Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Edge-]

ok - fine.

here's the link to wikileaks.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12605

Gotcha, thanks!

Looks like this was an email chain that was revealed as part of a FOIA from January of this year -

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...e-fax-by-email

So I assume this was already covered as part of the FBI investigation, no? I'm not defending Clinton on this by any means, don't get me wrong. She screwed up big time with the whole email affair. But I'd imagine that if the FBI felt that it was enough evidence to prosecute, or at least indict, her on, they would have done so.

Not disputing the authenticity of the email chain, as that's already been double confirmed due to the FOIA request. But again, I don't necessarily agree that this is an admission of a crime either. No more so than Donald Trump talking about sexually assaulting women in 2005 was him admitting to a crime. That's up to law enforcement to decide.

[Truculentt]

The issue with the email investigation is that it goes to intent. For example, if you send an email that wasn't classified at the time and it later gets classified are you innocent or guilty of sending classified information? Technically you are guilty. There was no intent there, though, so you wouldn't be charged of anything. In Clinton's case, it's more complex because there were also emails that weren't marked as classified but were born classified. The bottom line is that it boils down t intent. If you crash into a convenience store are you guilty of attempted breaking an entering?

Regardless, I don't think you want to bring up the "lies" argument because Trump (and pretty much every politician) falls into that basket too. I would argue more so than Clinton. So that's an argument that will go nowhere.

I agree with your analogy of intent, and thats the issue here.

and they all lie. the real question is to what ends?


what we're discussing is a situation where top senior officials (not just hillary either) appear to have no fear of consequence or prosecution what so ever.


when government personnel suddenly treat themselves as if they are above the law.... that's really dangerous for us.

[Skroe]

And here come the women Donald Trump sexually assaulted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us...=top-news&_r=0

Apparently it's the preview to a bigger story that is apparently going to drop later this week.

[Truculentt]

Gotcha, thanks!

Looks like this was an email chain that was revealed as part of a FOIA from January of this year -

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...e-fax-by-email

So I assume this was already covered as part of the FBI investigation, no? I'm not defending Clinton on this by any means, don't get me wrong. She screwed up big time with the whole email affair. But I'd imagine that if the FBI felt that it was enough evidence to prosecute, or at least indict, her on, they would have done so.

Not disputing the authenticity of the email chain, as that's already been double confirmed due to the FOIA request. But again, I don't necessarily agree that this is an admission of a crime either. No more so than Donald Trump talking about sexually assaulting women in 2005 was him admitting to a crime. That's up to law enforcement to decide.

this was part of the FBI investigation.

It's not admission, but rather its the smoking gun. Its the act itself. giving that order is a felony act. The FBI doesn't deny this directly either.

she was not charged. the only reason - no one will prosecute.

its a mile away from trump tapes. thats actually infuriating.

[Merkava]

And here come the women Donald Trump sexually assaulted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us...=top-news&_r=0

Apparently it's the preview to a bigger story that is apparently going to drop later this week.

Maybe it'll encourage others to come out by name as well. Anything that can add to help sink this fucking ship is welcome.

[Felya]

this was part of the FBI investigation.

It's not admission, but rather its the smoking gun. Its the act itself. giving that order is a felony act. The FBI doesn't deny this directly either.

she was not charged. the only reason - no one will prosecute.

its a mile away from trump tapes. thats actually infuriating.

What is a TP and a B5?

[Garnier Fructis]

And here come the women Donald Trump sexually assaulted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us...=top-news&_r=0

Apparently it's the preview to a bigger story that is apparently going to drop later this week.

Clinton should get them to sit in the audience for the third debate.

[Gray_Matter]

Why do we need to prove mal intent for Clinton, when we have never needed to do so before for anyone else?

Then why don't they charge people who crash into houses/shops/etc with breaking and entering?

Intent is absolutely not required. That's what gross negligence is for. That's why the law was written with a gross negligence clause. This circumvents all this bullshit about intent, which you could in fact prove in this case anyway, since Clinton attempted to destroy the fucking evidence after she was under investigation for it. There's your proof of mal intent, which you didn't fucking need anyway.

So now you using conjecture to prove your point, not actual proof. You think that she was trying to destroy evidence but the FBI said that there was no proof that was the case, they actually said it was the opposite.

And no, Clinton's case is not more complicated. IT DID NOT GET THERE BY MAGIC. If there was classified material being sent through her server, how the fuck did it get there? Somebody broke the law to put it there. Somebody actively took the markings off, the header off, transferred the data illegally. They belong in jail. The person who instructed them to do it belongs in jail. Using that as a defense is atrociously ridiculous.

Again, no proof of this, just conjecture.

The law doesn't say classified material is only classified when it's marked classified. IT'S CLASSIFIED MATERIAL WHETHER OR NOT IT'S MARKED. IT DOESN'T BELONG ON CLINTON'S PERSONAL EMAIL SERVER. THIS IS NOT A DEFENSE.

So if you send something that is classified and don't know that it's classified then you will go to jail? What about something that is retroactively classified? It has everything to do with intent. The only other alternative is gross negligence and it would have to be a lot more than 0.05% of documents to meet that criteria. Especially condidering that most of those were from the same email chain.

I haven't seen any difinitive proof of your last accusation so I am ignoring that one.

[DeadmanWalking]

And here come the women Donald Trump sexually assaulted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us...=top-news&_r=0

Apparently it's the preview to a bigger story that is apparently going to drop later this week.

Damn it, beat me to the punch. This is exactly what I said would happen, once a few stories of assault got out other women will step forward to voice their own experiences and something tells me that Donny is the kind of guy who would think it his right to do as he pleases to any woman who catches his eye.

[Wulfey]

And here come the women Donald Trump sexually assaulted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us...=top-news&_r=0

Apparently it's the preview to a bigger story that is apparently going to drop later this week.

Trump could have maybe used the Bill-rapist angle on Nov. 5. But using it Oct. 5 means that Team-HRC now has a full month to parade out every woman Trump has ever abused. This isn't going to stop.

[DeadmanWalking]

Trump could have maybe used the Bill-rapist angle on Nov. 5. But using it Oct. 5 means that Team-HRC now has a full month to parade out every woman Trump has ever abused. This isn't going to stop.

Donald paraded out women, Hillary isn't parading out his accusers, they see him acting the ass and lying on TV and they chose to come out themselves.

It is very normal in law enforcement, when you want to nail someone as a rapist you expose a rape victim, the rapist denies it while acting like an untouchable ass and then all the women he ever raped come out of the woodwork as they don't want it to happen anymore and they want to see the rapist punished.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Dumber (Trump) and more dangerous (Hillary)

You're going to have to explain how Hillary is more dangerous than Trump.

[Blur4stuff]

Since Trump supporters believe Bill Clinton raped women because he was accused, that means they'll believe Trump raped women because he is accused. Right?

[Edge-]

Since Trump supporters believe Bill Clinton raped women because he was accused, that means they'll believe Trump raped women because he is accused. Right?

It's different! Just the same way that when Donald settles a case it's not an admission of guilt, but when Bill does it means he's guilty.

[Macaquerie]

I seriously wonder in 5-10 years how many people will admit to having been Trump supporters in 2016, or if the whole affair is going to be something we scrub from our collective memories.

[alexw]

Damn it, beat me to the punch. This is exactly what I said would happen, once a few stories of assault got out other women will step forward to voice their own experiences and something tells me that Donny is the kind of guy who would think it his right to do as he pleases to any woman who catches his eye.

There will be dozens in the end. He's clearly used his fame, wealth, and celebrity as a shield just as Bill Cosby did. That allowed him to act with impunity for decades, and he's taken full advantage of it to the extent that he even went and bragged about what he does to women.

Well the joke's on him now. The dam has broken and most but not all of the assaulted women will come out to tell their stories. So it's not a question of whether Trump will win the election now (he won't), but whether he will be criminally prosecuted for his crimes. I hope so.

[Captain N]

Since Trump supporters believe Bill Clinton raped women because he was accused, that means they'll believe Trump raped women because he is accused. Right?

Interestingly enough some of those Trump Supporters have even decided that evidence showing Clinton's misdeeds as consensual affairs are the same thing as sexual assault. It's going to be a long month til election day.

[Kasierith]

So either Hillary Clinton is 'the most qualified candidate ever' who had such a huge impact in her roles as Senator and Secretary of State, or she basically did nothing in those roles and is really completely incompetent? It seems like you are experiencing some cognitive dissonance here, because you are making the excuse that she couldn't have stopped any of the negative things that happened from happening, but if you really believe that then you are admitting she was extremely ineffective in her past positions, which would mean you have to admit that she is not qualified. (by your own standards)

Does Hillary Clinton have any qualifications other than being able to raise massive amounts of money from special interests? I suppose she must be an exceptional public speaker, although that might be called into question by the fact that her $250,000 speeches were clearly part of a pay to play scheme.

Did you mean to quote a complete non sequitur in my direction, or are you just babbling in random directions at this point in the conversation? Unless you mean that she, personally, could have stopped the decisions concerning Afghanistan and Iraq, against the overwhelming majority of the government and her own constituency? The problem seems less that she isn't qualified, and more that you are nitpicking every little thing you can and inflating them to egregious degrees purely so that you can find a reason not to vote for her versus Trump. I mean, she isn't even garden level variety corrupt by Russian standards, so all of this CORRUPTION caterwauling by you Americans is kind of sad.

[Ausr]

Poor Donald, everyone is out to get him... it has nothing to do with him, it is everyone else.

Donald Trump's poll denialism
Source: http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/12/medi...lls/index.html

That's weird. Yesterday he was saying despite winning all these polls showing that he "won" the debate, no one congratulated him.

[Daerio]

Then why don't they charge people who crash into houses/shops/etc with breaking and entering?

This is nonsense. This is national security, it's the way the law is written. Gross negligence precludes an intent defense. Intent is simply not one of the requirements to be convicted for being an absolute dumbass with national security. It never has been. Other people are in jail for doing it who clearly had no mal intent and were far less negligent.

So now you using conjecture to prove your point, not actual proof. You think that she was trying to destroy evidence but the FBI said that there was no proof that was the case, they actually said it was the opposite.

Boldface lie, congressional testimony states on the record that Clinton surrogates actively destroyed evidence that was under legal subpoena, for which they sought and were granted immunity in exchange for their testimony. Try looking at the evidence before you decide you know what happened.

So if you send something that is classified and don't know that it's classified then you will go to jail? What about something that is retroactively classified? It has everything to do with intent. The only other alternative is gross negligence and it would have to be a lot more than 0.05% of documents to meet that criteria. Especially condidering that most of those were from the same email chain.

I haven't seen any difinitive proof of your last accusation so I am ignoring that one.

Again, how in the fucking world does someone stumble on classified information without realizing it? Do you know how national security protocol functions when it comes to classified information? No, obviously you don't.

So again, when someone magically transferred classified data to an unclassified server, the law was broken. So we know before we began investigating that the law has already been broken, the question is simply who broke it and who instructed them to do so. The people who broke the law were granted immunity even after destroying evidence they knew was under subpoena, and we're told publicly there isn't enough evidence to indict the person who instructed them to do so because she didn't have mal intent.

An absolutely ridiculous argument.

Nobody had to prove Bradley Manning had mal intent when he released information to the public that he thought they deserved to know. Nobody will have to prove mal intent on the part of Edward Snowden.

Yet we must prove mal intent for Hilary Clinton? Why?