Im'a go all retro with the piece-by-piece:
Sure, there's always the "governmenting is serious business, (unlike rich people-ing), so we expect you to take it more seriously" point, but let's be real. That's a good point, really. Yeah, that's how it should be. We really should hold politicians to that kind of standard.
...but you're not gonna hold fuckin' Donald Trump to anywhere near that kind of standard. You were never going to. Not even close.
Well, no. He said that there was no precedent for anyone successfully pursuing criminal charges against anybody, ever, with as little evidence as they'd been able to find against her, for any of the applicable charges. Then he added that people who did similar things in similar circumstances did "often" get formally reprimanded by their superiors (without ever being convicted of anything).That really doesn't seem all that accurate, Easy. I mean, you are aware that the head of the FBI, who was heading the investigation into Clinton's private email server, said that if she had been anybody else, she ought to suffer punitive actions. The legal precedent set for her actions would be charges of criminal negligence and a complete loss of security clearance.
Plus, he said that there was no evidence at all of criminal intent, and that the inappropriately processed emails - including those that she'd only received, as well as those that she'd actually sent - together comprised about 00.1% of the total. Doing things by the book 99.9% of the time doesn't sound all that unreasonable to me. That's literally multiple orders of magnitude more by-the-book than Donald Trump.Despite her defense being that she was too incompetent to know what she was doing, she made false exculpatory statements that, as legal precedent would show, is evidence that she knew exactly what she was doing.
Sure, there's always the "governmenting is serious business, (unlike rich people-ing), so we expect you to take it more seriously" point, but let's be real. That's a good point, really. Yeah, that's how it should be. We really should hold politicians to that kind of standard.
...but you're not gonna hold fuckin' Donald Trump to anywhere near that kind of standard. You were never going to. Not even close.
Hadn't heard. Though, the aforementioned FBI head did say that there was every reason to believe that there was no intention to withhold evidence, and that her legal team really did make a good-faith effort to provide all the documents called for.Not to mention she withheld evidence requested by subpoena and then attempted to destroy evidence by deleting her emails with a program called BleachBit, and using a hammer to smash several devices.
Was there a felony? Hadn't heard, wasn't aware that either candidate had been convicted of a felony. But, since you bring it up, Im'a guess... possession? Tax evasion? Statutory rape?I don't know much about Trump's case. What felony was it that he convicted of again?
On the contrary. If anything, I consider that to be a useful primary indicator for the lack of such.As for the flipflopping thing, is that one of your main measures of integrity?
Last edited: