Why isn’t Melania Trump responsible for her husband?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-20-2016, 12:50 PM)PhilHos Wrote: While completely true, the timing of the ones against Trump only make the veracity of their claims more suspect. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/26/uw-madison-sex-assault-case-snowballs-dozens-accuse-student-stalking-notebook-found-authorities-say/?ref=yfp

Another example; dozens of women didn't report alleged sexual assault until someone else stepped forward first.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/26/an-ex-rutgers-professor-raped-a-man-with-cerebral-palsy-prison-time-wont-be-her-only-punishment/?ref=yfp

Oh, ffs . . .

“He wouldn’t let me do anything that he didn’t want me to do,” she testified.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-25-2016, 05:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, Trump has broken the law. He has had a number of civil cases determined against him including an anti-trust violation filed by the DoJ.

Civil cases does not equal breaking the law. With that said, I'm pretty sure I remember reading a couple articles where Trump HAS been fined for wrong doing, in other words broken the law. So I don't deny that he's broken the law.

My point, however, was that Hillary Clinton HAS broken the law but the people that are supporting her talk about as if Trump has done something illegal when all they mention is his lewd and disgusting comments. While horrible, they aren't illegal. Yet, they claim he's "bragging" about breaking the law; meanwhile, they're voting for someone that actually HAS broken the law yet they act like she didn't just because she wasn't charged.

(10-25-2016, 08:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure what you guys are talking about.  I'll be glad to respond if you explain what you mean.

Bill Clinton raped and sexually assaulted women in the past. Mike M claims that Hillary is an accessory.
You're complaining about Trump's words which are not illegal while supporting someone who has actually done something illegal.

I didn't think either of our posts was all that hard to comprehend, fred.

(10-26-2016, 01:55 AM)Dill Wrote: That is believing what YOU want. A hypothetical can hardly be a "fact."

I was pointing out why the cases are not equivalent, because the evidence is not equivalent. 

You're right considering the only "evidence" you have against Trump are his words that he 'bragged' about sexually assaulting others (which is not true, BTW).

[*PhilHos*]

(10-26-2016, 08:09 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/26/uw-madison-sex-assault-case-snowballs-dozens-accuse-student-stalking-notebook-found-authorities-say/?ref=yfp

Another example; dozens of women didn't report alleged sexual assault until someone else stepped forward first.

(10-26-2016, 08:42 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/26/an-ex-rutgers-professor-raped-a-man-with-cerebral-palsy-prison-time-wont-be-her-only-punishment/?ref=yfp

Oh, ffs . . .

“He wouldn’t let me do anything that he didn’t want me to do,” she testified.

As you yourself even pointed out, Trump was accused during the primaries. Yet, no one else stepped forward until a month until the election. Like I said, if these ladies had come out at any other time I'd be more inclined to believe them. However, given Hillary and the Dems propensity for doing everything they can to see Hillary as president (see Bernie Sanders and the rigged primaries as just one example), I wouldn't put it past her to do something as heinous as getting multiple women to lie for her.

It'd be nice, though, if these accusations and Hillary's email scandal would somehow force BOTH of them off the campaign trail and we could have 2 electable candidates to choose from instead.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-27-2016, 12:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: As you yourself even pointed out, Trump was accused during the primaries. Yet, no one else stepped forward until a month until the election. Like I said, if these ladies had come out at any other time I'd be more inclined to believe them. However, given Hillary and the Dems propensity for doing everything they can to see Hillary as president (see Bernie Sanders and the rigged primaries as just one example), I wouldn't put it past her to do something as heinous as getting multiple women to lie for her.

It'd be nice, though, if these accusations and Hillary's email scandal would somehow force BOTH of them off the campaign trail and we could have 2 electable candidates to choose from instead.

People doubted Jerry Sandusky's victims and the victims of the Catholic Church scandal because they didn't come forward immediately. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-25-2016, 08:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure what you guys are talking about.  I'll be glad to respond if you explain what you mean.

Seriously Fred?
You work in the law field, you should know what the **** an accessory is.

Makes you wonder exactly who Hillary was talking about when she gave the whole Super Predators speech.

[fredtoast]

(10-27-2016, 08:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Seriously Fred?
You work in the law field, you should know what the **** an accessory is.

I know exactly what na accessory is.

But there is no evidence that Hillary was an accessory to Bill's rape.

[fredtoast]

(10-27-2016, 11:57 AM)PhilHos Wrote: My point, however, was that Hillary Clinton HAS broken the law but the people that are supporting her talk about as if Trump has done something illegal when all they mention is his lewd and disgusting comments. While horrible, they aren't illegal. Yet, they claim he's "bragging" about breaking the law; meanwhile, they're voting for someone that actually HAS broken the law yet they act like she didn't just because she wasn't charged.

What law has Hillary broken?

[fredtoast]

(10-27-2016, 11:57 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Bill Clinton raped and sexually assaulted women in the past.

How do you know this?

[Dill]

(10-27-2016, 11:57 AM)PhilHos Wrote: My point, however, was that Hillary Clinton HAS broken the law but the people that are supporting her talk about as if Trump has done something illegal when all they mention is his lewd and disgusting comments. While horrible, they aren't illegal. Yet, they claim he's "bragging" about breaking the law; meanwhile, they're voting for someone that actually HAS broken the law yet they act like she didn't just because she wasn't charged.

Bill Clinton raped and sexually assaulted women in the past. Mike M claims that Hillary is an accessory.
You're complaining about Trump's words which are not illegal while supporting someone who has actually done something illegal.

You're right considering the only "evidence" you have against Trump are his words that he 'bragged' about sexually assaulting others (which is not true, BTW).

How do we "know" Bill Clinton has raped and sexually assaulted women? You have no difficulty imagining Clintons framing others, but a hard time imagining Clintons being framed. How many times have faux scandals blown up around the Clintons?

Trump's "lewd and disgusting comments" were about someone sexual assaulting someone, which you somehow parse as "not true." I don't know if you mean that what he was bragging about was not sexual assault or it was but he didn't do it, or he was just bragging about someone else.

Hillary Clinton really HAS broken the law but somehow was not charged?  Perhaps she was not charged because she really did not break the law. Why can't that be the answer?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2016, 07:41 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: People doubted Jerry Sandusky's victims and the victims of the Catholic Church scandal because they didn't come forward immediately. 

People will ALWAYS doubt the claims of accusers of celebrities. So what? I never claimed otherwise.

My only point is that I doubt the truthfulness of the accusers because they came out so soon before the election. 

(10-27-2016, 08:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What law has Hillary broken?

She lied under oath and she violated Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code. One could also make the case that Hillary violated the Freedom of Information Act.

(10-27-2016, 08:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How do you know this?

Same way that you know that Trump is a mysogynistic, racist xenophobe that sexually assaults women. Because others have accused him of such things.

(10-28-2016, 01:22 AM)Dill Wrote: You have no difficulty imagining Clintons framing others, but a hard time imagining Clintons being framed. How many times have faux scandals blown up around the Clintons?

I actually don't believe the Clintons are framing Trump. I think even if these women are lying, they're doing it on their own. But, to answer your question, I would say 0 faux scandals have blown up around the Clintons. They may have been accused of things that turned out to have not been true, but a scandal is a scandal even if the outrage is around a rumor, a lie, or misinformation.
BUT, how many honest people are accused of this many scandals, hmm? 

(10-28-2016, 01:22 AM)Dill Wrote: Hillary Clinton really HAS broken the law but somehow was not charged?  Perhaps she was not charged because she really did not break the law. Why can't that be the answer?

Because the law says not to do something that she did. That's breaking the law. If you go 70 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, you're speeding and you're breaking the law. Whether you get pulled over or not does not mitigate the fact that you broke the law. 
But, don't take my word for it, take FBI Director James Comey's: "[i]... there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information..." And the reason the FBI recommended no charges? Not that she didn't break the law, but that she didn't INTEND to break the law.

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2016, 12:16 PM)PhilHos Wrote: But, don't take my word for it, take FBI Director James Comey's: "[i]... there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information..." And the reason the FBI recommended no charges? Not that she didn't break the law, but that she didn't INTEND to break the law.

The law requires intent so there was no law broken.

You are not guilty of murder just because someone dies in an auto accident.

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2016, 12:16 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I actually don't believe the Clintons are framing Trump. I think even if these women are lying, they're doing it on their own. But, to answer your question, I would say 0 faux scandals have blown up around the Clintons. They may have been accused of things that turned out to have not been true, but a scandal is a scandal even if the outrage is around a rumor, a lie, or misinformation.

BUT, how many honest people are accused of this many scandals, hmm? 

And there you have it folks.  The perfect example of the way politics works now.  Throw enough mud and tell enough lies and eventually people will believe anything.


"Who needs any evidence to decide that the people on the other side are crooks.  Just look at what they have been accused of. Derp."

[Dill]

(11-01-2016, 01:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And there you have it folks.  The perfect example of the way politics works now.  Throw enough mud and tell enough lies and eventually people will believe anything.


"Who needs any evidence to decide that the people on the other side are crooks.  Just look at what they have been accused of. Derp."

Yes, that is the central problem of US politics today.  Faux scandals are mobilized and recycled across decades to create "smoke" and therefore "fire."  And this is mostly done by one side.

[Dill]

(11-01-2016, 12:16 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Because the law says not to do something that she did. That's breaking the law. If you go 70 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, you're speeding and you're breaking the law. Whether you get pulled over or not does not mitigate the fact that you broke the law. 
But, don't take my word for it, take FBI Director James Comey's: "[i]... there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information..." And the reason the FBI recommended no charges? Not that she didn't break the law, but that she didn't INTEND to break the law.

Here is where you may be missing the point. If you accidently kill someone with your automobile, you are not charged with 1st degree murder because you did not intend to kill the person.  "Intention" is built into the definition of the crime. You may be charged with a degree of manslaughter, but if not at fault, you won't be charged with anything. So your intention absolutely "mitigates" the case, for it is decisive in determining whether you broke a law. Baking "intentionality" into legal definitions of crime is one of the signal achievements of civilized law.

Disclosing classified information isn't always illegal. Intentionally passing "national defense" information to foreign governments or civilians without clearance is clearly a felony, prosecutable by the FBI. But in this case, there is no evidence Clinton "intended" to pass such information to foreign governments or civilians without clearance. And there is no evidence that her handling actually exposed such information to illegal parties. That is the distinction between her case and, say, that of Petraeus. She is guilty of mishandling information, which usually means administrative punishment (like a reprimand or reduction in rank, and/or loss of clearance), not an felony indictment from the FBI. 

Normally, the FBI states its reasons for not prosecuting such cases and shuts up. But in this case, a different standard is applied to Clinton who gets an unprecedented public scolding.

The public scolding then becomes fodder for Trumpsters, who dimly grasp Clinton was accused of something and "got caught" but was not prosecuted. Conspiracy!!! Look what happened to Petraeus! The system is RIGGED !!!!

[Dill]

(11-01-2016, 12:16 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Same way that you know that Trump is a mysogynistic, racist xenophobe that sexually assaults women. Because others have accused him of such things.

And because Trump himself publicly says racist, misogynistic, xenophobic things for all to hear and brags of sexual assault on video. That plus the accusations.

[GMDino]

(11-01-2016, 04:10 PM)Dill Wrote: And because Trump himself publicly says racist, misogynistic, xenophobic things that are in print and on video. And he has doubled down on him.

[Dill]

(11-01-2016, 12:16 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I actually don't believe the Clintons are framing Trump. I think even if these women are lying, they're doing it on their own. But, to answer your question, I would say 0 faux scandals have blown up around the Clintons. They may have been accused of things that turned out to have not been true, but a scandal is a scandal even if the outrage is around a rumor, a lie, or misinformation.
BUT, how many honest people are accused of this many scandals, hmm? 

Not sure what you mean when you say a "scandal is a scandal" even if accusations "turned out not to have been true."  

Are you saying that no scandals are really "faux"?  Or just that once accused, always accused in the minds of some?

You seem to be saying that a false accusation is, after all, still an accusation. And the accusation is what should count in evaluating the accused, not whether it is in fact false, especially in the case of the Clintons. Have I misunderstood you?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-01-2016, 02:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, that is the central problem of US politics today.  Faux scandals are mobilized and recycled across decades to create "smoke" and therefore "fire."  And this is mostly done by one side.

In the Army, we had this saying which came from SERE school, "Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter accusations."

Turns out, that idiom didn't come from the Army or SERE school.  It came from political strategist Roger Stone.

[fredtoast]

(11-01-2016, 04:10 PM)Dill Wrote: And because Trump himself publicly says racist, misogynistic, xenophobic things for all to hear and brags of sexual assault on video. That plus the accusations.

Rep.

Some people just don't get it.