Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Tijuana]

And to add one more horrible human being to my ignore list.

And "lol" at my Donald Dump resoning being "disproven"... How does one disprove a mockery if his own habits?

I'm so hurt by your strong words. I might break down a bit. No...wait...that was just a burp. But seriously, I'm a "horrible human being" because I pointed out how wrong you were in basic understanding of the tax code? I didn't even do it in a mean or insulting way. That's just a....bizarre...reaction.

I thought you were making the name joke about what his ancestral name used to be or whatever. That story was what was proven to be false.

[zenkai]

I noticed there was no period at the end of that sentence, perhaps there was more to follow? You ever operate a cherry picker in a warehouse? You would probably be good at it....

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."


Happy now? Funny how Felya cherry picked and you didn't care.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b03d2d4598a87f

- - - Updated - - -

I'm so hurt by your strong words. I might break down a bit. No...wait...that was just a burp. But seriously, I'm a "horrible human being" because I pointed out how wrong you were in basic understanding of the tax code? I didn't even do it in a mean or insulting way. That's just a....bizarre...reaction.

I thought you were making the name joke about what his ancestral name used to be or whatever. That story was what was proven to be false.

That's what he does he, he get cornered, can't dispute facts, then says welcome to the ignore list. I am on it and I have never been happier than I am now.

[Tijuana]

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."


Happy now? Funny how Felya cherry picked and you didn't care.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b03d2d4598a87f

- - - Updated - - -



That's what he does he, he get cornered, can't dispute facts, then says welcome to the ignore list. I am on it and I have never been happier than I am now.

I didn't even know there was an ignore list. I do all my ignoring IRL. /shrug

[Orbitus]

I'll also note that Karl Rove Deleted 2 million emails on a private server with classified information on it while serving as Chief of Staff when they came under investigation, but I'll just sit here drinking my Lipton tea like Kermit.

It wasn't 2 million, it was estimated up to 22 million. He also deleted them when they were under investigation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_W...il_controversy Oh and hey, it was on a PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER at the Republican National Committee headquarters. But the Republicans only care if it damages the Clintons/Democrats. They barely made a squeak about it.

[Lenonis]

That's fucking Trump! Trump is the oligarch, not Hillary. It's Trump who complained that his million donation to McCain didn't buy him the presidancy. It is Trump who abuses those laws and even lists making loopholes redundant. It is Trump who litteraly lives in his own Ivory tower and laughs at all the money being donated to a fucking billionaire's campaign. Fucking hilarious reply there... >.<

How quickly people forget that Trump was bragging about buying politicians.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...icians/498749/

[May90]

According to his link, the FBI even said said, that due to the wrong header, it is reasonable to believe she didn't know any emails were classified.

Well, yes, this too. People picking on her for that are really grasping at straws here...

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

Once again, "extremely careless" =/= "illegal". Yes, she didn't take as seriously as she should have, and yes, it is a concern. But to make such a huge story out of it is ridiculous. Especially since FBI essentially acknowledged that the problem was on their end: lack of network security and proper labeling.

[LaserSharkDFB]

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

Happy now? Funny how Felya cherry picked and you didn't care.

'Extremely careless' is not the same as 'broke the law'. Just sayin'.

[zenkai]

Well, yes, this too. People picking on her for that are really grasping at straws here...


Once again, "extremely careless" =/= "illegal". Yes, she didn't take as seriously as she should have, and yes, it is a concern. But to make such a huge story out of it is ridiculous. Especially since FBI essentially acknowledged that the problem was on their end: lack of network security and proper labeling.

Someone who handles classified information should have never made a private server to begin with, and they should have turned over all emails related to work, and not lie saying they did, when they didn't. Not to mention using software to try to "bleach" the system of emails the government is suppose to keep a record of.

Insert anyone, any Democrat or Republican in this exact same scenario and I would still be preaching the exact same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

'Extremely careless' is not the same as 'broke the law'. Just sayin'.

Brock Turner didn't intend to rape that girl, so that mean's he didn't break the law right?

[DeadmanWalking]

'Extremely careless' is not the same as 'broke the law'. Just sayin'.

Yeah but that wouldn't fit his political narrative.

Republicans knew there was no where to go with investigations and charges but on the upside it could only help them win the white house so beat the drum and carry on like it is true because in the end you have a better chance of winning. Then when you get a slick NY car salesman con man who has no clue what the Republican policies are then you better beat that drum twice as hard because he is going to need all the help you can get him.

[May90]

Someone who handles classified information should have never made a private server to begin with, and they should have turned over all emails related to work, and not lie saying they did, when they didn't. Not to mention using software to try to "bleach" the system of emails the government is suppose to keep a record of.

Insert anyone, any Democrat or Republican in this exact same scenario and I would still be preaching the exact same thing.

That's ridiculous. A person having access to highly classified information has a full right to have a private server at the same time.

And once again, nothing even among your claims (many of which have been proven false already) indicates that she has done anything illegal.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Brock Turner didn't intend to rape that girl, so that mean's he didn't break the law right?

Of course he did, and there was a full investigation that resulted in prosecutable evidence to prove it. The same cannot be said for the Clinton 'scandal'.

This really ought to go to the Clinton thread, though. Right now it's just an extended attempt to deflect from Trump.

[Tijuana]

Then please do what no one seemed to have been able to do in the last several pages and provide a link to such quote from FBI. Finally we have someone who can easily find it! You can do it!

"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."

He is saying there is evidence that she broke the law but that since he did not believe it was her intent to leak or disseminate information, the remaining lesser crime of being sloppy is not normally prosecuted criminally. Basically he is saying what she did is illegal, and would get another person fired, but since the standard practice is not to file charges, it would not be fair to do it to her.

This has all been discussed ad infinitum in the media. Some of you need to get out of your echo chambers because both sides are spinning it so hard you guys are not keeping up.

[zenkai]

That's ridiculous. A person having access to highly classified information has a full right to have a private server at the same time.

And once again, nothing even among your claims (many of which have been proven false already) indicates that she has done anything illegal.

What? Are you fucking serious? You're not allowed to handle classified information on a non secure server, so if your job means you will be getting classified emails you DONT GET PRIVATE SEVER. Holy shit


I worked on a DOD contract one time and the drawing I did had to be on a separate computer, off the network and they came in and encrypted it, any information transferred had to be burned to a CD. I should of been like Hillary and just fire up the ol AOL account and send them the drawing to approve.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course he did, and there was a full investigation that resulted in prosecutable evidence to prove it. The same cannot be said for the Clinton 'scandal'.

This really ought to go to the Clinton thread, though. Right now it's just an extended attempt to deflect from Trump.

There is FULL evidence of classified emails on her server not to mention she deleted emails that shouldn't have been deleted. Only a partisan would excuse this bullshit.

[LaserSharkDFB]

What? Are you fucking serious? You're not allowed to handle classified information on a non secure server, so if your job means you will be getting classified emails you DONT GET PRIVATE SEVER. Holy shit


I worked on a DOD contract one time and the drawing I did had to be on a separate computer, off the network and they came in and encrypted it, any information transferred had to be burned to a CD. I should of been like Hillary and just fire up the ol AOL account and send them the drawing to approve.

Would you have been arrested if you had? Or just fired?

There is FULL evidence of classified emails on her server not to mention she deleted emails that shouldn't have been deleted. Only a partisan would excuse this bullshit.

Or the FBI or DOJ, apparently.

Look, this is easy. Just show one case where someone who did the same thing to the same degree or less, and was prosecuted. The FBI director said they could find no such case, ever. If you can succeed where he failed, you're a hero.

[May90]

What? Are you fucking serious? You're not allowed to handle classified information on a non secure server, so if your job means you will be getting classified emails you DONT GET PRIVATE SEVER. Holy shit


I worked on a DOD contract one time and the drawing I did had to be on a separate computer, off the network and they came in and encrypted it, any information transferred had to be burned to a CD. I should of been like Hillary and just fire up the ol AOL account and send them the drawing to approve.

Not all information she got was classified; she had a full right to have a private server to handle them. And, as was explained before, the ones that turned out to be classified among those handled through the private server proved to have had an unclear labeling.

Now, take a deep breath... You seem to be getting a bit hot!

[DeadmanWalking]

"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."

He is saying there is evidence that she broke the law but that since he did not believe it was her intent to leak or disseminate information, the remaining lesser crime of being sloppy is not normally prosecuted criminally. Basically he is saying what she did is illegal, and would get another person fired, but since the standard practice is not to file charges, it would not be fair to do it to her.

This has all been discussed ad infinitum in the media. Some of you need to get out of your echo chambers because both sides are spinning it so hard you guys are not keeping up.

I will also note that historically speaking Feds will not bring charges that can be defeated in court easily especially when said charges can change an election results because someone can claim that they were using their government power to try and get a Republican in office even if they had no such intentions. Feds don't like taking any kind of action that can change an election cycle unless they have an open and shut case.

[Tijuana]

I will also note that historically speaking Feds will not bring charges that can be defeated in court easily especially when said charges can change an election results because someone can claim that they were using their government power to try and get a Republican in office even if they had no such intentions. Feds don't like taking any kind of action that can change an election cycle unless they have an open and shut case.

If they had evidence of intent, she would have been charged. It's that simple. We don't generally charge people criminally for being negligent, in cases where nobody was harmed.

[zenkai]

Not all information she got was classified; she had a full right to have a private server to handle them. And, as was explained before, the ones that turned out to be classified among those handled through the private server proved to have had an unclear labeling.

Now, take a deep breath... You seem to be getting a bit hot!

Even non classified information was easily hacked because of her shitty server, not to mention she didn't keep backups or records that she should have. I guess you think Clintons deserve their own special rules/

[Sky High]

Sorry I will from now on try to adhere to your posting standards from now on, you really brought a lot to this discussion and I should focus on that.

*snippy snip*

Oh I'm sure you will.

infracted - minor spam

[Breccia]

He is saying there is evidence that she broke the law but --

Hold up.

"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."

I believe what you meant to say was, there was evidence of potential law break. After all that investigation, investigation, they were still on "potential". So, it's even less than that.

Still, the overall message you convey is, like you said, old news at this point. Nowhere near enough evidence to file charges on her and only her.