CDZ What does this prove: Comparing Trump related convictions to Clinton related

[emilynghiem]

Comparing the Trump-related charges or convictions
to Clinton-related, do you believe this does or does not prove
A. Trump and his associates are more complicit in crimes than Clinton?
B. The partisan bias and conspiracy to go after Trump while letting Clinton and supporters off the hook

===========================================

Original question and my response:

Mindboggling that some people (on the right, and sadly, on the far left) still weigh wobbly and wildly false narratives in their minds. Let me help tip those defective scales with a little undeniable perspective

Just FYI …

Hillary Clinton Benghazi Investigation:
4 years
0 indictments
0 convictions

Hillary Clinton Email Investigation:
2 years
0 indictments
0 convictions

Trump-Russia Investigation:
15 months
34 Indictments/Charges (Individuals) (and counting)
3 Indictments/Charges (companies)
6 GUILTY pleas (and counting)
4 CONVICTIONS (and counting)
Indicted: Roger Stone
Indicted: Paul Manafort
Indicted: Rick Gates
Indicted: George Papadopoulos
Indicted: Michael Flynn
Indicted: Michael Cohen
Indicted: Richard Pinedo
Indicted: Alex van der Zwaan
Indicted: Konstantin Kilimnik
Indicted: 12 Russian GRU officers
Indicted: Yevgeny Prigozhin
Indicted: Mikhail Burchik
Indicted: Aleksandra Krylova
Indicted: Anna Bogacheva
Indicted: Sergey Polozov
Indicted: Maria Bovda
Indicted: Dzheykhun Aslanov
Indicted: Vadim Podkopaev
Indicted: Irina Kaverzina
Indicted: Gleb Vasilchenko
Indicted: Internet Research Agency
Indicted: Concord Management
Guilty Plea: Michael Flynn
Guilty Plea: Michael Cohen
Guilty Plea: George Papadopolous
Guilty Plea: Richard Pinedo
Guilty Plea: Alex van der Zwaan
Guilty Plea: Rick Gates
Over 191 Criminal Charges (and counting):
Conspiracy against the USA (2 counts)
Conspiracy to launder money (2 counts)
Bank fraud (8 counts)
Bank fraud conspiracy (10 counts)
Subscribing to false tax returns (10 counts)
Making false statements (6 counts)
Failure to file reports of foreign bank accounts (14 counts)
Unregistered agent of a foreign principal (2 counts)
False FARA statements (2 counts)
Subscribing to false tax returns (10 counts)
Assisting in preparation of false tax documents (5 counts)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States (13 counts)
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud (2 counts)
Aggravated identity theft (24 counts)

My original response:

The justice system is biased to catch and convict people by the "letter of the law" which can be defined, while allowing huge conspiracies to go unchecked because they violate the SPIRIT of the law that takes too much time and resources to "prove in court." That's why we have petty criminals who get TONS of time in jail, while big corporate abusers can wheedle around the "letter of the law" and get away with worse damages and leave just the petty accomplices to get federal sentences. If this happens with poor minorities filling up prisons while the real crooks go free, what makes you think it doesn't happen with political players caught in the same game?

As I stated before, the REAL danger of electing the Obamas and Clintons to office is they have these legal connections that can buy their way out of crimes and courts. Trump doesn't have those connections with legal monopolies. That's why you see the difference between no one going after Obama for unconstitutional violations (such as ACA that even Justice Roberts caved in on and "rewrote" the bill unconstitutionally to be a tax when it was passed through Congress and voted on as a public health bill) and the opposite happening where the Democrats legal connections and resources all target Trump and any associates -- where no such resources were spent going after either Clinton or after Obama.

John Gallivan - get rid of that bias in the justice and legal system, and maybe we can see these cases equally for what they truly contain and not just what we see on the surface. All parties are equally guilty of covering up while blaming the other. Taxpayers should unite and demand Reimbursement for all the wrongs, costs and consequences, and quit playing one side or the other. Go after them all! We'd recollect billions if not trillions and shift the debt back to the wrongdoers who incurred it.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Any reasonable person knows exactly what this proves, the Justice Department picks and chooses when it comes to charging people with crimes. Usually picking conservatives and not leftists.

 

[Oddball]

It's always (D)ifferent when members of their team are the lawbreakers.

 

[K9Buck]

Equal application of the law is dead.

Liberals have NO PROBLEM with a police-state, as long as they're the ones running it.

 

[K9Buck]

I will add this. As a Trump voter and life-long Republican, I have NO PROBLEM investigating and prosecuting Trump associates or even Trump himself if they broke the law. In fact, I endorse it. I support enforcing the law regardless of one's political affiliation. It's clear that the American left does not share my attitude.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Equal application of the law is dead.

Liberals have NO PROBLEM with a police-state, as long as they're the ones running it.

To be fair, I'd be okay with a police state if I were the police as well LOL

 

[Moonglow]

How can you republicans claim victim status when the republicans are in charge, you do know what "in charge" means right?

 

[JBvM]

Comparing the Trump-related charges or convictions
to Clinton-related, do you believe this does or does not prove
A. Trump and his associates are more complicit in crimes than Clinton?
B. The partisan bias and conspiracy to go after Trump while letting Clinton and supporters off the hook

===========================================

Original question and my response:

Mindboggling that some people (on the right, and sadly, on the far left) still weigh wobbly and wildly false narratives in their minds. Let me help tip those defective scales with a little undeniable perspective

Just FYI …

Hillary Clinton Benghazi Investigation:
4 years
0 indictments
0 convictions

Hillary Clinton Email Investigation:
2 years
0 indictments
0 convictions

Trump-Russia Investigation:
15 months
34 Indictments/Charges (Individuals) (and counting)
3 Indictments/Charges (companies)
6 GUILTY pleas (and counting)
4 CONVICTIONS (and counting)
Indicted: Roger Stone
Indicted: Paul Manafort
Indicted: Rick Gates
Indicted: George Papadopoulos
Indicted: Michael Flynn
Indicted: Michael Cohen
Indicted: Richard Pinedo
Indicted: Alex van der Zwaan
Indicted: Konstantin Kilimnik
Indicted: 12 Russian GRU officers
Indicted: Yevgeny Prigozhin
Indicted: Mikhail Burchik
Indicted: Aleksandra Krylova
Indicted: Anna Bogacheva
Indicted: Sergey Polozov
Indicted: Maria Bovda
Indicted: Dzheykhun Aslanov
Indicted: Vadim Podkopaev
Indicted: Irina Kaverzina
Indicted: Gleb Vasilchenko
Indicted: Internet Research Agency
Indicted: Concord Management
Guilty Plea: Michael Flynn
Guilty Plea: Michael Cohen
Guilty Plea: George Papadopolous
Guilty Plea: Richard Pinedo
Guilty Plea: Alex van der Zwaan
Guilty Plea: Rick Gates
Over 191 Criminal Charges (and counting):
Conspiracy against the USA (2 counts)
Conspiracy to launder money (2 counts)
Bank fraud (8 counts)
Bank fraud conspiracy (10 counts)
Subscribing to false tax returns (10 counts)
Making false statements (6 counts)
Failure to file reports of foreign bank accounts (14 counts)
Unregistered agent of a foreign principal (2 counts)
False FARA statements (2 counts)
Subscribing to false tax returns (10 counts)
Assisting in preparation of false tax documents (5 counts)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States (13 counts)
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud (2 counts)
Aggravated identity theft (24 counts)

My original response:

The justice system is biased to catch and convict people by the "letter of the law" which can be defined, while allowing huge conspiracies to go unchecked because they violate the SPIRIT of the law that takes too much time and resources to "prove in court." That's why we have petty criminals who get TONS of time in jail, while big corporate abusers can wheedle around the "letter of the law" and get away with worse damages and leave just the petty accomplices to get federal sentences. If this happens with poor minorities filling up prisons while the real crooks go free, what makes you think it doesn't happen with political players caught in the same game?

As I stated before, the REAL danger of electing the Obamas and Clintons to office is they have these legal connections that can buy their way out of crimes and courts. Trump doesn't have those connections with legal monopolies. That's why you see the difference between no one going after Obama for unconstitutional violations (such as ACA that even Justice Roberts caved in on and "rewrote" the bill unconstitutionally to be a tax when it was passed through Congress and voted on as a public health bill) and the opposite happening where the Democrats legal connections and resources all target Trump and any associates -- where no such resources were spent going after either Clinton or after Obama.

John Gallivan - get rid of that bias in the justice and legal system, and maybe we can see these cases equally for what they truly contain and not just what we see on the surface. All parties are equally guilty of covering up while blaming the other. Taxpayers should unite and demand Reimbursement for all the wrongs, costs and consequences, and quit playing one side or the other. Go after them all! We'd recollect billions if not trillions and shift the debt back to the wrongdoers who incurred it.

"Trump and his associates are more complicit in crimes than Clinton?" - a straightforward question which assumes no guilt when asked.

"The partisan bias and conspiracy to go after Trump while letting Clinton and supporters off the hook" - a totally biased and conspiratorial statement with an unfounded basis. Clinton and supporters were NOT let off any hook. You would have to prove those things before you could state them as factual truths - which you cannot

“I know the Department of Justice, I know no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying they would. I wonder where they were in the last 40 years, because I’d like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would, nobody did,” Comey said.
​

 

[emilynghiem]

How can you republicans claim victim status when the republicans are in charge, you do know what "in charge" means right?

Dear Moonglow the problem with "Republicans being in charge"
is the division between
(A) those who RESPECT Constitutional limits on govt
by which it is VERY HARD to write pass and enforce truly CONSTITUTIONAL reforms
to correct UNCONSTITUTIONAL problems
without legislating MORE unconstitutionally where govt wasn't even supposed to be used that way in the first place.

vs.

(B) the ones who keep using Govt, courts and majority rule as Liberals/nonconstitutionalists
where they just push to "pass THEIR beliefs through govt on everyone else."
ie NOT respecting rule of law, due process, limits or checks and balances on govt,
consent of the governed, no taxation without representation, and other Constitutional standards
that would preclude such politics.

The ones in (A) who respect limits on Govt by the Constitution and/or Equal Inclusion to represent
people of ALL PARTIES NOT JUST Republicans (or Democrats)
aren't able to pass reforms when the other Republicans
and Democrats using approach (B)
are blocking and overruling each other to force deadlocks and compromise
legislation that neither side is happy with.

It is MUCH harder to form a proper consensus between ALL parties states and people
by the Constitutional ethics and standards in (A) that respect
due process and equal protections and inclusion of people of all creeds and beliefs
no taxation without representation
limits checks and balances on govt and separation of powers
consent of the governed

If you ask me, the solutions will come from the people who
operate and collaborate on these Constitutional principles
to build a consensus among diverse voices and parties,
and their combined efforts will lead to growing support
and public consensus which can then be fed to govt to write into laws
that truly reflect the American public. It won't come from the top down
but the bottom up, so all standards and principles will be satisfied
across the different parties contributing to cooperative solutions.

 

[DandyDonovan]

How can you republicans claim victim status when the republicans are in charge, you do know what "in charge" means right?

Dear Moonglow the problem with "Republicans being in charge"
is the division between
(A) those who RESPECT Constitutional limits on govt
by which it is VERY HARD to write pass and enforce truly CONSTITUTIONAL reforms
to correct UNCONSTITUTIONAL problems
without legislating MORE unconstitutionally where govt wasn't even supposed to be used that way in the first place.

vs.

(B) the ones who keep using Govt, courts and majority rule as Liberals/nonconstitutionalists
where they just push to "pass THEIR beliefs through govt on everyone else."
ie NOT respecting rule of law, due process, limits or checks and balances on govt,
consent of the governed, no taxation without representation, and other Constitutional standards
that would preclude such politics.

The ones in (A) who respect limits on Govt by the Constitution and/or Equal Inclusion to represent
people of ALL PARTIES NOT JUST Republicans (or Democrats)
aren't able to pass reforms when the other Republicans
and Democrats using approach (B)
are blocking and overruling each other to force deadlocks and compromise
legislation that neither side is happy with.

It is MUCH harder to form a proper consensus between ALL parties states and people
by the Constitutional ethics and standards in (A) that respect
due process and equal protections and inclusion of people of all creeds and beliefs
no taxation without representation
limits checks and balances on govt and separation of powers
consent of the governed

If you ask me, the solutions will come from the people who
operate and collaborate on these Constitutional principles
to build a consensus among diverse voices and parties,
and their combined efforts will lead to growing support
and public consensus which can then be fed to govt to write into laws
that truly reflect the American public. It won't come from the top down
but the bottom up, so all standards and principles will be satisfied
across the different parties contributing to cooperative solutions.

This is easily illustrated to.

Take "transexuals" in the military , The law, the UCMJ, actually says they can't serve. That's the law, but Obama just unilaterally decided to ignore than law and let them serve. And liberals cheered, even though that's obviously a power grab and unconstitutional

Then along comes Trump and he says "no, we're gonna follow the law" and liberals stupidly start screaming that HE is the authoritarian, and a court even ruled that he couldn't enforce the law LOL

Same with DACA

 

[emilynghiem]

How can you republicans claim victim status when the republicans are in charge, you do know what "in charge" means right?

Dear Moonglow the problem with "Republicans being in charge"
is the division between
(A) those who RESPECT Constitutional limits on govt
by which it is VERY HARD to write pass and enforce truly CONSTITUTIONAL reforms
to correct UNCONSTITUTIONAL problems
without legislating MORE unconstitutionally where govt wasn't even supposed to be used that way in the first place.

vs.

(B) the ones who keep using Govt, courts and majority rule as Liberals/nonconstitutionalists
where they just push to "pass THEIR beliefs through govt on everyone else."
ie NOT respecting rule of law, due process, limits or checks and balances on govt,
consent of the governed, no taxation without representation, and other Constitutional standards
that would preclude such politics.

The ones in (A) who respect limits on Govt by the Constitution and/or Equal Inclusion to represent
people of ALL PARTIES NOT JUST Republicans (or Democrats)
aren't able to pass reforms when the other Republicans
and Democrats using approach (B)
are blocking and overruling each other to force deadlocks and compromise
legislation that neither side is happy with.

It is MUCH harder to form a proper consensus between ALL parties states and people
by the Constitutional ethics and standards in (A) that respect
due process and equal protections and inclusion of people of all creeds and beliefs
no taxation without representation
limits checks and balances on govt and separation of powers
consent of the governed

If you ask me, the solutions will come from the people who
operate and collaborate on these Constitutional principles
to build a consensus among diverse voices and parties,
and their combined efforts will lead to growing support
and public consensus which can then be fed to govt to write into laws
that truly reflect the American public. It won't come from the top down
but the bottom up, so all standards and principles will be satisfied
across the different parties contributing to cooperative solutions.

This is easily illustrated to.

Take "transexuals" in the military , The law, the UCMJ, actually says they can't serve. That's the law, but Obama just unilaterally decided to ignore than law and let them serve. And liberals cheered, even though that's obviously a power grab and unconstitutional

Then along comes Trump and he says "no, we're gonna follow the law" and liberals stupidly start screaming that HE is the authoritarian, and a court even ruled that he couldn't enforce the law LOL

Same with DACA

Dear DandyDonovan
The example you pick shows
what happens when you take an unconstitutional law
and try to correct it without violating the Constitution further.

Beliefs about transgender orientation, expression and exercise
are faith based and personal preferences.

So similar to whether someone can wear their full BURQA
as religious faith based preference, and if this interferes or not
with military duty to wear set uniforms for everyone,
clearly the military has the right to enforce uniform rules.

However, this is NOT the same as discriminating against
people who identify as Muslim or LGBT.

So we'd need to first make the distinction between someone's
faith based affiliation or identity that is their personal choice,
for which they should not be discriminated against,
vs. their behavior conduct or dress which might conflict
with military rules.

Also, as brought up in another thread
consistent Mental Health screening would eliminate
the risk or threat of unhealthy disorders or disabilities in any person,
not just targeting Muslims, LGBT, or any particular group
that might require treatment to restore sound health
before that person is deemed fit to serve. The same standards
should be developed to screen out PTSD that has rendered
people unable to serve while in recovery, but without discriminating
against such people permanently if the problems can be resolved.

If screening for disabilitating problems is applied equally to everyone,
where there is a process for remedying the disability and screening
for that to meet uniform requirements, then it isn't discrimination against any one group.

If we don't address the real cause of conflict DandyDonovan
Then as you illustrate above, just fighting to enforce or not enforce
the problematic policy violates Constitutional principles on either side.
It makes the problem worse, by imposing one or the other,
instead of focusing on solutions that include and satisfy both equally.

That's harder to do, and that's why we don't see solutions
come out of this political approach of imposing left and right on each other.

 

[DandyDonovan]

How can you republicans claim victim status when the republicans are in charge, you do know what "in charge" means right?

Dear Moonglow the problem with "Republicans being in charge"
is the division between
(A) those who RESPECT Constitutional limits on govt
by which it is VERY HARD to write pass and enforce truly CONSTITUTIONAL reforms
to correct UNCONSTITUTIONAL problems
without legislating MORE unconstitutionally where govt wasn't even supposed to be used that way in the first place.

vs.

(B) the ones who keep using Govt, courts and majority rule as Liberals/nonconstitutionalists
where they just push to "pass THEIR beliefs through govt on everyone else."
ie NOT respecting rule of law, due process, limits or checks and balances on govt,
consent of the governed, no taxation without representation, and other Constitutional standards
that would preclude such politics.

The ones in (A) who respect limits on Govt by the Constitution and/or Equal Inclusion to represent
people of ALL PARTIES NOT JUST Republicans (or Democrats)
aren't able to pass reforms when the other Republicans
and Democrats using approach (B)
are blocking and overruling each other to force deadlocks and compromise
legislation that neither side is happy with.

It is MUCH harder to form a proper consensus between ALL parties states and people
by the Constitutional ethics and standards in (A) that respect
due process and equal protections and inclusion of people of all creeds and beliefs
no taxation without representation
limits checks and balances on govt and separation of powers
consent of the governed

If you ask me, the solutions will come from the people who
operate and collaborate on these Constitutional principles
to build a consensus among diverse voices and parties,
and their combined efforts will lead to growing support
and public consensus which can then be fed to govt to write into laws
that truly reflect the American public. It won't come from the top down
but the bottom up, so all standards and principles will be satisfied
across the different parties contributing to cooperative solutions.

This is easily illustrated to.

Take "transexuals" in the military , The law, the UCMJ, actually says they can't serve. That's the law, but Obama just unilaterally decided to ignore than law and let them serve. And liberals cheered, even though that's obviously a power grab and unconstitutional

Then along comes Trump and he says "no, we're gonna follow the law" and liberals stupidly start screaming that HE is the authoritarian, and a court even ruled that he couldn't enforce the law LOL

Same with DACA

Dear DandyDonovan
The example you pick shows
what happens when you take an unconstitutional law
and try to correct it without violating the Constitution further.

Beliefs about transgender orientation, expression and exercise
are faith based and personal preferences.

So similar to whether someone can wear their full BURQA
as religious faith based preference, and if this interferes or not
with military duty to wear set uniforms for everyone,
clearly the military has the right to enforce uniform rules.

However, this is NOT the same as discriminating against
people who identify as Muslim or LGBT.

So we'd need to first make the distinction between someone's
faith based affiliation or identity that is their personal choice,
for which they should not be discriminated against,
vs. their behavior conduct or dress which might conflict
with military rules.

Also, as brought up in another thread
consistent Mental Health screening would eliminate
the risk or threat of unhealthy disorders or disabilities in any person,
not just targeting Muslims, LGBT, or any particular group
that might require treatment to restore sound health
before that person is deemed fit to serve. The same standards
should be developed to screen out PTSD that has rendered
people unable to serve while in recovery, but without discriminating
against such people permanently if the problems can be resolved.

If screening for disabilitating problems is applied equally to everyone,
where there is a process for remedying the disability and screening
for that to meet uniform requirements, then it isn't discrimination against any one group.

If we don't address the real cause of conflict DandyDonovan
Then as you illustrate above, just fighting to enforce or not enforce
the problematic policy violates Constitutional principles on either side.
It makes the problem worse, by imposing one or the other,
instead of focusing on solutions that include and satisfy both equally.

That's harder to do, and that's why we don't see solutions
come out of this political approach of imposing left and right on each other.

No offense, but it is VERY hard to understand your posts.

 

[emilynghiem]

How can you republicans claim victim status when the republicans are in charge, you do know what "in charge" means right?

Dear Moonglow the problem with "Republicans being in charge"
is the division between
(A) those who RESPECT Constitutional limits on govt
by which it is VERY HARD to write pass and enforce truly CONSTITUTIONAL reforms
to correct UNCONSTITUTIONAL problems
without legislating MORE unconstitutionally where govt wasn't even supposed to be used that way in the first place.

vs.

(B) the ones who keep using Govt, courts and majority rule as Liberals/nonconstitutionalists
where they just push to "pass THEIR beliefs through govt on everyone else."
ie NOT respecting rule of law, due process, limits or checks and balances on govt,
consent of the governed, no taxation without representation, and other Constitutional standards
that would preclude such politics.

The ones in (A) who respect limits on Govt by the Constitution and/or Equal Inclusion to represent
people of ALL PARTIES NOT JUST Republicans (or Democrats)
aren't able to pass reforms when the other Republicans
and Democrats using approach (B)
are blocking and overruling each other to force deadlocks and compromise
legislation that neither side is happy with.

It is MUCH harder to form a proper consensus between ALL parties states and people
by the Constitutional ethics and standards in (A) that respect
due process and equal protections and inclusion of people of all creeds and beliefs
no taxation without representation
limits checks and balances on govt and separation of powers
consent of the governed

If you ask me, the solutions will come from the people who
operate and collaborate on these Constitutional principles
to build a consensus among diverse voices and parties,
and their combined efforts will lead to growing support
and public consensus which can then be fed to govt to write into laws
that truly reflect the American public. It won't come from the top down
but the bottom up, so all standards and principles will be satisfied
across the different parties contributing to cooperative solutions.

This is easily illustrated to.

Take "transexuals" in the military , The law, the UCMJ, actually says they can't serve. That's the law, but Obama just unilaterally decided to ignore than law and let them serve. And liberals cheered, even though that's obviously a power grab and unconstitutional

Then along comes Trump and he says "no, we're gonna follow the law" and liberals stupidly start screaming that HE is the authoritarian, and a court even ruled that he couldn't enforce the law LOL

Same with DACA

Dear DandyDonovan
The example you pick shows
what happens when you take an unconstitutional law
and try to correct it without violating the Constitution further.

Beliefs about transgender orientation, expression and exercise
are faith based and personal preferences.

So similar to whether someone can wear their full BURQA
as religious faith based preference, and if this interferes or not
with military duty to wear set uniforms for everyone,
clearly the military has the right to enforce uniform rules.

However, this is NOT the same as discriminating against
people who identify as Muslim or LGBT.

So we'd need to first make the distinction between someone's
faith based affiliation or identity that is their personal choice,
for which they should not be discriminated against,
vs. their behavior conduct or dress which might conflict
with military rules.

Also, as brought up in another thread
consistent Mental Health screening would eliminate
the risk or threat of unhealthy disorders or disabilities in any person,
not just targeting Muslims, LGBT, or any particular group
that might require treatment to restore sound health
before that person is deemed fit to serve. The same standards
should be developed to screen out PTSD that has rendered
people unable to serve while in recovery, but without discriminating
against such people permanently if the problems can be resolved.

If screening for disabilitating problems is applied equally to everyone,
where there is a process for remedying the disability and screening
for that to meet uniform requirements, then it isn't discrimination against any one group.

If we don't address the real cause of conflict DandyDonovan
Then as you illustrate above, just fighting to enforce or not enforce
the problematic policy violates Constitutional principles on either side.
It makes the problem worse, by imposing one or the other,
instead of focusing on solutions that include and satisfy both equally.

That's harder to do, and that's why we don't see solutions
come out of this political approach of imposing left and right on each other.

No offense, but it is VERY hard to understand your posts.

Sorry DandyDonovan
just pick out points that you can, address those, and ignore the rest.
You don't have to eat everything offered at the all you can eat bar.
Just grab what you like!