Are the democrats all powerful?

Author: Vegasgiants

Posts

Total: 69
#61
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,166
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
I've already explained to you in great detail that the mere keeping of the documents is not what Trump is being charged for
The sophistry of charging is uninteresting to me. The essential truth is that the deep state asked Trump for documents where no other official has ever been asked. When Trump delegated it to his lawyers and the FBI they falsely called that "obstruction of justice", stole the documents, then charged him because they "had" to steal the documents.


so not only is your premise entirely false but you admit that you do not care about facts or logic.
Only after you admitted that you beat your wife.


Biden was found to have had 20 documents marked classified. Trump had 325 including some marked top secret. Yet you paint Biden as a guy with a stapler down his pants and Trump with a few paper clips.
Biden had documents in multiple locations for far longer and never had the unilateral authority to declassify, and was never asked to inventory what he took, nor was he swatted after his lawyers and the FBI supposedly made a mistake. Those are the differences that justify "stapler"


The intellectual dishonesty of that comparison is beyond words.
"you admit that you do not care about facts or logic." - You


The documents Trump took were far more numerous and far more serious
BS. You don't know what he took. If you did it wasn't very sensitive information was it?


Trump committed crimes. Biden didn't.
Facts and logic disagree.


Now they say, you can't obstruct an investigation unless a crime is found. Such an absurd notion if accepted would upend or entire justice system.
Whatever would be upended by that principle should be upended and should never have been allowed to become normal in the first place.


So if for example, my cell phone records are subpoenaed and I know they will prove a crime, I can just delete them. No crime proven so no obstruction.
So in your example you committed a crime and this is somehow supposed to illustrate why obstruction should be a crime regardless of whether you did anything immoral?

What about Hilary's servers and blackberries?


You are essentially advocating for the legalization of the cover up.
If it wasn't de facto legal already Hilary would be in jail.


This is a perfect example of why Donald Trump is so dangerous. This is something no one would have argued before, but suddenly Trump puts it out there, his pundits who know better repeat it, and before you know half the country believes it.
Actually the right to remain silent was argued long before Trump. That was considered obstruction of justice in most place before the revolution and still is in some legal traditions.
#62
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The sophistry of charging is uninteresting to me.
Which explains why you don't understand it and why the arguments you are presenting make sense to you.

The real world is complicated, understanding it takes an appreciation for nuance. If you're not interested in then why bother?

The essential truth is that the deep state asked Trump for documents where no other official has ever been asked.
I already explained this.

Trump took far more documents with no warning or coordination with the agencies than we've ever seen. Not to mention the fact that he took home top secret nuclear documents. There is nothing remotely suspicious about the fact that NARA noticed them missing and asked for them back.

Moreover, this is completely irrelevant. Even if the government didn't ask other presidents for their records back, that doesn't make it legal for Trump to lie to investigators and defy a federal subpoena.

You can ignore these facts all you want. They still refute your argument.

Biden had documents in multiple locations for far longer and never had the unilateral authority to declassify, and was never asked to inventory what he took, nor was he swatted after his lawyers and the FBI supposedly made a mistake. Those are the differences that justify "stapler"
And yet none of those differences are relavant here.

Trump is not being charged for having documents in multiple locations, for having them for a long time, because they were classified, or because he didn't inventory them first.

Where Trump crossed over into illegality is when he was notified that they needed to be given back and lied to federal investigators before hiding the very same documents from them.

Let me repeat; Where Trump crossed over into illegality is when he was notified that they needed to be given back and lied to federal investigators before hiding the very same documents from them.

Again, you can ignore these facts all you want. They are still facts. Biden didn't do any of this, which completely refutes your argument.

BS. You don't know what he took. If you did it wasn't very sensitive information was it?
We know what he was charged for. You can close your eyes and plug your ears all you want, you still have no actual reason to deny those charges, especially considering that the government will be forced in the upcoming months to disclose these documents to the jury and they know this full well, so the presumption that they don't have it is ridiculous. 

Facts and logic disagree.
You aren't even presenting facts and logic, just non sequiturs that ignore the facts within this case.

Whatever would be upended by that principle should be upended and should never have been allowed to become normal in the first place.
Right, in other words obstruction of a federal investigation should have always been legal. This is the absurdity that comes along with the MAGA hat.

So in your example you committed a crime and this is somehow supposed to illustrate why obstruction should be a crime regardless of whether you did anything immoral?

What about Hilary's servers and blackberries?
If you have any evidence that Hilary ordered her server to be deleted to evade federal investigators, you know, anything close to the level of evidence that the government has on Trump, you are free to share it and we can discuss.

#63
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,166
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Trump took far more documents with no warning or coordination with the agencies than we've ever seen.
So you've been told.


Not to mention the fact that he took home top secret nuclear documents.
Doubt it.


There is nothing remotely suspicious about the fact that NARA noticed them missing and asked for them back.
To you, but you don't find Hunter Biden on the Burisma board suspicious sooo....


Moreover, this is completely irrelevant. Even if the government didn't ask other presidents for their records back, that doesn't make it legal for Trump to lie to investigators and defy a federal subpoena.
Yea I've seen what "lying" means when the DOJ is running a hit. Flynn "lied" by saying X and then saying "I don't remember" the next time a similar question was asked.

You can't possibly believe Trump is sitting around cataloging documents and writing letters to NARA. Some low level lawyers were doing it, in contact with the FBI. They made a good faith effort, and then they were given an offer they can't refuse.

Speaking of that and long standing legal traditions that are absolute abominations the idea that you can extort testimony by offering to withhold charges will rightly be looked upon in the future as similar to trial by combat.

Sure you can get mafia with it, you can also get Mother Theresa.

Now please do something incredibly ironic like saying "oh that's just a conspiracy theory" when you just claimed:
Let me repeat; Where Trump crossed over into illegality is when he was notified that they needed to be given back and lied to federal investigators before hiding the very same documents from them.
That's a conspiracy theory you know. A theory that there was a conspiracy....


They are still facts.
They are assertions that neither of us has any way to verify.


Biden didn't do any of this, which completely refutes your argument.
No it doesn't because nobody tried to do it to Biden. I'm sure Biden could be railroaded just like anyone else.


BS. You don't know what he took. If you did it wasn't very sensitive information was it?
We know what he was charged for.
Like I said, you don't know what he took.


you still have no actual reason to deny those charges
I have the same reason that leads one to suspect Bill Cosby is a rapist. When you tell me to trust the gestapo goons who have left a trail of banana republic style hits behind them I decline to believe you.

In other words: The boy has cried wolf 70 times and been lying 69.


If you have any evidence that Hilary ordered her server to be deleted to evade federal investigators, you know
I forgot you need to prove intent with deep staters. Duh only independents like Trump are presumed malicious.
#64
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Trump took far more documents with no warning or coordination with the agencies than we've ever seen.
So you've been told.


Not to mention the fact that he took home top secret nuclear documents.
Doubt it.
So essentially, you're going with the nuclear option; just doubt everything so that you have an excuse to believe whatever you want. Got it.

There is nothing remotely suspicious about the fact that NARA noticed them missing and asked for them back.
To you
To any rationally thinking person. Again, Trump's 325 documents along with Top Secret SCI markings would be expected to catch NARA's attention by anyone who knows anything about classified materials.

But then again when you give yourself the freedom to just reject wholecloth what Trump took, everything or nothing can look suspicious. Your choice.

you don't find Hunter Biden on the Burisma board suspicious
Suspicious of what exactly? The son of a prominent politician using his name and possible influence to cash in? Everyone knows this. 

You can't possibly believe Trump is sitting around cataloging documents and writing letters to NARA. Some low level lawyers were doing it, in contact with the FBI. They made a good faith effort, and then they were given an offer they can't refuse.

Speaking of that and long standing legal traditions that are absolute abominations the idea that you can extort testimony by offering to withhold charges will rightly be looked upon in the future as similar to trial by combat.

Sure you can get mafia with it, you can also get Mother Theresa.

Now please do something incredibly ironic like saying "oh that's just a conspiracy theory"
It is. This is just baseless rambling with no evidence or logical reasoning whatsoever.

Let me repeat; Where Trump crossed over into illegality is when he was notified that they needed to be given back and lied to federal investigators before hiding the very same documents from them.
That's a conspiracy theory you know. A theory that there was a conspiracy....
Pretty sure I've explained this to you at least half a dozen times already.

Conspiracy theory in the pajoritive sense doesn't simply refer to a theory that there was a conspiracy. It refers to a theory based on a specific type of flawed thinking characterized by fallacies such as argument from ignorance, argument from incredulity, backwards rationalizing, and an inverse of Occam's razor.

That's exactly what your mafia fantasy follows. You have no evidence of any of it, it just lines up with your preferred narrative so you accept it and by default everything that conflicts with it now becomes far fetched so you get to deny it with no work involved.

No it doesn't because nobody tried to do it to Biden. I'm sure Biden could be railroaded just like anyone else.
Again, completely irrelevant. Your suspicion of what Joe Biden might have done if he were in the same position Trump was is not an argument, legal or otherwise, that Trump is innocent.

The fact that you continue to trot this out speaks volumes to the weakness of your argument. You would never accept this line of thinking if our positions were reversed and I think you know that.

I forgot you need to prove intent with deep staters. Duh only independents like Trump are presumed malicious.
We determine intent through an application of reason.

With Clinton the emails were deleted by an aid. That's all we know. We can infer malicious reasons why it could have been done intentionally, but that's nothing more than suspicion which does not hold up in a courtroom.

With Trump we know how intentions with regards to his security server because we have his employees on tape discussing it - "the boss wants the server deleted"

Do you see the difference here?
#65
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,166
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Conspiracy theory in the pajoritive sense doesn't simply refer to a theory that there was a conspiracy. It refers to a theory based on a specific type of flawed thinking characterized by fallacies such as argument from ignorance, argument from incredulity, backwards rationalizing, and an inverse of Occam's razor.
So it's a way to disguise saying "You're wrong stupid" in a way that isn't so obviously pointless.


Your suspicion of what Joe Biden might have done if he were in the same position Trump was is not an argument
It is irrelevant to me if you consider it an argument or not. He is not in the same position because the department of injustice has more in common with the stazi than Andy Griffith and Trump wasn't as ruthless/effective as the deep state.


The fact that you continue to trot this out speaks volumes to the weakness of your argument. You would never accept this line of thinking if our positions were reversed and I think you know that.
If you think you can demonstrate a contradiction in my stated positions don't hold back.


I forgot you need to prove intent with deep staters. Duh only independents like Trump are presumed malicious.
With Clinton the emails were deleted by an aid. That's all we know. We can infer malicious reasons why it could have been done intentionally, but that's nothing more than suspicion which does not hold up in a courtroom.

With Trump we know how intentions with regards to his security server because we have his employees on tape discussing it - "the boss wants the server deleted"

Do you see the difference here?
I am in a state of pity for you if you see a difference.

People don't smash data devices with hammers and use bleach bit because their boss never once requested or indicated that data should be destroyed.

There is literally no recording of Hitler ordering the holocaust. Some inferences are so close to proven that they may be treated as certain. You quite hilariously pretend that you can't figure out that Hilary ordered the servers wiped but didn't bother to apply your standard of proof to Trump.

A.) Does that tape of employees actually exist? Was it deep faked? You don't know, you presume.
B.) If Hilary's employees can randomly decide to destroy data, why can't Trump employees randomly decide to destroy data? Why can't they randomly decide to say their boss wants it. What if their boss is someone slightly higher up the hierarchy but not Trump who just happened to want to destroy data without orders (because that happens often enough to be presumed apparently)
C.) How do you know which server was being referenced

You're doing nothing but painting a picture of just how blind you are to your own biases.
#66
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So it's a way to disguise saying "You're wrong stupid" in a way that isn't so obviously pointless.
The idea is that it opens up the door to more a substantive and nuanced conversation in a way that calling someone stupid doesn't because it's a far more specific critique. But when you have no interest in that conversation then it doesn't really make a difference.

Your suspicion of what Joe Biden might have done if he were in the same position Trump was is not an argument
It is irrelevant to me if you consider it an argument or not.
And it shouldn't be because it's not about what I say, it's about whether your argument has any validity.

You bring this contention up relatedly as a means of equivocating between Trump and Biden. But it fails both politically and legally.

We judge people for their actions, not for the actions we believe they might have taken if they were put in a certain situation. So abstract insinuations do nothing to help us form any rational conclusion of ones character.

We don't charge people for crimes they would have committed if they were given the opportunity, so this contention cannot be used to argue Biden should also be indicted, which is what you would need to argue to claim Trump's indictment is unfair.

The only thing this argument might accomplish is to argue that the DOJ is being unfair by asking for Trump's documents back and not Biden's, but that argument only works if you can show that there is no significant difference between what each of them did to capture NARA's attention. But you won't even attempt to go down that path, all you do is hand waive away the very reasons they provided which the Trump team is not even contesting. 

If you think you can demonstrate a contradiction in my stated positions don't hold back.
My point here wasn't about stated contradictions, it was about the hypocrisy of equivocating your guy vs the other guy on the basis of what you believe the other guy would have done had he been in the same position.

If Biden were found guilty of illegally obstructing an investigation into his son, and my defense was that Biden should somehow be excused because if one of Trump's children was being investigated he would have done the same thing, you wouldn't for a second accept that argument for anything.

Yet you accept it for Trump. Why?

Do you see the difference here?
I am in a state of pity for you if you see a difference.
Don't have time for this today. Will respond to the false equivalences here tomorrow.
#67
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You quite hilariously pretend that you can't figure out that Hilary ordered the servers wiped but didn't bother to apply your standard of proof to Trump.
The standard is to apply logic and reason to the facts and determine, based on all available evidence, what explanation is most likely correct and to what degree.

You don't seem to believe in this, instead you latch onto the headlines and with no critical thinking involved and accept what appears to be the best explanation on the surface. Maybe I'm wrong, let's see.

Let's look closer at Hillary Clinton's servers and what happened. First, you claim people don't smash data devices, that's nonsense. Most people don't but some do. And in this case you use it to insinuate something nefarious here. This information came from the testimony of one of Clintons employees at the state department who testified that he smashed two of her phones to ensure the data was not retrievable. Why? Because she got new phones and didn't want to risk classified information falling into the wrong hands. All of this occurred before the subpoena so there is absolutely no reason to suspect anything nefarious here. It's common sense that you don't want to risk losing a phone where someone could access highly sensitive info.

But it sounds nefarious if you disregard all that so it makes the headlines.

And not sure if you know this, but Bleachbit is a software program that deletes emails. She didn't use bleach.

Regarding her emails, there are a few facts here that are inconvenient to the narrative. First of all it was a regular practice at the state department to delete personal emails, it's literally in the state department manual

"Messages that are not records may be deleted when no longer needed,” - State Department Foreign Affairs Manual (5 FAM 443.5)"

Second, she had an entire staff handling these things. You seem to think Clinton had some personal aid doing her bidding when it wasn't anything like that. Her chief of staff testified to what the departments protocols were, and there was literally an procedure followed that went multiple layers down from her chief of staff, to a department supervisor to his subordinate. So not only would Clinton have had to involve them all in the deletion, but then she would have had to get them all to risk jail time for lying to the FBI. As Trump has shown is, this rarely if ever works.

And let's also not forget that the attorneys at the state department had to first review all emails to be deleted, so they would have to be part of the conspiracy as well.

And all of this for what exactly? What could Clinton possibly have been hiding that was this serious that she needed a full blown conspiracy to cover up in the first place?

None of this makes any sense.

So is it a simple matter of "I think Trump is bad but Hillary seems aay ok"? No, that's just silly. This is a matter of looking at the entire picture. And still, Clinton could very well be guilty here, but to make that claim you need evidence, not just a salacious headline.

A.) Does that tape of employees actually exist? Was it deep faked? You don't know, you presume.
Yes I presume. Just like I presume Australia exists even though I've never been there.

B.) If Hilary's employees can randomly decide to destroy data, why can't Trump employees randomly decide to destroy data?
Because as I just explained, it wasn't random. It was a department operation put in place for good reason. There was no reason for Trump's server to be deleted other than to avoid federal investigators from finding out what's on it, but they did.

Why can't they randomly decide to say their boss wants it. What if their boss is someone slightly higher up the hierarchy but not Trump who just happened to want to destroy data without orders
Everyone who has ever worked for Donald Trump knows who "the boss" is. You are really grasping for straws on that one.

Moreover, Occam's razor very clearly points to the conclusion that if one of his employees is telling another the boss wants the servers deleted, it came from him.

But that's not all they have. The employee who told the other to delete the server was at the time Trump's right hand man who was scheduled to fly out with Trump that morning. But the day before Trump learned his video was being subpoenad and right afterward called the employee and had a 22 minute conversation. The employee then immediately changed his travel plans booking a flight to MaraLago. That evening he texted the IT guy asking if he was going to be around the next day. The rest is on the video.

The story is beyond clear.

C.) How do you know which server was being referenced
See above

You're doing nothing but painting a picture of just how blind you are to your own biases.
I think you need to look in the mirror.

#68
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,166
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Looks like you're going to do the red herring thing. Counter strategy is to force to one point at a time.

Everyone who has ever worked for Donald Trump knows who "the boss" is. You are really grasping for straws on that one.
Who is the big guy?
#69
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Looks like you're going to do the red herring thing. Counter strategy is to force to one point at a time.

Everyone who has ever worked for Donald Trump knows who "the boss" is. You are really grasping for straws on that one.
Who is the big guy?
Accusing me of a red herring while ignoring everything I just said in order to invoke a false equivalence as a whataboutism. Ok.

The big guy is Joe Biden. If you decide however to look further than the salatious headline, this story in no way justifies what you are arguing..

This nickname was invoked in an email from one of Hunter's business partners regarding who would be involved in a business deal. It wasn't an insinuation of anything, it was literally just a question. A few days later a contract was drawn, Joe Biden was not a part of it. To this day there is no evidence that Joe was ever part of these discussions or even knew about them.

So you are trying to equivocate someone whom Joe Biden had no known dealings with asking if he would be involved in a business deal... with an employee of Donald Trump changing his schedule to fly to MaraLago to tell the IT guy that Trump wanted the servers deleted. An act that would have in no way benefited the employee to make up or carry out on his own and in fact of he were acting on his own against Trump's wishes would have been seriously risking his job.

These are not remotely comparable in terms of a presumption of guilt being validated by the facts.

And as a side note, let's just assume Joe was entirely involved in this business deal... What is the allegation here? This would be illegal or corrupt how exactly?