to lying to them about any topic any day.  If America had this little respect for truth in our history, we would have never survived.  Where is the sense of honor that some once had?  Is all that secondary now when the choice is hating the other side and it is now all about them and us?  Is hating someone different from yourself so important that you will sacrifice all sense of decency?  Why do so many self proclaimed evangelical Christians support a man that goes against every facet of their faith?  We need to grow up and look at the real problem and the real problem is the society we are building and not the one that our grand parents left us.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/13/politics/fact-check-trump-federal-documents-indictment/index.html

Can you define the term "MAN?" 

I think your entire screed above is problematic in that I don't even think you understand nor can properly define the term "man." j/k

In all seriousness, this nation is so f'ed up we can no longer define what the terms man and woman mean.

How can we enforce Women's Rights when we are not allowed to define even what a woman is? If a person insults another person who is to say whether either person is of what sex/gender AT THE TIME OF OF THE INSULT/ATTACK? 

Say, I insult homey by referring to that person as a female prostitute. He might want to sue me for slander. But what if I claim that I am a female prostitute at the time of the insult? Then is it really an insult to claim that he is my equivalent? I am afraid that we are about to move backward in all this because "gender fluid" is about to become by the moment and be as malleable as jello. There will soon be court cases where there can be no case tried because of "gender fluidity."

Let's say I am an internet troll that likes to be provocative. If anyone uses any pronouns in my direction at all, I can simply claim to not be using that particular set of pronouns that particular day at that particular hour. Therefore, I can and should sue and defame anyone I wish for being transphobic, etc. Afterall, gender is in the eye and ears of the beholder AT THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT IN TIME. 

[GoAU 1,600]

A couple thoughts on your question.

First - my personal belief has always been to look at the evidence first.  If it is significant and the materials proved to be a true threat because many presidential documents are classified that don't really need to be and could be trivial in nature.   It does appear that these documents do appear to be significant, so I would say let the chips fall where they do, and enforce the laws as written.  My allegiance is to the Constitution and not to any man or party.

As to why so many people are defending him, I think there are a couple of things that people could be thinking:

1) That it could be a political hit - let's be honest here, Trump faced a constant smear campaign, many of it found to be illegitimate, from the get go.  At a glance, it is easy to see where this would fit that theme.

2) The double standard.  You can try to pretend it doesn't exist, but the media treatment between the two presidents is astounding.  Trump couldn't say what he had for breakfast without a "Fact Check" article on every MSM outlet, yet Biden makes blatantly false statement all the time with little or no scrutiny.  Trump was questioned about mental acuity constantly and given a lot of grief on his slow walk down the ramp at the Academy graduation - Biden has had numerous falls, and not only has there not been criticism, but articles even trying to cover for him.   I don't recall anyone citing the 25th amendment to remove Biden the same way that people pushed for Trump.  Whether or not you like what Trump says, I don't think anyone could deny he is clearly sharper in through and speech than Biden.

3) The political chasm in our country is growing at an exponential rate.  Clearly, both sides are more concerned with attacking the other party, while defending their own - to a fault.    This is the thing that is the most concerning to me.  There isn't a "winner" in this type of power struggle, just different levels of losers.  This is resulting in more and more drastic steps being taken by both sides, things that were completely unthinkable even a couple of decades ago.  For example, discussions about overturning election results, packing SCOTUS, etc. should terrify everyone (one example from each side just to keep it fair).  When one side lose, and feels it is a lost cause, do you really think they'll just give up?  I don't, and the nastiness will just intensify.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

The other: Biden, given a pass, excused, crickets, lauded, and believed. 

When you have evidence,,, I will agree.

Until then, I will say that it is not Trump or, Biden.  It is not Bush.  It is not Clinton.  We have a fundamental corruption in that, our government is openly for sale.  The government of the people no longer exists.  Ours, like all other governments in history, exclusively serves the interests of those with economic power.

Edited June 14, 2023 by icanthearyou

[AU9377 4,979]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Can you define the term "MAN?" 

I think your entire screed above is problematic in that I don't even think you understand nor can properly define the term "man." j/k

In all seriousness, this nation is so f'ed up we can no longer define what the terms man and woman mean.

How can we enforce Women's Rights when we are not allowed to define even what a woman is? If a person insults another person who is to say whether either person is of what sex/gender AT THE TIME OF OF THE INSULT/ATTACK? 

Say, I insult homey by referring to that person as a female prostitute. He might want to sue me for slander. But what if I claim that I am a female prostitute at the time of the insult? Then is it really an insult to claim that he is my equivalent? I am afraid that we are about to move backward in all this because "gender fluid" is about to become by the moment and be as malleable as jello. There will soon be court cases where there can be no case tried because of "gender fluidity."

Let's say I am an internet troll that likes to be provocative. If anyone uses any pronouns in my direction at all, I can simply claim to not be using that particular set of pronouns that particular day at that particular hour. Therefore, I can and should sue and defame anyone I wish for being transphobic, etc. Afterall, gender is in the eye and ears of the beholder AT THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT IN TIME. 

I got nothing more than this.....  I just don't think the issue is nearly as big as some would make it out to be.

 

[AU9377 4,979]

3 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Possibly because two massively corrupt individuals exist in todays political world. With one: Trump, being attacked daily by the full power and strength of the US government and agencies plus media. The other: Biden, given a pass, excused, crickets, lauded, and believed. 
 

Until people can see that this exists on both sides, with both people, there will be no resolution. Standards must be applied equally to all cases. They aren’t. 

Could it possibly be that the actions of the two are not remotely as equivalent as you assume they are?  Many on the far right also pretend that the Hillary email saga was of equal degree in scope and potential harm as the Trump indictment.  It doesn't take much reading to understand that they aren't and never have been, but it does take effort.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

23 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I am less shocked every day at how much information so many accept from completely unreliable sources, like Facebook or Youtube.  Real leadership is supposed to guide people away from the nonsense and toward an honest debate.  As with so many things in this country, Americans in large numbers are finding truth to be too bothersome and would prefer their sources of information reinforce their already formed beliefs.  So many will support a man that has no reservations at all when it comes to lying to them about any topic any day.  If America had this little respect for truth in our history, we would have never survived.  Where is the sense of honor that some once had?  Is all that secondary now when the choice is hating the other side and it is now all about them and us?  Is hating someone different from yourself so important that you will sacrifice all sense of decency?  Why do so many self proclaimed evangelical Christians support a man that goes against every facet of their faith?  We need to grow up and look at the real problem and the real problem is the society we are building and not the one that our grand parents left us.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/13/politics/fact-check-trump-federal-documents-indictment/index.html

Well done.  We have not been taught to think critically.  Therefore, everything become subjective.  It is illogical, nonsensical.  Reality is not subjective.

People who have been taught to believe anything,,, will believe anything.

[homersapien 11,393]

7 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Possibly because two massively corrupt individuals exist in todays political world. With one: Trump, being attacked daily by the full power and strength of the US government and agencies plus media. The other: Biden, given a pass, excused, crickets, lauded, and believed. 
 

Until people can see that this exists on both sides, with both people, there will be no resolution. Standards must be applied equally to all cases. They aren’t. 

Fortunately, in our country, evidence still matters.  At least so far. 

 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

4 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Could it possibly be that the actions of the two are not remotely as equivalent as you assume they are?  Many on the far right also pretend that the Hillary email saga was of equal degree in scope and potential harm as the Trump indictment.  It doesn't take much reading to understand that they aren't and never have been, but it does take effort.

Hillarys email buffoonery was much worse. We had two military operations fail for unexplained reasons, until you consider that any local teenager who wanted to was reading her emails. The ones with details of the operations. You know, those you have not seen or heard of because they were deleted and bleach bit secured so they would not be made public. Please tell me you don't really believe she had 30k emails of her yoga schedule and Chelsea's wedding.  She was Sec State for years with NO IDEA that her emails were being read by numerous hackers at will. That is bad, Very bad. She was the classification authority. It was her job to classify them. She didn't do her job. That's why they say "retroactively classified". Because it was her job and she did not do it. And those were just the ones they are letting us see. They threw us a couple of bones so we could complain and hid the real bad stuff behind the deleted and bleach bit emails. So yeah it actually is worse than Trump taking some classified materials to his home. 

And even if you don't think Hillary's was equivalently bad as Trump, it is still a serious violation of handling of classified on it's own. It doesn't need intent, although the intent is there. As is the obstruction. Hammers and bleach bit is obstruction. It is not even debatable. So let's actually apply the law as written, not as Comey, who disintegrated his own flawless integrity by hitching his wagon to Hillary because he thought she would win and he wanted to be on the winning side, interprets it. 

[GoAU 1,600]

6 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Could it possibly be that the actions of the two are not remotely as equivalent as you assume they are?  Many on the far right also pretend that the Hillary email saga was of equal degree in scope and potential harm as the Trump indictment.  It doesn't take much reading to understand that they aren't and never have been, but it does take effort.

How can you be so sure since it was never fully disclosed what she had on the server or in all of the emails that were deleted and devices that were destroyed.  
 

Are you naive enough to think she set all that up for routine email use and convenience?

[AU9377 4,979]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

How can you be so sure since it was never fully disclosed what she had on the server or in all of the emails that were deleted and devices that were destroyed.  
 

Are you naive enough to think she set all that up for routine email use and convenience?

The FBI, not me or anyone else, concluded that no evidence existed that she had, at any time, intentionally deleted work related emails in an effort to conceal them from investigators.  I understand that Fox doesn't inform people of that, but I will cite directly to the FBI findings below, which point that out in detail.

She provided the FBI with approx 30 devices and over 30,000 emails.  She had aide destroy a couple of Blackberry devices with a hammer when she upgraded,  but it had no connection with this investigation.  The connection was made by talking media heads, not the FBI.

Quotes from the findings:

"Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information."

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

[jj3jordan 2,056]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

The FBI, not me or anyone else, concluded that no evidence existed that she had, at any time, intentionally deleted work related emails in an effort to conceal them from investigators.  I understand that Fox doesn't inform people of that, but I will cite directly to the FBI findings below, which point that out in detail.

She provided the FBI with approx 30 devices and over 30,000 emails.  She had aide destroy a couple of Blackberry devices with a hammer when she upgraded,  but it had no connection with this investigation.  The connection was made by talking media heads, not the FBI.

Quotes from the findings:

"Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information."

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

The reason very few of them had markings is because Hillary failed to mark them. Why? Because if she marked them classified she would not be able to use her private unprotected unsecure server. She clearly did it to prevent anyone from “noticing” that she was sending emails that were classified on her private system. That’s intent to circumvent the national security regulations. Clearly intentional and willful mishandling! It is there without question.  Comey jumped through hoops to save her so he would keep his job. But then she lost, he was exposed, had to make stuff up for his little speech, and looked silly trying to state some kind of precedent or lack thereof regarding her violations. And they most certainly were violations.

 

 

[AU9377 4,979]

1 minute ago, jj3jordan said:

The reason very few of them had markings is because Hillary failed to mark them. Why? Because if she marked them classified she would not be able to use her private unprotected unsecure server. She clearly did it to prevent anyone from “noticing” that she was sending emails that were classified on her private system. That’s intent to circumvent the national security regulations. Clearly intentional and willful mishandling! It is there without question.  Comey jumped through hoops to save her so he would keep his job. But then she lost, he was exposed, had to make stuff up for his little speech, and looked silly trying to state some kind of precedent or lack thereof regarding her violations. And they most certainly were violations.

 

 

You just completely make that up out of thin air?  None of that is backed up by the smallest speck of evidence.  The FBI has the ability to gather emails from throughout govt offices and retrace and document those emails.

You are so certain that Hillary was intentionally mishandling classified documents that I have to ask the obvious question.  What was her motive to do so?  Is it not more likely that what the FBI said they found is really what they found?  They stated that there were clear attempts throughout her communications to guard against discussing classified information outside the proper channels.  She is a former First Lady, Senator and Sec of State.  Why do you assume some evil un-specified purpose?  I have a good idea.  You are so driven by this imaginary belief that everyone without that maga mojo is evil and doesn't love America, that you cannot imagine anything other than the worst.

I don't even think Donald Trump is evil.  I simply see what he continues to show everyone in his orbit.  He is the most narcissistic person I have ever heard speak.  His lies are so grand that some assume they are unintentional.  That kind of transactional conscious free bravado gives license to some of the most dangerous impulses of the fringe of American politics.  Simply put, we are better than that.. if we want to be.

 

 

[AU9377 4,979]

3 hours ago, GoAU said:

How can you be so sure since it was never fully disclosed what she had on the server or in all of the emails that were deleted and devices that were destroyed.  
 

Are you naive enough to think she set all that up for routine email use and convenience?

You are asking for people to prove there was no crime committed.  That is an impossible task.  The FBI investigated and concluded that no documents were destroyed to prevent disclosure.  The FBI went to the extent of stating that they could not find a case in the history of the DOJ where someone was prosecuted based on facts similar to those they found.  You don't think that is good enough.  Should the FBI dissect every email of every govt official looking for a slip up somewhere?

[jj3jordan 2,056]

26 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

You just completely make that up out of thin air?  None of that is backed up by the smallest speck of evidence.  The FBI has the ability to gather emails from throughout govt offices and retrace and document those emails.

You are so certain that Hillary was intentionally mishandling classified documents that I have to ask the obvious question.  What was her motive to do so?  Is it not more likely that what the FBI said they found is really what they found?  They stated that there were clear attempts throughout her communications to guard against discussing classified information outside the proper channels.  She is a former First Lady, Senator and Sec of State.  Why do you assume some evil un-specified purpose?  I have a good idea.  You are so driven by this imaginary belief that everyone without that maga mojo is evil and doesn't love America, that you cannot imagine anything other than the worst.

I don't even think Donald Trump is evil.  I simply see what he continues to show everyone in his orbit.  He is the most narcissistic person I have ever heard speak.  His lies are so grand that some assume they are unintentional.  That kind of transactional conscious free bravado gives license to some of the most dangerous impulses of the fringe of American politics.  Simply put, we are better than that.. if we want to be.

 

 

It is not made up. She was the Secretary of State. The secretary IS the classification authority for ANYTHING State does regarding foreign policy. These are facts that are just facts and are unrelated to Trump. This stuff all happened before Trump was a gleam in fiddy’s eye. She deleted 33K emails. The FBI does not know what was in these emails. Is this hard for you to understand? I understand the FBI..Comey, claims in carefully worded missives that he can’t find a case previously that is like this one that any prosecutor would file criminal charges for blah blah blah. That’s because a case exactly like this probably has never happened before. None of that even matters. It is a clear violation of classified material handling with intent and obstruction.  If it was you, you would be under arrest. Any of us. Even Trump. Everybody but her. Why? Why is she special?

[DKW 86 7,431]

We had a standard: Anyone holding or possessing any classified material was guilty, charged, tried, punished.

Now, we have the partisan squish. "Well my party's folks suck at all this too, but not as much as the other party. So they should get off completely free and their completely incompetent mishandling of classified material should be over looked by all. If it killed some operatives, ruined or compromised any military actions, we don't care. PARTY UBER ALLES!"

This is actually just as silly as some of yall sound. If your party is guilty of it...WE DONT CARE!

[GoAU 1,600]

15 hours ago, AU9377 said:

You are asking for people to prove there was no crime committed.  That is an impossible task.  The FBI investigated and concluded that no documents were destroyed to prevent disclosure.  The FBI went to the extent of stating that they could not find a case in the history of the DOJ where someone was prosecuted based on facts similar to those they found.  You don't think that is good enough.  Should the FBI dissect every email of every govt official looking for a slip up somewhere?

Not exactly - I understand that proving the absence of a crime is close to impossible.   What I am saying is why can we not admit that Clinton's lawyers are NOT an impartial party to assess whether or not it was acceptable to delete e-mails that very well could have been evidence of a crime?  Why was she not prosecuted for physically destroying evidence when her team destroyed phones and devices when they KNEW they were being investigated.

 

After all, we didn't (nd shouldn't have) let Trump's attorneys decide what documents were worthy of turning over, right?

[Leftfield 2,617]

4 minutes ago, GoAU said:

What I am saying is why can we not admit that Clinton's lawyers are NOT an impartial party to assess whether or not it was acceptable to delete e-mails that very well could have been evidence of a crime?  

I agree with this. Unfortunately, my understanding is that this has apparently been the standard for as long as it's been done. I would have no problem with another standard being established on this. Not holding my breath.

7 minutes ago, GoAU said:

After all, we didn't (and shouldn't have) let Trump's attorneys decide what documents were worthy of turning over, right?

Actually, at first we did. After the initial batch of documents was returned, the archives knew there were more out there. As we all know, after further lack of cooperation (and, based on the charges, blatant obstruction) that eventually led to the Mar-a-Lago raid.