DrP Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 When they are done will they turn their attention to all of Trump's deleted e-mails and burnt paperwork from his failed business? I was reading in the paper today that he has destroyed data and communications on numerous occasions after a law suit has declared he reveal missives. How do people take this level of hypocrisy seriously? The reason I brought this up in the other thread was because the last poster seemed pretty smug that there 'might' or might not still be evidence of wrongdoing in the case of the e-mails non issue and suggested between the lines that she would get her comeuppance. All this just ignoring the already proven fraud and destroying of evidence requested by courts by the other player.... which never seems to be mentioned, even though it has been proven already. Seems like a double standard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 There seems to be an adult vs adolescent dynamic between Trump and Clinton. Adolescents break rules as they go through various stages of revolt. Their angst tolerated as a natural stage. Adolescents break curfew, dismiss societal standards of politeness, demand transparency from their parents and teachers (all adults). Meanwhile they demand reliability and respectful treatment from adulst and cling to childish levels of privacy (locking bedroom doors, bathroom doors, hiding things around the house, secret compartments in lockers, etc) for themselves. Trump can refuse transparency. Like an rebeling teen he is allowed to lock doors. We don't get to see his taxes, emails, and need to understand all the bad things he has said or done were before now and don't even matter. Even asking for details about his policies is unfair. He has big plans and we just need to let him show us. Meanwhile Clinton must be transparent and flawless. As the adult in the room she is held to a standard that doesn't allow for any insecure or moody behavior. We need hundreds of thousands of emails, all tax returns, speech transcripts, and etc. She helped raise money for a charity that is a world leader in providing poor children with HIV medication....hmmm........seems suspicious we'll need all the finiancials, emails, dates, and etc for that too! With Trump all that matters is he has "plans" and cries that he deserves a chance. With Clinton she must earn our trust while proven she is able to deliver on all levels. It is the teen who gets away with yelling "I hate you, I hate living here, I wish I was never born" vs the parent who can only ever say "I love you and care about" and hope they are getting through. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Interesting perspective Ten Oz. I am not sure it is correct, but it certainly resonates well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 The reason I brought this up in the other thread was because the last poster seemed pretty smug that there 'might' or might not still be evidence of wrongdoing .... I have looked through the thread "Hillary's Emails on Weiner's Laptop" and can find no post by you DrP. Can you please provide a link to where you "brought this up in the other thread." Perhaps I missed it. Here is the other thread if you are having a hard time finding it. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100259-hillarys-emails-on-weiners-laptop/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted November 2, 2016 Author Share Posted November 2, 2016 It was in answer to your last reply - it got moved to here. I thought it was relevant to what you said - but supposedly not. Post#31... so my post was post #32. Anyway waitforfo, what do you think? Will "the wheels of justice turn slowly but grind exceedingly fine" for Trump too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) It was in answer to your last reply - it got moved to here. I thought it was relevant to what you said - but supposedly not. Post#31... so my post was post #32. Anyway waitforfo, what do you think? Will "the wheels of justice turn slowly but grind exceedingly fine" for Trump too? Interesting. I'm used to seeing a moderators comment in at least the parent topic when a split creates a new topic. Something like this. ! Moderator Note I've split a number of posts into a new thread. Please try and stick to the confines of the OP. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98833-humbling-at-hofstra/?view=findpost&p=947639&hl=split I'm curious why that did not happen with this split? With regard to the wheels of justice, perhaps you could get them rolling on Trump by listing the laws Trump has broken. Yes, I appreciate that we have laws holding our public officials to higher standards than private citizens. I think that's a good thing. Don't you? If you can point to laws broken by Trump, I'm all in favor of law enforcement pursuing them. I wouldn't want a crook running my country. If you reply please remember prohibitions against ex post facto laws in the United states. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto Edited November 2, 2016 by waitforufo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted November 2, 2016 Author Share Posted November 2, 2016 "if you can point to laws broken by Trump"...... OK - I'll try to have a look and back it up with some links, but I was repeating what was in my newspaper this morning. I am at work and won't be able to for now..... but the paper said so, so he MUST be guilty or they wouldn't have written it, no? ;-) "please remember prohibitions against ex post facto laws the US". - I am afraid I don't actually know what that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 "if you can point to laws broken by Trump"...... OK - I'll try to have a look and back it up with some links, but I was repeating what was in my newspaper this morning. I am at work and won't be able to for now..... but the paper said so, so he MUST be guilty or they wouldn't have written it, no? ;-) "please remember prohibitions against ex post facto laws the US". - I am afraid I don't actually know what that means. He means that you can't list things that Trump did before they became illegal as him breaking the law. I think there was recently a report about some dodgy tax stuff he did in the 90s that didn't actually become illegal until later, and so weren't against the law when he did them even though they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 "if you can point to laws broken by Trump"...... OK - I'll try to have a look and back it up with some links, but I was repeating what was in my newspaper this morning. I am at work and won't be able to for now..... but the paper said so, so he MUST be guilty or they wouldn't have written it, no? ;-) "please remember prohibitions against ex post facto laws the US". - I am afraid I don't actually know what that means. Must be guilty of what? Please try to be specific. Thank you Delta1212, but I did provide a link to the definition of ex post facto which included further links to the US Constitution and Supreme Court cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Interesting. I'm used to seeing a moderators comment in at least the parent topic when a split creates a new topic. ... I'm curious why that did not happen with this split? Because I was busy and and came up a little short regarding the time I volunteer to the site. "please remember prohibitions against ex post facto laws the US". - I am afraid I don't actually know what that means. You can't make something retroactively illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted November 2, 2016 Author Share Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) The "MUST be guilty" statement was a quip (thus the wink) as it is just firing back at him what he has been saying about her investigations. regarding the ex post facto - I was just quoting what I read in the paper about him burning papers that a court had ordered him to submit.... and of course deleting e-mails that he had been ordered to hand over. Perhaps that isn't illegal.... but it is a bit shady and shows dishonesty and hypocrisy imo. As I said - I'll try to find more when I get the time - the newspaper article in the independent didn't give any references. Edited November 2, 2016 by DrP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 I'm pretty sure the actions you just described are actually illegal, although I don't know the specifics of the story in question for context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted November 2, 2016 Author Share Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) Illegal or not - I think it is clutching at straws with this e-mail business... It's like saying "She/He drove over the speed limit! They broke the LAW!! so they are guilty and can't be president"... You've gotta draw the line somewhere - and if either had deleted some mails to keep stuff private... well... not sure I really blame either of them, there are worse things someone can be accused of. It's just a non problem in my book. Everyone has broken a law at some point in their life (well most). Unfortunately it seems it is all he has on her - so they just keep thrashing away at it regardless of how dumb and pointless it seems... trouble is that his supporters and some of those on the fence will believe it is all true - it is blown out of proportion as he has no actual substance to what either will do as president. It's like the Benghazi non event. "BENGHAZI!! BENGHAZI!!!" omg - the stupidity and the transparency of some people. Edited November 2, 2016 by DrP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) The "MUST be guilty" statement was a quip (thus the wink) as it is just firing back at him what he has been saying about her investigations. regarding the ex post facto - I was just quoting what I read in the paper about him burning papers that a court had ordered him to submit.... and of course deleting e-mails that he had been ordered to hand over. Perhaps that isn't illegal.... but it is a bit shady and shows dishonesty and hypocrisy imo. As I said - I'll try to find more when I get the time - the newspaper article in the independent didn't give any references. Were the Trump emails you mention under subpoena? That would be illegal. BTW, Hillary's team has deleted emails under subpoena. Bleach Bit is quite proud of its program being used by Hillary's team to delete emails under subpoena. https://www.bleachbit.org/cloth-or-something August 2015 Hillary Clinton was asked, "Did you wipe your email server?" and she evasively replied, "Like with a cloth or something?" A year later we found out that "cloth" was BleachBit, a software application that deletes information "so even God can't read it," as Congressman Trey Gowdy announced August 2016. After you have smashed your BlackBerry, don't forget to wipe the fingerprints from your email server with this non-abrasive, soft microfiber Cloth or Something. Thin, foldable size makes it easy to stash the Cloth or Something in burn bags. 6" x 6" size quickly wipes even the biggest email servers with thousands of emails. Buy an extra cloth for your VIP (VERY VIP) client. Optionally autographed on the back by Andrew, creator of BleachBit. Printed in the USA! Guaranteed not to prove intent, or you will get a full refund paid when you are released from prison. First-class shipping and handling is a flat rate of $2 per order. Yes, this cloth is real, and you can really buy it. Don't wait for a subpoena: Order Now! Edited November 2, 2016 by waitforufo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Were the Trump emails you mention under subpoena? That would be illegal. BTW, Hillary's team has deleted emails under subpoena. Did they? Let's see the subpoena Like this one http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton%20Subpoena%20-%202015.03.04.pdf Which explicitly states 4 categories of emails relating to Benghazi. So deleting personal emails is not destroying emails under subpoena, since they weren't subject to the subpoena. Further, the order to delete the emails came before the subpoena. The person deleting them was an employee at Platte River Networks, so it's hardly someone "on her team". So show the subpoena that asked for her personal emails. For a change of pace, back up your accusation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 I gather from your post #2 that you have teenagers, Ten oz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) Did they? Let's see the subpoena Like this one http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton%20Subpoena%20-%202015.03.04.pdf Which explicitly states 4 categories of emails relating to Benghazi. So deleting personal emails is not destroying emails under subpoena, since they weren't subject to the subpoena. Further, the order to delete the emails came before the subpoena. The person deleting them was an employee at Platte River Networks, so it's hardly someone "on her team". So show the subpoena that asked for her personal emails. For a change of pace, back up your accusation. So why ask me the question if you know the answer? It matters no when the order to delete was given, what matters is that the emails were not deleted when the subpoena was issued. I'm sure you know that. Hardly part of her team? Did she not have a contractual agreement with Platte River Networks? Here is an interesting read. http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/08/a-fish-story-in-platte-river-networks-purge-of-clinton-e-mails/ The FBI said that in December 2014 a top Clinton aide told Denver-based Platte River Networks to destroy an archive of e-mails from her private server, but the company failed to do so. Then, after The New York Times reported in early March 2015 details of then-Secretary Clinton’s use of a private server, the House committee investigating the deadly attacks on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, ordered that her e-mails be preserved, and subpoenaed those related to the attack. Three weeks later, the story goes, the engineer responsible for deleting Clinton’s archive suddenly remembered the failed duty, and acted on it by deleting the e-mails with a program (wonderfully named BleachBit) that apparently rendered most of them unreadable. Image if a similar situation would have happened with Trump? How would you feel about it then? Edited November 2, 2016 by waitforufo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 So why ask me the question if you know the answer? It matters no when the order to delete was given, what matters is that the emails were not deleted when the subpoena was issued. I'm sure you know that. Hardly part of her team? Did she not have a contractual agreement with Platte River Networks? I'm asking if there is a subpoena I don't know about. You stated with apparent certainty that "Hillary's team has deleted emails under subpoena". So show me the subpoena, or retract your claim. It's time to stop throwing unsubstantiated accusations into the discussion. (that time was well in the past, really, but we can't change that) I don't consider employees of my ISP, or anybody else I've hired as a contractor to be a part of my "team". They are hired to do a job. There is no expectation of personal loyalty, which is an implication of team. You think Larry in tech support is willing to lie and go to jail for someone he doesn't even sign his paycheck (even if he were willing to do it for someone who did)? As far as your "interesting read" goes, AFAICT I provided that subpoena. Those emails were turned over. If you want to go after the person who allegedly violated the subpoena, go after Platte River Networks. I don't see where anyone has connected the dots to this being Hillary's fault. What you have is an employee who failed to do his job when told to do something, and then later on did it. That's what we know. Someone who would likely be in trouble for not doing his job. If the police have a warrant to search the trash can in your garage and you turn it over to them, you are not violating the law if you then incinerate the trash in your kitchen. That wasn't covered by the warrant. edit to add: they gave the guy immunity “As the F.B.I.’s report notes,” Mr. Fallon said, “neither Hillary Clinton nor her attorneys had knowledge of the Platte River Network employee’s actions. It appears he acted on his own and against guidance given by both Clinton’s and Platte River’s attorneys to retain all data in compliance with a congressional preservation request.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-investigation.html?_r=0 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now