Treatment for Those Suffering with TDS

I'm trying to point out how clownish it is for someone to say that Democrats are guilty of crimes because.......they have not been convicted. (Because they are "pros".)

That (non) logic can be extended to, well, everyone who has not been convicted of a crime. I used you as an example, because though I don't know, I doubt you are a criminal. It would be absurd to assume you are a criminal because.....you haven't been convicted.

And yet that is the logic you earlier used. If the absurdity of your logic continues to evade you, please take it up with someone besides me. TIA.

 

Ray Davies and The Kinks were Dems?

“Girls will be boys and boys will be girls It's a mixed up muddle
In a shaken up world”

 

What completely goes over Trumpers heads is that they are the ones with actual TDS.

They would not tolerate his behavior in any one of their personal lives, nor an oppositional candidate.

 

I didn't say they were guilty of crimes because they have not been convicted. Edit(poorly worded before):I said that they were never convicted because they were better criminals. That assumption being that they have committed crimes. During the Hillary Clinton email scandal, Hillary deleted emails after receiving a subpoena. Of course that was just an honest mistake, she wasn't deliberately obstructing the investigation. Hillary told us all so herself and she'd never lie now would she. I could dig up other examples where Democrats were given a slap on the wrist or skated altogether.

You can extend that logic to everyone but doing so won't refute my logic. You see, everyone doesn't have the same level of government access that the Democrats do. Everyone doesn't get the benefit of presecutorial discretion the way Hillary Clinton does.

 

Please don't ever quote me again, so I don't have to put you on Ignore and end the laughs.

 

Not this email nonsense again.

One more time for the right wing media believing rubes: State Department policy on emails back then was that it was up to individuals employed there to separate personal emails from work emails and that they could do whatever they liked with the non-work ones. Only the work emails were required for retention.

Hillary had ordered the deletion of the personal ones BEFORE the subpoena was issued and was completely within her purview to destroy them per State Department policy.

To this day, idiot Trump still believes that Bleachbit the software program was some kind of acid that was poured onto things by Hillary or her people.

 

I don't know if factcheck.org is "right wing" in your view or not.
The FBI Files on Clinton's Emails - FactCheck.org
From the article:

So, she orders the emails deleted on March 3rd(don't know if that's the exact date), the subpoena arrives, and three weeks after the subpoena the emails are deleted. I'm not a lawyer but I wouldn't think when the deletion was ordered would matter only when the actual deletion occurred. In fact, if she gave the order on March 3, I would think she'd be obligated to rescind the order on March 4. You're right, though, we should just give her the benefit of the doubt, take her word for it. I mean three weeks wouldn't have been enough time to do anything illegal, anyway, right?

 

The point is the deletions were in process before the subpoena and she was complying with State Department policy so it really doesn't matter. The FBI didn't have any rights to her personal emails just like Trump didn't have any rights to keep extremely sensitive classified emails in a bathroom.

 

I can't make any promises so you might as well just get it over with.

 

So, a general state department policy trumps a court order? Is there something other Hillary's word to show that they actually were personal emails?

Having said that, I think there's actually a larger issue. The server's existence entered the public's awareness by accident. If it hadn't been publicized, Hillary Clinton could've memory holed its contents, when she left office, and noone would've been the wiser. So, would she have handed over those emails if she could've gotten away with not doing so? Personally, I doubt it.

 

I tend to agree that government officials shouldn't be using their private email accounts to conduct official business. You think the prohibition should have been applied to this guy?

 

The media isn't showing. I'll assume it's Trump. Let me know if it's not.
Is there a prohibition now? I assumed it was still legal. In any case, I agree. If you want your own domain, fine but it needs to be on a server that everyone knows about and everyone can submit FOIA request for.

 

It's probably a conspiracy having to do with child trafficking or drug smuggling. Or aliens, domestic or nonterrestial. SMH A known felon, and tax cheat is caught with top secret documents at his house and refused to return them but that certainly pales in comparison to Clinton's personal emails. LOL

 

I've got an idea. Since you can't answer what I actually said, why don't you put words in my mouth and attack that? Oh wait.

 

Nihilism is an existence with not rules or definitions... They do not care about reality.