Attorney General Jeff Sessions repeats 'lock her up' chant

[Benton]

(07-25-2018, 11:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Absurd is the notion of: It shouldn't go punished because others did it. I've always said the mentality of: "That's the way we've always done it" to be absurd. Not to mention Colin Powell disputed his conversation with her about the practice. You also left out the deleting of the CPU data.

Meh, you're more than a cheif lawyer here; you're a judge. juror, and executioner.

To the bold: You could speak on the policies of retaining government emails better than I. For most companies I've worked for, it's delete it after 90 days; one was anything not archived should be deleted after a week. Clinton's staff collected everything deemed relevant during her time as SoS and archived it to produce information requested. I assume that's standard, but have no idea. That took place during a year after she left the position. The staff starts cleaning things up and nearly two years after leaving the office a government committee asks for old data. 

Now we're up to mid-2015.

Maybe that stuff should've been done three years prior in the weeks following the attack? Or two years earlier when she was leaving office?

[jj22]

Something tells me the reaction of Trump (secret) voters would be different if this was Eric Holder.

Got to love Politics.

Thankfully Obama/Bush/Clinton/Reagan Administrations didn't play these games.

You know which Administration does? Putin's.

But carry on claiming America first Trump Supporters.

[hollodero]

(07-25-2018, 12:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If you are right and their intention was just toss her in the dungeon, then I completely agree. 

 well... I don't know if I'm right though. I will say this. Breitbart allegedly has around 10 million readers, from studying their viewpoints a bit I am pretty sure 9.9 million of them want the dungeon solution. I have a hunch these are the same people that do the actual chanting.

Which could be wrong, it could be people just thinking the use of her private server was a crime and believe the probe into that was tainted (biased FBI, deep state, Dems, whatever), but nevertheless want a second probe under better premises before her jailtime. I just don't believe it. (And even if, the chant itself would still be grim.)

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2018, 12:14 PM)Benton Wrote: To the bold: You could speak on the policies of retaining government emails better than I. For most companies I've worked for, it's delete it after 90 days; one was anything not archived should be deleted after a week. Clinton's staff collected everything deemed relevant during her time as SoS and archived it to produce information requested. I assume that's standard, but have no idea. That took place during a year after she left the position. The staff starts cleaning things up and nearly two years after leaving the office a government committee asks for old data. 

Now we're up to mid-2015.

Maybe that stuff should've been done three years prior in the weeks following the attack? Or two years earlier when she was leaving office?

I consider standard not to delete anything from your CPU once it has been subpoenaed by the government. It is not the user's prerogative to determine was should be deleted at that point. But there will be those that believe she only deleted stuff about yoga.    

[Benton]

(07-25-2018, 12:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I consider standard not to delete anything from your CPU once it has been subpoenaed by the government. It is not the user's prerogative to determine was should be deleted at that point. But there will be those that believe she only deleted stuff about yoga.    

Agreed.

And, as far as I know, Clinton and her staff didn't order anything deleted after the subpoena. They did before, and the tech who was supposed to do it, didn't. He later went back and did.

[jj22]

She definitely ordered it before, but you won't hear that on Fox News.

But at least she isn't using her private cell phone as POTUS against her intel requests or else these people would really be outraged.......

[GMDino]

All I know is that conservatives are absolutely positive Clinton is guilty of something because there are deleted emails they can't see.

And Trump is absolutely not guilty of anything when we can't see his tax returns.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-25-2018, 01:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: All I know is that conservatives are absolutely positive Clinton is guilty of something because there are deleted emails they can't see.

And Trump is absolutely not guilty of anything when we can't see his tax returns.

The IRS can see his tax returns. You think you will find guilt in his tax returns that the IRS unfortunately missed?

[Benton]

(07-25-2018, 01:24 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The IRS can see his tax returns. You think you will find guilt in his tax returns that the IRS unfortunately missed?

It's (generally) not the IRS's job to investigate a business person for taking business-related dollars from foreign countries. Trump Co., has already said some of their investments involve Russia. The more recent calls for tax returns are in relation to allegations that Trump (and the Republican party) may have been working — knowingly or otherwise — working with Russia. Which may or may not be illegal.

Personally, I don't think there's anything in there really connecting Trump to Russia. But I still think it's a bad precedent. Presidents for a while now have been releasing their returns as a show of good faith and transparency. I think that's something that should continue, even if it doesn't generally show how financially committed a POTUS is to outside influences.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2018, 01:24 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The IRS can see his tax returns. You think you will find guilt in his tax returns that the IRS unfortunately missed?

(07-25-2018, 01:42 PM)Benton Wrote: It's (generally) not the IRS's job to investigate a business person for taking business-related dollars from foreign countries. Trump Co., has already said some of their investments involve Russia. The more recent calls for tax returns are in relation to allegations that Trump (and the Republican party) may have been working — knowingly or otherwise — working with Russia. Which may or may not be illegal.

Personally, I don't think there's anything in there really connecting Trump to Russia. But I still think it's a bad precedent. Presidents for a while now have been releasing their returns as a show of good faith and transparency. I think that's something that should continue, even if it doesn't generally show how financially committed a POTUS is to outside influences.

And who else are they getting money from?

The POTUS and his family have business ties around the world.  Would it not be beneficial to know who is lining his pockets when he makes a tweet decision about world affairs?

His is a unique situation...and he has chosen to hide his income taxes also.

That should bother more people.  But then they don't seem to care about anything else he does that there is actual proof for so it doesn't surprise me that the don't/

[*michaelsean*]

(07-25-2018, 01:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: And who else are they getting money from?

The POTUS and his family have business ties around the world.  Would it not be beneficial to know who is lining his pockets when he makes a tweet decision about world affairs?

His is a unique situation...and he has chosen to hide his income taxes also.

That should bother more people.  But then they don't seem to care about anything else he does that there is actual proof for so it doesn't surprise me that the don't/

In your example you compared something that Hillary did that is alleged to be illegal to something Trump has done.  If you don't think that there is something in his tax returns that is illegal then the comparison doesn't work.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2018, 01:56 PM)michaelsean Wrote: In your example you compared something that Hillary did that is alleged to be illegal to something Trump has done.  If you don't think that there is something in his tax returns that is illegal then the comparison doesn't work.

I said conservatives have no problem with assuming Clinton is guilty of "something" and assuming Trump is not guilty of anything.

But I get your point that Trump's actual tax returns may not show anything illegal despite what it would show based on any actions he has taken as POTUS.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-24-2018, 04:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, that's a matter of perspective I'd say.

Well, yeah, but I honestly don't see how it's that big of a deal.

(07-24-2018, 04:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: By which you equated the incidents and compared molehills.

No, I didn't. Only pointed out that Sessions wasn't the first in his position to show bias.

(07-24-2018, 04:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Saying "bigger" was wrong though. It's me argueing Sessions molehill is bigger, not you claiming Holder's are. Please regard my post as amended in that sense.

Fair enough.

(07-24-2018, 04:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Still, I wouldn't know how Holder got into a debate about Sessions in the first place

The only reason I brought up Holder is because Session's display of bias is not that big of a deal. That many of the same ones "outraged" right now would go far in defending Holder's biases. Basically, I'm pointing out their hypocrisy.

(07-24-2018, 04:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: I yet fail to find something in Holder's conduct that comes close to, jokingly or not, giving the appearance of agreeing personally with demands of imprisonments of political opponents.

That's a gross misrepresenation of the "lock her up" chant. The chant was made during the campaign and it was not about imprisoning Hillary because she was Trump's political opponent. It was to call for her imprisonment because she broke the law. And in this particular instance with Sessions, it was to show support for Trump and Sessions.

(07-24-2018, 04:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: By these words, you are belittling what Sessions did. As if it were normal and everyone would do it. Not everyone is doing it though. 

No, I'm belittling what he did, because it's not that big of a deal.

(07-24-2018, 04:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: E.g. no democrat I know of has publicly demanded Trump be sent to jail.

Right, because no democrat has called for Trump's impeachment or has called Trump's words or actions as treasonous. 

(07-24-2018, 04:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Admittedly, I found the "lock her up" chants deeply disturbing and spooky to begin with. No politician should ever jump on that train. Is what I would have thought the bipartisan consensus in these matters, but obviously it is not.

I agree he shouldn't have joined in the chant, but doing so is not that big of a deal. It's not like he was returning a Sieg Heil salute with one of his own.

(07-24-2018, 04:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Also, I have to say, if situations were reversed (like Holder as DOJ implying a Trump team member should be jailed), I'd completely understand the outrage and wouldn't have thought it hypocrisy. 

Many have called for Trump's team to be jailed. Especially those that were involved in the Russian scandal. Plus I already said that many have called for Trump's impeachment. 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-25-2018, 02:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: I said conservatives have no problem with assuming Clinton is guilty of "something" and assuming Trump is not guilty of anything.

But I get your point that Trump's actual tax returns may not show anything illegal despite what it would show based on any actions he has taken as POTUS.

Oh I'm sure there's definitely something to see.  It could be where his money comes from or that he hasn't actually made much.

[fredtoast]

What started the chant? Did he mention Hillary? Seems like kind of a strange thing to start without any prompting.

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2018, 12:51 PM)Benton Wrote: Agreed.

And, as far as I know, Clinton and her staff didn't order anything deleted after the subpoena. They did before, and the tech who was supposed to do it, didn't. He later went back and did.

(07-25-2018, 12:59 PM)jj22 Wrote: She definitely ordered it before, but you won't hear that on Fox News.

But at least she isn't using her private cell phone as POTUS against her intel requests or else these people would really be outraged.......

...and as I said there will be those that think the only deleted emails were about yoga.

The incompetence of the tech does not excuse the fact that data was deleted after her CPUs were subpoenaed and our proof that she ordered this prior was because she said so and a tech saying "I forgot". The files were deleted after subpoena and Hillary was aware of it.

You guys can assert folks are chanting "lock her up" simply for doing her job; put folks know that just isn't true. I wonder how I'd do if it were shown that I deleted files from my CPU after subpoena and my defense was I told my wife to delete them earlier, but she forgot. 

[Benton]

(07-25-2018, 05:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and as I said there will be those that think the only deleted emails were about yoga.

I have no idea what they were about. Yoga? Could be.

Quote:The incompetence of the tech does not excuse the fact that data was deleted after her CPUs were subpoenaed 

By the tech. That's the issue. She ordered the emails deleted before the subpoena. 

Quote:and our proof that she ordered this prior was because she said so and a tech saying "I forgot". The files were deleted after subpoena and Hillary was aware of it.

Was aware or told him to? That's the issue as, legally speaking, they're completely different.

If she told him after the subpoena, that's a crime. If she didn't know they hadn't been deleted, or thought that they had, that's not. If she knew they were still around and the tech was going to delete them, that's a little murkier. 

Quote:You guys can assert folks are chanting "lock her up" simply for doing her job; put folks know that just isn't true. 

Unfortunately, it is. Clinton didn't do anything different than what previous administrations have done. And there were probably some distant calls for locking up Bush or Cheney or whoever, but they never gained any mainstream traction.

Quote:I wonder how I'd do if it were shown that I deleted files from my CPU after subpoena and my defense was I told my wife to delete them earlier, but she forgot. 

Well, that's not what happened so I don't see the relevance.

Maybe you'll believe info from the GOP (who apparently don't mind CNN):
https://www.gop.com/flashback-clintons-conflicting-story-to-the-fbi-american-people-rsr/

Quote: "'In a follow-up FBI interview on May 3, 2016, (name redacted) indicated he believed he had an 'oh s***' moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015, deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton's emails,' the report stated. The mass deletion occurred after the March 2, 2015, Times story and after a March 3, 2015, preservation order from the House Benghazi Committee to retain and produce documents related to her email accounts." (Tal Kopan and Evan Perez, "FBI Releases Hillary Clinton Email Report," CNN , 9/2/16)

Again... the tech took it upon himself to delete the emails after the subpoena. That pretty well gets her off the hook unless somebody produces evidence of a conversation between her and the tech after the subpoena. 

I have no idea of the legality of deleting them before the subpoena, unless they're relevant to the FRA. I would guess that's fairly common, but, as I said earlier, I really have no idea.

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2018, 06:00 PM)Benton Wrote: I have no idea what they were about. Yoga? Could be.


By the tech. That's the issue. She ordered the emails deleted before the subpoena. 


Was aware or told him to? That's the issue as, legally speaking, they're completely different.

If she told him after the subpoena, that's a crime. If she didn't know they hadn't been deleted, or thought that they had, that's not. If she knew they were still around and the tech was going to delete them, that's a little murkier. 


Unfortunately, it is. Clinton didn't do anything different than what previous administrations have done. And there were probably some distant calls for locking up Bush or Cheney or whoever, but they never gained any mainstream traction.


Well, that's not what happened so I don't see the relevance.

Maybe you'll believe info from the GOP (who apparently don't mind CNN):
https://www.gop.com/flashback-clintons-conflicting-story-to-the-fbi-american-people-rsr/


Again... the tech took it upon himself to delete the emails after the subpoena. That pretty well gets her off the hook unless somebody produces evidence of a conversation between her and the tech after the subpoena. 

I have no idea of the legality of deleting them before the subpoena, unless they're relevant to the FRA. I would guess that's fairly common, but, as I said earlier, I really have no idea.

Further debate on the matter is fruitless; as I can show you how she broke laws such as as NARA and Section 1924 of Title XVIII . You just continue to go with the narrative you asserted that folks chanted "lock her up" simply for doing her job.  I'll go with there's a little more to it. 

[Benton]

(07-25-2018, 07:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Further debate on the matter is fruitless; as I can show you how she broke laws such as as NARA and Section 1924 of Title XVIII . You just continue to go with the narrative you asserted that folks chanted "lock her up" simply for doing her job.  I'll go with there's a little more to it. 

Well, I’m not familiar with a NARA law but the issue with 1924 has already been addressed. If you are keen on prosecuting Clinton for using a private server under 1924, then you’re going to have to prosecute a large bulk of the two administrations in addition to obama as both used severs and equipment provided by their parties.

Which is probably why even the most zealous anti-Clinton folks didn’t get any traction there.

But I agree, “lock her up” is an issue that’s pointless to debate as the far right generally realizes that without that foundation, electing trump was probably not a great alternative. Outside of “lock get up” Clinton was generally just an unlikable woman who supported whatever idea was most likely to get her elected and would likely have followed the path of W and obama which is letting Congress spend us to death.

[hollodero]

(07-25-2018, 07:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Further debate on the matter is fruitless; as I can show you how she broke laws such as as NARA and Section 1924 of Title XVIII .

Then why did the FBI not press charges?
Also, do you honestly believe the chanters know about Section 1924 of Title XVIII. I'd figure they rather follow a rallying cry like with Benghazi. 

(07-25-2018, 02:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Well, yeah, but I honestly don't see how it's that big of a deal.

Yeah I figured :)
Maybe I'm just over-sensitive to heads of the judiciary prejudging cases and appearing to root for a certain outcome that is devastating for a political opponent.
Paint them as a bunch of thugs, and the trenches get deeper than necessary, people start believing in conspiracies etc... an AG needs to know better.
But maybe these times are simply gone.

(07-25-2018, 02:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No, I didn't. Only pointed out that Sessions wasn't the first in his position to show bias.

That I never doubted. But it's not simply about showing bias, it's about the way in which bias is showed.

(07-25-2018, 02:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Many have called for Trump's team to be jailed. Especially those that were involved in the Russian scandal. Plus I already said that many have called for Trump's impeachment. 

Calls for impeachment are however, a bit different. I am against politicians calling Trump a traitor too and said so. This isn't ok either. Impeachment calls are probably hyperbolic too. Sure. Then again, I'd consider it professional malpractice for democrats to not go after Trump hard politically. And impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.
As soon as say Schumer would say "lock him up" and/or encourage fans who do so, I'd see the analogy. That folks call for his jailtime isn't that relevant when these folks aren't officials or head of the DOJ. Doesn't mean I endorse it, but it's not like this has become a mass chant phenomena.
Plus, I do hold the AG to a higher standard reagrding those things, given he is, well, the attorney general and such. Being held to a higher standard than everyday folk comes with the job.

Also, sorry for skipping some points :) I have a hard time taking a position where I'd defend Hillary. She did bad and to some part she brought all that on herself. The same, even to a way larger extent, I think can be said about Trump.