"And a lot of people said that that’s why the Black people like me because they have been hurt so badly and discriminated against, and they actually viewed me as I’m being discriminated against"
You know when he starts out with "a lot of people say" that it's going to be a whopper!
When Trump says "a lot of people say" he's talking about the voices in his tiny brain.
share1. Ive heard that argument made.
2. And it makes sense. Trump is clearly being persecuted by unjust abuse of law enforcement.
If Trump simply didn't break the law 91 times he wouldn't be in the trouble he's in now. There is no abuse of law enforcement when there is photo and audio proof of Trump's crimes. Trump is fucked and so are you.
shareSo, you stand by all those charges? LOL. So, when any of them get shown to be utter trash, then you and all of them will be utter trash. Got it.
So, how many times do they have to lie to you, before you stop believing them?
Got what? That you are stupid as you seem? Let's start with the sensitive documents case. Are you claiming that all those thousands of documents that Trump was hiding in Mar-a-Lago especially in his bathroom are faked? I guess all those photos of those documents are faked too. Then there is the Georgia case where Trump threatened officials if they didn't find more votes for him. There's more but you know this so go fuck yourself. Trump will never be president again. Sorry for you!
sharehillary got a pass on her emails. Biden got a pass. Trump gets slammed.
And you think that proves the worth of your insane pile of charges? That is your FIRST GO TO EXAMPLE?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
LIke I said, blacks can see evil abuse of power by assholes when they see it. More so that brain dead white liberals.
Though admitably. that is a pretty low bar, so, any blacks reading, don't think I'm tryihng to sweet talk you or anything. More putting down white libs as really fucking dumb.
Poor twice impeached four times indicted sexual abuser one term disgraced ex-president Trump. He is such a victim and so are you. Here, have a tissue. Better? Good!
shareYou worried about payback?
shareNope! But Trump is. Trump's platform for reelection consists of getting revenge on everybody who hurt his feelings and any American that he hates. Oh yeah, Trump will also provide evidence that he won in 2020. Good luck with that retard.
shareWell, it was just weird the way you listed all your sides attackes at though it meant something.
I know you hate him, and me, and that you are willing to take action, to use any power or authority you have, against us.
The only problem with escalating a fight, is that the other side will respond and escalate too.
What do you think Trump will do in response? What do you think the NEXT republcian leader will do?
Republicans removed the child tax credit which lowered the poverty rate and gave money to the working-class. They also kicked them off medicaid expansion and shortened their unemployment which helped the working-class with their bills.
Support your billionaires and millionaires while pretending to care about the working-class. You are a phony!
TAXES is about raising money to pay for government. It is not a vehicle for handouts.
If you want to do handouts, then make a program and justify it politically.
Hiding it inside of taxes is bad governing and bad policy.
Isn't this how you're going to "encourage more stay-at-home moms?" Handouts in tax deductions, tax credits, these ones for young children, these other ones for children in college, some over here for mortgage interest, some over there for IRA contributions.
The Tax Code is absolutely a vehicle for handouts. One man's "handout" is another man's "hard-won reward."
Idealy, I would like a NATIONAL SALES TAX to fund the government. Get rid of 90% of the irs agents, keeping just hte ones that deal with big business.
That would be my prefect answer.
How high would this sales tax have to be?
shareProbably pretty high. 20% at a guess.
shareThe Fair Tax bill that has been proposed by the Republicans calls for a 23% consumption tax. It also calls for direct payments to people who are below the poverty line to negate the sales tax they pay. It also calls for cutting all funding for the IRS.
Issues with this:
1) I have seen no analysis of whether 23% would make up for all income tax receipts and all payroll taxes which would also be repealed. Since the bill would also eliminate all corporate income taxes, that would be additional revenue which would have to be collected by the consumption tax. I don't know if that is included in the 23% rate. So, this may be a backdoor way to drastically cut federal spending and/or entitlements like SS and Medicare.
2) It claims to make it unnecessary for anyone to file tax returns. However, the provision for payments to people below the poverty line would entail that people would have to file tax returns to qualify. That means that all employers would have to file paperwork to report income to individuals. This really undoes any relief in reporting requirements for businesses. And it maintains a need for the IRA (albeit a smaller one) in collecting income information and processing returns and direct payments.
"the provision for payments to people below the poverty line would entail that people would have to file tax returns to qualify. That means that all employers would have to file paperwork to report income to individuals. This really undoes any relief in reporting requirements for businesses."
You're absolutely correct. Why do these douchebags roll this shit out? Un-fucking believable.
I wonder if GOP plan for "eliminating IRS" entails paying private contractors who will "do the work" for six bucks less than we're paying today, and lots of fat paychecks for Sigma Chi skidmarks to watch porn all day.
share3) A consumption tax is highly regressive, since the lower one's income, the more money they spend on purchases which would not be taxed at a high rate. Wealthy people get a huge break here. And if you are essentially not collecting the tax from poor people (through the direct payments) you would be pushing a great deal onto the middle class who would now be paying 23% more (I think it would have to be even higher) for all their purchases. If you think people were complaining about 6-8% inflation, can you imagine the outcry when everything becomes 23% (and likely more) expensive!
4) This might seem odd coming from a liberal but the elimination of corporate income tax is not something I'm opposed to. I think corporate taxes are unfairly applied since large corporations can do a lot accounting-wise to reduce their tax burden to zero while smaller business cannot. I also think that too much business decisions are made in an effort to reduce taxes rather than to build their business. The elimination of corporate taxes would necessitate a higher tax burden for individuals, though.
5) A consumption tax seems like it would inhibit people from purchasing things. The Fair Tax proponents phrase this as it will encourage people to save an invest more. But, that means they'd be purchasing less which is predicted to cut greatly into GDP. I think we could look at the economic impacts of VAT taxes in countries that have them to see what it would do.
0. SOME republicans have pushed this. Plenty of go along republicans who don't make waves like this.
1. MAY BE? And tehn you go straight to entitlements?
2. YOu start talking about personal returns but then switch to business reporting. The point that it might not reduce paperwork as much it could is valid. And...inherent in the system. BUT, worth addressing if it every gains traction.
3. Spending vast sums of moeny SHOULD be painful and get political pushback. This pretense that we have created that someone else pays for it, has led to some very bad ideas, causing bad policies. imo.
4. Eliminating corportate taxes would also revmove one of ,if not THE primary reason for corportations to put money into politics. This alone could radically alter the political landscape with regards to corruption.
5. VAT taxes are different in thath they are at each level of activity and hide the cost. And yes, this discourages concumption, but that could be a good thing. An economcy fueled by debt, is not sustainable. Sooner or later those bills will come due.
Sales taxes are regressive. In other words, poor and the working-class would disproportionately pay sales tax instead of the rich since spending habits are different among social classes. The rich tend to spend money on services which have no sales tax.
You need to read more. I suggest you learn more about economics and the tax code.
You're clueless about taxes. For instance, Israel receives at least $3 billion handout each year.
The child tax credit isn't a handout. Working-class taxpayers are allowed to keep more of their salary.
3 BILLION? Wow. What a tiny and insignificant amount out of a 6 trillion dollar budget.
If it leads to a tax "refund" when no taxes were paid, it's a handout.
tax credit = taxes were paid
Please read books.
You are incorrect. Sometimes. the tax credits are applied despite no taxes being paid. It is a backdoor way of giving handouts.
You should read a book.
"The term “tax credit” refers to an amount of money that taxpayers can subtract directly from the taxes they owe."
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/taxcredit.asp
tax credit = taxes were paid
Please read books.
I hate to second Corbell, but your own link explains it:
"Refundable credits are paid out in full, providing a refund for any remaining tax credit amount beyond zero tax due."
You have to pay taxes in order to receive a tax credit. Someone who never pay taxes can't receive a tax credit.
shareKudos for your honesty. Too bad keelai is too dumb to read.
shareSo unjust.
"I just want to find 11180 votes."
"And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you*… We are going to the Capitol"
*unfortunately his bone spurs prevented him from doing that
Mueller investigated 10 episodes and FOUND PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE that Trump's actions fit the legal criteria to warrant criminal charges.
But Mueller decided not to make an up-or-down decision on whether to charge Trump, citing JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RULES AGAINST INDICTING A SITTING PRESIDENT and the difficult constitutional questions that would make for a challenging prosecution.
Mueller found nothing,
but didn't have the balls to admit it, so he spun some shit talk to give the hard core partisans some shit that they could tell each other about so that they could play really stupid pretend games.
So what? Mueller doesn't matter anymore. You should focus on the 91 felony charges mostly for being a traitor that Trump is facing. How stupid do you have to be to still support Trump? I'm sure your family is embarrassed of you especially your wife/sister.
shareMueller doens't matter anymore?
Sure. All the times before, were sht talk, BUT THIS TIME, I should trust you guys? LOL.
i think not.
Also, it is worth pointing out that you are clearly, insanely hostile to me and mine. So, if the two sides are YOU and TRUMP,
fuck yeah I'm sticking with Trump. At least he doesn't hate me the way you guys do.
Trump doesn't even know you exist, moron. You are hated because you're stupid. It's that simple.
shareThanks for admitting you hate me.
It is funny that you are at this point attacking me for not being on your side, when you are clearly AGAINST ME AND MINE.
It's a very strange world you live in, where you attack and hate me and mine for decades, and then are angry that we dont' support you politically.
Your stupidity and gullibility is astounding. Only losers like you have to get the last word in. So make it a good one because I'm not going to respond to anymore of your moronic posts tonight. But keep this in mind, arguing on internet is like competing in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you're still retarded!
shareI see that you really hate me.
Trump doesnt hate me. Some of his policies could be good for me and mine, if they work.
YOU hate me. You and yours, are out to get me. I have often ran into lefties like tyou that gloat about people like me "dying out".
So, yes, I will continue to support Trump and oppose you.
It is strange to me that you find this hard to understand.
Support the multi-billionaire who gave himself a huge tax cut and refuses to pay his working-class employees.
share
Even if all the shit you said about Trump was true, he would still be better than people that actively hate me and want me to "die out"".
You clearlly hate me and want me to "die out".
So, yes, I will be on the other side from you.
🤣
That nasty shit-heel hates your guts and screams that you’re not supporting him politically.
The fucking state of the modern Left 🤦🏻♂️
I know humans are inherently irrational. We get emotionally invested in shit, and sometimes we cannot face truth and lie to ourselves.
But OMG, is there no limit to that? And to be such an asshole about it?
Surely part of adulthood is noticing these juvenile tendencies and transcending them.
This nasty screaming bitch is so lost, he doesn’t know which way is up. Imagine being a Leftist, what a nightmare.
Something I ask them a LOT,
almost all of them at one point or another (and generally a LOT)
will play stupid so they can pretend to miss a point or misunderstand a point, so they can dodge answering a tough point.
Often, the level of stupidity they are presenting, is INSANE, like, deeply retarded stupid.
I ask them how can they not see that that is a sign that they are on the wrong side, when to defend their position, they have to pretend to be a complete retard.
I never get an coherent answer.
You've deliberately forgotten what they found. Here's a reminder from CBS News:
10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obstruction-of-justice-10-times-trump-may-have-obstructed-justice-mueller-report/
They may not have charged him, but this will be written in the history books. tRump was recently scored by history writers as the lowest rated president, ever! Your hero!
After that investigation like that, he comes back with MAYBES?
What that is, is an investigator not being able to admit to himself that he was on a fools errand, a waste of time.
So he gins up a list of shit, to give himself and lefty partisans something to comfort themselves with.
MAYBES are what you are supposed to START an investigation with. You FINISH with proof or admit that you could not.
Not true! You didn't read the Mueller Report. I did.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report
Time magazine cleared up lies that your cult holds:
"Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.”
"Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting."
"Mueller found at least four acts by Trump in which all elements of the obstruction statute were satisfied – attempting to fire Mueller, directing White House counsel Don McGahn to lie and create a false document about efforts to fire Mueller, attempting to limit the investigation to future elections and attempting to prevent Manafort from cooperating with the government."
"The report finds substantial evidence that Trump asked McGahn to fire Mueller. McGahn said he was prepared to resign rather than comply. Because the law punishes attempts, Trump’s effort to end the investigation constitutes obstruction of justice, even though McGahn did not follow through on the order. "
https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/
What law was supposedly broken when campaign members met with russians?
No wall of text or spin, just give the law(s) you think were broken.
Good luck.
You finally admit that Trump was in bed with the Russians who interfered in the U.S. elections.
For starters, Trump obstructed justice. It's in my comment.
For you:
rif.org
You're welcome.
Your failure to back uip your lead complaint, proves my pointt, Mueller foudn nothing, and did some shit talk to give partisans lke yourself some... comfort.
Accepting the gift of negative informattion about Hillary, is not being "in bed with".
ALL you have is spin and bullshit. You put the country though hell, and dividided US like crazy, for nothing.
And you are still doing it.
Those 11180 votes ended up in the shredder in the overnight hours of the 2020 Election.. Trump was so far ahead of Biden in that Election and just out of nowhere, loses 8 hours later when they stopped the ballot count which should be of note, that this has never happened in any Presidential Election until the 2020 Election..
shareYou are so deluded, I'm just going to go ahead and add you to my ignore list. We all need less BS in our lives!
shareWhen people say things like you said, it basically says you don't have a leg to stand on so putting me on ignore is your only option it seems, right?? Joe Biden did not get no 81 Million votes and next thing you know, the Democrats will say he got 91 Million votes in this upcoming election to put him over at all costs and why?? Because of how all of you act over 1 man of all people in Donald Trump, as in Donald Trump who hosted The APPRENTICE for 20 fucking years and no one had a problem with him, as in Donald Trump who sparred with Rosie O'Donnell back in the day on a daily basis and much to everyone's delight in the MSM.. Yeah, THAT Donald Trump that was also great friends with the Clintons back in the day until he chose to run for the Republican side..
share"you don't have a leg to stand on"
You're projecting. Trump lost every single case (60+) about election fraud. Fox had to pay millions after confessing they lied about election fraud because Trump's cult didn't want to hear the truth and Fox didn't want to lose ratings.
You really need to be deprogrammed.
You support Trump who repeatedly doesn't pay his working-class employees so they have to sue him in court and settle for less salary or none at all.
Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn't pay his bills
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
Report: Trump has refused to pay hundreds of workers
https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282933-report-trump-has-refused-to-pay-hundreds-of-workers/
The accusers allegedly include hundreds of waiters, dishwashers, carpenters, plumbers, bartenders, real-estate brokers, and even lawyers who represented the businessman in various suits. USA Today analyzed 60 lawsuits documenting workers who were employed by Trump and his businesses during the past several decades who say that they weren't compensated for the services they provided, according to the report.
https://www.businessinsider.com/businesses-and-employees-accuse-donald-trump-of-not-paying-them-2016-6
Off topic.
shareNot especially. It's about Trumps character.
But you've entered many threads and started fights with me about off-topic things, so hypocrisy is thy name here.
Trump's character was teh same for decads while dems loved him. It was not until he becasue a politiclal opponent of theirs, that they started going after him.
I don't recall at all when the Dems ever particularly "loved him".
shareOh, that's right, you're an outsider.
Well, he was a very public figure, and donated money to politicians the way that very rich people have to, ie protection money and yes, they loved him.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/magazine/when-hillary-and-donald-were-friends.html
I recall many Americans regarding Trump as a self-obsessed reality TV show host in the 90s and 00s.
Obviously since he wasn't running for office (apart from a brief attempt at the Reform ticket) no-one had any reason to be incensed about him until 2016.
Correct. Before he became a political opponent, the politicans of dem states and cities had no problem with him.
Now, as you say, they are "incensed" and are going after him with all the power of their offices.
It is a complete violation of their professional and ethical responsibilities, not to mention Trump's constitutional rights.
>Correct. Before he became a political opponent, the politicans of dem states and cities had no problem with him.
....He wasn't running for office. Like it or not, running for the president naturally inflates your profile and causes people to look at your history in much more depth. And viewing someone indifferently, or as a joke, isn't the same thing as supporting or "loving" someone.
Hillary got a pass for her emails. Biden got a pass on his documents. Trump get's slammed.
It is one thing to disagree with us on policy, but it is another to... be willfully blind to what is happening.
>Hillary got a pass for her emails. Biden got a pass on his documents. Trump get's slammed.
We're talking about public reputation. And what do you mean "got a pass"? All of those were ruthlessly investigated, and they aren't comparable to the accusations that Trump is facing.
How would you react if Biden phoned up the AG of a state and asked him to find votes for him?
It demonstrates different treatment for similar actions.
Which crushes your defense that the change is because of his higher profile.
That is the point. Would you like to address it, or would you like to pretend to not get it some more?
I am convinced that skivvy is a sophisticated bot that is programmed to troll. prob was designed by google. lol
shareit would be nice to think that no human could be so...such a troll.
shareIt is definitely using "scripts"
shareCorrect, except that it’s not sophisticated, it has a handful of basic rhetorical tricks that it uses on repeat, and routinely malfunctions.
A sophisticated bot wouldn’t resemble a bot, Skavau does.
good point, it is the same bag of tricks everyday.
shareYeap, predictable bag of tricks.
shareAlso, it farts out another reply seconds after you’ve posted - no thought goes into it, just an instant ticker-tape of mindless questions.
sharethats the amazing part of how fast the program farts out a response and its always the same format.
1. disagree with anything you say
2. ask for evidence
3. reject evidence
4. ask a question
5. ask a unrelated question
6. rinse and repeat for every response
Yeap, accurately described.
share(3) almost never happens, so this chain is simply wrong.
share>It demonstrates different treatment for similar actions.
I don't accept they were similar at all. False premise.
Trump is accused of many things that Biden and Clinton were never accused of.
How would you react if Biden phoned up the AG of a state and asked him to find votes for him?
Some of the supposed crimes were similar.
And despite the similar nature of the crimes, AND despite the similar level of... profile or whatever you said,...
the treatment was very different.
This demonstrates the bias in play. That you want to ignore that, and support the charges is you supporting discrimination, abuse of power and oppression.
>Some of the supposed crimes were similar.
"Some". Not all. What ones?
>the treatment was very different.
Trump is accused of many things that Biden and Clinton were never accused of.
How would you react if Biden phoned up the AG of a state and asked him to find votes for him?
I already discussed the ones I were referring to, just a few posts up.
Are you in a russian troll farm running dozens of accounts?
If the answer is YES, I will not make fun of how you asked a stupid pretend question.
Would you like address my point now, or would you like to pretend to be too stupid to understand it some more?
>Are you in a russian troll farm running dozens of accounts?
If I was part of a "Russian troll farm" I'd hardly be openly against the Kremlin, would I?
>Would you like address my point now, or would you like to pretend to be too stupid to understand it some more?
Trump is accused of nothing similar to what Clinton is accused of, and the Biden comparison makes no sense.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-vs-trump-what-is-difference-between-two-classified-records-cases-2023-01-12/
"Neither Trump nor Biden should have had any classified material in their possession. During a presidential transition period, the records from each administration are supposed to be turned over to the legal custody of the U.S. National Archives.
It is unlawful to knowingly or willfully remove or retain classified material. Failure to properly store and secure classified material poses risks to national security if it should fall into the wrong hands.
Biden has said he was surprised to learn he had classified information in his possession. Trump has said on social media, without providing evidence, that he declassified the records, though his attorneys have declined to repeat that assertion in court filings."
Him initially taking the documents isn't what he was charged with. And in fact, he was not charged at all for any of the documents he returned after that first initial contact and request.
He's being charged because after that first request, he repeatedly said (including in writing) that all material had been returned. He had then purposely and repeatedly hid the boxes from inspectors, conspired with others to hide/keep the boxes of documents, and attempted to obstruct the follow up investigations into the missing documents.
Whether or not he initially took them is kind of irrelevant, as nobody is or was charged for that, so long as material was returned (like Pence and Biden). The issue is what he did after.
Hillary's emails contained classified information.
Your claim that the accusations are not similar is false.
You are talking shit to hide from the Truth.
>Hillary's emails contained classified information.
>Your claim that the accusations are not similar is false.
"Just on the surface, the number of items containing classified information is different. In the Clinton case, federal authorities identified "approximately 193 individual emails" that, when sent, contained some level of classified information, according to a 2018 report from the Justice Department's inspector general.
In the Trump case, federal authorities have identified more than 322 individual documents containing classified information that were kept at Mar-a-Lago: 184 "unique documents" containing classified information were retrieved early this year, another 38 such documents were retrieved in June, and then more than 100 more documents marked "classified" were found during the FBI raid on August 8, according to Justice Department filings in court.
In Clinton's case, the most sensitive "top secret" information on her servers was deemed by authorities to be "relevant to" and "associated with" a tightly-guarded "Special Access Program" -- and the inspector general said that "investigators found evidence of a conscious effort to avoid sending classified information, by writing around the most sensitive material."
""It's not unusual for folks with clearances to sometimes discuss classified matters in unsecure settings," said Tony Mattivi, a former federal prosecutor who coordinated the Justice Department's counterintelligence and counterterrorism cases in Kansas. "You can't always be in a [secure room] when you need to talk to some people or do certain things, so the way you do that is talk around the classified part. ... [But] that's very different than possessing classified material."
"It's not unusual for folks with clearances to sometimes discuss classified matters in unsecure settings," said Tony Mattivi, a former federal prosecutor who coordinated the Justice Department's counterintelligence and counterterrorism cases in Kansas. "You can't always be in a [secure room] when you need to talk to some people or do certain things, so the way you do that is talk around the classified part. ... [But] that's very different than possessing classified material."
In contrast, federal authorities have recovered from Mar-a-Lago more than 100 "unique documents" marked "secret" and dozens of other documents marked "top secret," including "Special Access Program materials," according to the Justice Department and National Archives. Some of those documents marked "classified" were found inside Trump's desk in his office, the Justice Department said.
"Accordingly, there "is a meaningful distinction" between Trump's alleged handling of classified documents and what the Justice Department's inspector general says transpired in the Clinton case, according to Mattivi, a Republican who recently lost a primary race to become attorney general of Kansas."
Which is more secure, A box in a house watched by the secret service, or an email sent to and held in an unsecured server, ATTACKED TO THE WHOLE WORLD WIDE WEB?
That you read that line of jive ass shit that the corrupt feds used to justify their double standard and missed that obvious aggrevating factor,
is you being either insanely naive or insanely troll boi.
>Which is more secure, A box in a house watched by the secret service, or an email sent to and held in an unsecured server, ATTACKED TO THE WHOLE WORLD WIDE WEB?
>That you read that line of jive ass shit that the corrupt feds used to justify their double standard and missed that obvious aggrevating factor,
Intent. Clinton was careless, but not intentional. Trump was. That is the major difference in all of this.
But I might remind you that Trump also has a case against him for electoral racketeering.
No, it's not the major difference. TTHe major difference is that Hillary is a dem and the dems have politicalized the fbi and justice department to be on their side.
Hey, remember when they found cocaine in the white house and couldn't figure out who's it was?
Did you believe that FOr even a second? LOL!!!
No, this is simply your explanation. Apparently you do not believe that motive matters.
>Hey, remember when they found cocaine in the white house and couldn't figure out who's it was?
Whose do you think it was?
It's a far better explanation that the stated official reason.
Your trust of the feds, despite their terrible record over the last few years, is stupid.
No, it's complete speculation. The differences between the cases are well known. It's public knowledge.
And it doesn't account for the other things Trump did anyway, such as electoral interference in Georgia.
THe weaponization of the fbi, the cia, the justice dept. They are matters of public record.
You watch any of the congressional hearings?
Hunter Biden, a known crack head was living in the white house when hte drugs were fount.
I would say, odds are, the drugs are his.
BUT, I suspect his daddy is used to covering up his crimes. And visa versa.
Hey, why do you think that all those foreign businessmen gave so much money to the crack head?
>THe weaponization of the fbi, the cia, the justice dept. They are matters of public record.
No, this is an argument unsupported by evidence.
>Hunter Biden, a known crack head was living in the white house when hte drugs were fount.
>BUT, I suspect his daddy is used to covering up his crimes. And visa versa.
You "suspect"? Again, this is just speculation. Lots of people are in and out of the white house.
>Hey, why do you think that all those foreign businessmen gave so much money to the crack head?
Got any actual evidence tying this to Joe Biden? Also, Hunter Biden has been charged for tax evasion. And on federal firearm charges. He's not being ignored.
1. Plenty of evidence. Your denial is retarded.
2. How many of them have the political cover to bring drugs into the white house? HInt the answer rhymes with ONE.
3. Of course, not. He is taking hte fall for the BIG GUY, just like a good bag man should. Kind of shitty using your own son for that. But hey, there is a reason he is a dem after all.
1. Just more assertions.
2. Not sure how you'd know this really, or how familiar you are personally with the White House security and their levels of complacency of incompetence.
3. So you don't have any evidence.
1. Water is wet and you are a troll boi.
2. I am open to hearing your case that the Secret Service does NOT keep close tabs on the white house and/or htey are incompetent.
3. I don't have the evidence of crimes taht the fbi and cia helped cover up? True. But the money trail is pretty damning. Unless you believe tha thte crackhead earned those millions though his hard work> LOL.
1. Just more assertions.
2. They probably are incompetent. I have no idea where it came from, but if Biden was desperate to protect his son why didn't he just cover the story up completely? Why do we even know about the bag of cocaine?
3. Again, your assumption is that there were crimes that needed to be covered up by the FBi and CIA.You are begging the question.
Intent. Clinton was careless, but not intentional.
Trump refused to co-operate when he was asked to return documents. When did Clinton refuse to co-operate?
shareOh, I don't know, bleaching the server, smashing cell phones with a hammer. You know, stuff like that.
But back to your assertion: How do you KNOW Hillary wasn't acting intentionally?
We can't know what she was thinking. But you can't convict someone based on the assumption you thought they really meant to leak classified data.
Trump repeatedly refused to co-operate with the FBI when they tried to get their documents back.
Okay, so your assertion that Hillary's actions weren't intentional was false than.
Before you even try, I'm not saying they were or were not. I asked for evidence to back up your claim that they weren't and you have none.
>Okay, so your assertion that Hillary's actions weren't intentional was false than.
By this logic we can't judge anyone's intent on anything unless we can literally read their mind.
They found no evidence that Clinton refused to co-operate with the FBI and deliberately leaked classified data. Not so with the Trump documents situation.
Was your assertion true or false?
P.S. If Trump had done what she did, you'd be SCREAMING "Obstructing justice!", "Destroying evidence!".
It was true that the conclusion was by the relevant authorities that they did not think she sent those emails with the intent of them leaking intentionally.
How do you know what I'd think if Trump had done something comparable?
I don't even think the two situations here regarding Trump and Clinton are comparable.
Yet you link the two situations.
You painted yourself into a corner and won't even admit it.
You stated Hillary's actions weren't intentional as a FACT and you are patently WRONG. Own it!
That was the legal conclusion of her actions. They did not feel that she did anything deliberately, maliciously. That she was careless, but not conniving.
Trumps position is not remotely the same.
Again: By this logic we can't judge anyone's intent on anything unless we can literally read their mind.
Clinton was careless, but not intentional.
It's the official position.
"In July, FBI director James Comey announced that the FBI investigation had concluded that Clinton had been "extremely careless" but recommended that no charges be filed because Clinton did not act with criminal intent, the historical standard for pursuing prosecution."
It was then briefly re-opened prior to the 2016 election, then closed again.
Let the jury note that the defendant was asked for evidence, produced none and will not answer a yes or no question. I rest my case.
shareI can't mind read. I don't know what Clinton is thinking and I don't have access to information that the FBI don't. I simply explained the major differences. The reason Trump is not 'off the hook' criminally is because he refused to co-operate with the FBI when they wanted their documents back.
shareSpin it however you want. The FACT is your assertion is not true.
Also, you have yet to respond to my illustration of how Hillary was not cooperative.
Just going to repeat myself: I can't mind read. I don't know what Clinton is thinking and I don't have access to information that the FBI don't. I simply explained the major differences. The reason Trump is not 'off the hook' criminally is because he refused to co-operate with the FBI when they wanted their documents back.
>Also, you have yet to respond to my illustration of how Hillary was not cooperative.
The FBI held a different interpretation regarding those actions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-final-2016-presidential-debate/fact-check-trumps-claim-clinton-destroyed-emails-after-getting-a-subpoena-from-congress/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/
Yeah, yeah "muh fact-checkers" but this is the widely understood chain of events. If you have some reason to think there's anything untrue here, or in the timeline - by all means.
>Yet you link the two situations.
Also no, Corbell linked the situations. I just replied in the thread. I don't honestly think they have much in common.
Being careless with sensitive emails vs. taking classified information home.
P.S. Hillary bleaching her server (and being flippant about it) and smashing cell phones is the very definition of uncooperative.
shareYou are intellectually dishonest and you will NEVER admit you're wrong or even that you could be wrong. I have proven it and you still will not admit it. Official (partisan) position is not the same as FACT.
Good day.
Okay, so it's possible that Clinton deliberately meant to send sensitive emails unsecurely. There's no evidence for this.
Where does this leave us exactly? Should I just assume that she did so purposely because there's no evidence (as in we can't know her mind) that she did not?
What part of the conclusions, specifically, are you challenging for why it didn't escalate into any kind of trial?
Where it leads us is you finally admitting that what you presented as fact is not.
I was not even interested in Trump or Hillary in this case. You present yourself as a bastion of facts and as proven, you are not.
It's finally settled.
Fine. The reasons given are that Clinton was not regarded to have acted purposefully, with intent - and co-operated with the FBI when investigated.
Trump did not.
There's no real reason to believe otherwise to this unless you have some actual evidence to the contrary against both investigations.
It’s astonishing how many people are coming to the same conclusion about Skavau.
He tries to present himself as some kind of Socratic pursuer of the truth, but a few posts in it dawns on you that he’s just another woke regime lackey with a basic-bitch bag of rhetorical tricks.
He’s too dumb to pull off the sophistry he’s attempting and he’s too egotistical to stop so you get the hilarious spectacle of this moron falling flat on his face in thread after thread 🤣
Every single person on this website who has "come to this same conclusion" about me are far-right knuckleheads of varying levels who despise me purely because I am not right-wing.
I could say anything and you would immediately call it failure.
No, everyone hates you because you’re a lying sack of shit, a gaslighter who uses basic bitch rhetorical tricks like strawmanning and playing The Hatchling.
If you told the truth and showed a shred of intellectual honesty you might receive praise. Try it.
I’m sure you won’t though, your cult won’t allow it. Instead, write a load of defensive BS and drop another Hatchling question like the insincere sack of shit you are. Go…
"Everyone" being the half-dozen to a roughly dozen far-right reactionaries who fester on this website who hate me because I say anything whilst not also being right-wing and sucking Trumps cock.
>If you told the truth and showed a shred of intellectual honesty you might receive praise. Try it.
What have I lied about?
That's bull! Trump and his KKK member father were despised and well-known as racists. They were sued and lost for housing discrimination.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/page/file/1396611/dl?inline
Trump also made disparaging remarks about Native-Americans, didn't pay his employees or contractors and hired illegals. He also cheated on all his wives by even bringing his mistress Marla Maples with him on a family trip with his three young children.
Minor issues, that the dems didn't care about, until Trump ran for president.
They LOVED him, as demonstrated by my link and the attached photo of the clintons being friends with him.
Your denial is refuted.
Not minor. The public cared!
I'm talking about democratic voters, not politicians. Of course, politicians suck up to potential donors who are rich including the Clintons!
All real estate developers must be political in order to get zoning laws and taxes changed to favor them. They're notorious for sucking up to politicians and donating, aka: bribing, politicians.
You can't be that clueless!
Correct, all businessment like that had to play the game. And the politicans were happy to play with Trump.
NO, the voters did not care. They didn't hear shit, because the media didn't care.
Trump was a celebrity and his behavior, however you wish to spin it, was there adn ignored.
It is only NOW that there is a POLITICAL GAIN to be made, by going after him like this, that they are going after him like this.
That makes it a POLITICAL operation, not normal legal proceedings.
And thus, a violation of his rights.
If Ron DeSantis was still in the race, he'd call Trump too 'woke'. They don't teach that in Florida. :P
shareA lot of people are saying, sir ....
share