Today in hypocrisy...

[nsplayr]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

It wasn't up to current WH to ask about Trump's privilege.

 

My understanding is that it was. The archives wanted to know if the executive was claiming privilege over the documents, and the Biden WH, being the executive, said no.

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

It wasn't up to current WH to ask about Trump's privilege.

I am open to and hope the FBI will look into such things, legally...and hold those who violate the law accountable...you know like when Hillary…

This is the textbook definition of the “whataboutism” that I mean. What about Hillary, what about Hunter…

What about we focus on the case at hand? Is it defensible for trump to have documents marked TS/SCI at mar a lago?

Hillary's case wasn’t handled well, and I feel that way probably for different reasons than you, but on that we agree. So should we handle trump’s case badly also?

I’m curious what your desired endgame is for this current, relevant investigation. If it’s anything other than it should be handled fairly and any people who committed crimes should be held accountable, I would be surprised, because you and I both know that’s the only correct answer. No one is above the law.

TBH I’m also ready to tap out here y’all…you know my position and we’ve covered the same ground quite a bit.

Edited August 25, 2022 by nsplayr

[slc]

10 hours ago, nsplayr said:

No one is above the law.

Except if you're a Democrat...

[ClearedHot]

16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

My understanding is that it was. The archives wanted to know if the executive was claiming privilege over the documents, and the Biden WH, being the executive, said no.

I do not agree with your understanding, likely some unsettled law.  Harvard has a couple articles about using the SCOTUS cases that arouse during Watergate.  Some indicating the current administration has the hammer, others think it should apply to the past President.  It is likely to be re-adjudicated by SCOTUS because of this circumstance...Under your interpretation Biden can use it as a political weapon and release any of Trump's information.

16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

This is the textbook definition of the “whataboutism” that I mean. What about Hillary, what about Hunter…

What about we focus on the case at hand? Is it defensible for trump to have documents marked TS/SCI at mar a lago?

Hillary's case wasn’t handled well, and I feel that way probably for different reasons than you, but on that we agree. So should we handle trump’s case badly also?

Sorry brother but this is absolute horse crap, was it defensible that Hillary had SCI on her server?  For the record, I do not advocate we handle Trump's case poorly, I advocate that if we are going to run trump through the wringer, GO BACK and run that horrible bitch through the same wringer.  Hold her accountable, why is that so difficult for you to say?  it is not ancient history...apply the freaking law EQUALLY TO ALL.

16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I’m curious what your desired endgame is for this current, relevant investigation. If it’s anything other than it should be handled fairly and any people who committed crimes should be held accountable, I would be surprised, because you and I both know that’s the only correct answer. No one is above the law.

I've made my desired endgame very clear.  It is very simple and follows your theme that no one is above the law.

1.  Investigate Trump and hold him accountable to the letter of the law.

2.  Open the case against Hillary back up and hold her accountable to the letter of the law...don't be a Comey this time and change the verbiage of how she handle TS/SCI just to skirt the law.

3.  Investigate the laptop and Hold Hunter and the "Big Guy" to the letter of the law.

Stop the Wahtaboutism mantra and just agree all need to be held accountable...it is not rocket surgery.

[nsplayr]

You can hold everyone accountable, that’s fine.

Where we disagree maybe is that I’m not a fan of going back years to re-litigate cases where no charges were brought. How far back do you go? To what end?

”Go back and run that bitch through the same ringer” is not a sound legal theory for equal justice under the law. And FWIW I don’t want to “run Trump through the ringer,” I want the law applied and the investigation to be thorough, no more and no less.

If Hunter’s case is still pending, by all means investigate that to a logical conclusion.

We agree that Hillary’s case wasn’t handled well, great. It is not defensible to have TS/SCI on her server, I haven’t defended that, nor is it defensible for Trump to have similarly classified docs (marked as such) in a random closet at his Florida golf club. Trump’s case is being investigated right now, let’s have the DOJ handle the case correctly.

[ClearedHot]

52 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Where we disagree maybe is that I’m not a fan of going back years to re-litigate cases where no charges were brought. How far back do you go? To what end?

Normally I would say go back to the statue of limitations like you would for any crime but the federal statue of limitations for mishandling classified is shockingly only 5 years.  Regardless, with Hillary and her actions we should go back and make sure she and the people around her who knowingly put TS/SCI on a private server never have classified access or government employment again.

To what end...that's easy...The end would be justice.

Equally applying to the law to everyone regardless of political party or elite status, but that's just me.

[nsplayr]

So you want to go beyond the stature of limitations in a case where the DOJ decided not to files charges…for political reasons? That doesn’t seem like the right idea. That is politicizing the DOJ.

I agree what Hillary did was wrong, and so did the FBI, and if appropriate charges would have been filed at the time I wouldn’t have been mad about it necessarily. But I mean listen to what you’re advocating for: an explicitly politically-driven reprisal investigation with the pretext that it must end in charges & I’m assuming conviction, all after the statute of limitations has passed.

I vote no for that and that the FBI instead focus their time and effort on current investigations for potential crimes within the statute of limitations. Like former President Trump having boxes of TS/SCI docs at his Florida golf club 18 months after leaving office. Seems indefensible to me at least.

[brabus]

17 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

…for political reasons?

He explicitly stated his desire to apply the law in the same manner across the board, without prejudice to political party affiliation. That’s exactly the opposite of “political reasons.” You’re not this dense, stop throwing straw man bullshit at the wall and hoping it’ll stick.

Are you for or against cases being revisited and subsequent charges being filed many years down the road, e.g. a 40 yr old murder? Since Hillary wasn’t charged, there is no double jeopardy issue here. How is revisiting her with the SAME scrutiny as Trump (or anybody else for that matter), and potentially bringing up charges in the future any different in the grand scheme of things? Why do you view that as a bad thing?

 

[Prozac]

11 minutes ago, brabus said:

He explicitly stated his desire to apply the law in the same manner across the board, without prejudice to political party affiliation. That’s exactly the opposite of “political reasons.” You’re not this dense, stop throwing straw man bullshit at the wall and hoping it’ll stick.

Are you for or against cases being revisited and subsequent charges being filed many years down the road, e.g. a 40 yr old murder? Since Hillary wasn’t charged, there is no double jeopardy issue here. How is revisiting her with the SAME scrutiny as Trump (or anybody else for that matter), and potentially bringing up charges in the future any different in the grand scheme of things? Why do you view that as a bad thing?

 

There’s a statute of limitations with different timelines for different crimes for a reason. Murder is really bad. Mishandling classified is also bad, but less so. Kinda makes sense dontcha think? Litigating a crime (that has already been investigated by the FBI) outside the statute of limitations ain’t gonna happen, no matter how hard some stomp up and down. Sorry. 
 

This “woe is me, life is SO unfair for conservatives” attitude is hilarious. Think about it. In the last decade Republicans have gerrymandered the shit out of just about every district that matters, denied a Democratic administration a Supreme Court pick, elected the guy from ‘Home Alone’ (the second one, right?) president, made a couple VERY conservative additions to the USSC (which will have a drastic and lasting impact on generations of Americans), built “the wall”, had some really fun rallies, created a whole spectrum of conservative media to browbeat the left with, witnessed Mitch McConnell continue to live despite being apparently 130 years old, and the list goes on and on. Republicans have been winning for a while now.
 

But it’s just so darned UNFAIR that President Trump doesn’t get to keep classified in his house years after leaving office. Cry me a river. Lock Him Up. 

[Standby]

35 minutes ago, Prozac said:

There’s a statute of limitations with different timelines for different crimes for a reason. Murder is really bad. Mishandling classified is also bad, but less so. Kinda makes sense dontcha think?

Lmao. So you are saying that mishandling classified is a lesser offense than murder? If I released the names of case officers who were subsequently murdered…where does that fall in your spectrum of justice? If a critical capability was leaked to an adversary and then resulted in the deaths of thousands of service members…how does that compare to a single murder?

I realize you probably didn’t mean that leaks of “just secret material” is not equivalent to murder. That being said, I’m also sure you don’t mean that equitable levels of scrutiny and punishment be applied to all offenders. Hypocrites everywhere these days. 

Edited August 25, 2022 by Standby

[nsplayr]

58 minutes ago, brabus said:

He explicitly stated his desire to apply the law in the same manner across the board, without prejudice to political party affiliation. That’s exactly the opposite of “political reasons.” You’re not this dense, stop throwing straw man bullshit at the wall and hoping it’ll stick.

Are you for or against cases being revisited and subsequent charges being filed many years down the road, e.g. a 40 yr old murder? Since Hillary wasn’t charged, there is no double jeopardy issue here. How is revisiting her with the SAME scrutiny as Trump (or anybody else for that matter), and potentially bringing up charges in the future any different in the grand scheme of things? Why do you view that as a bad thing?

 

I guess it seems political because it specifically targets Hillary alone. Are we going to investigate Bill for financial stuff? How amount GWB and Cheney over Abu Ghraib and GITMO? Should we investigate and charge Henry Kissinger?

I say no to all. Primarily because the statute of limitations has passed. And yes, those statutes are different for different crimes for a reason.

I am a fan of holding “elites” to the same laws and standards as us normies, let’s do that starting right now.

If some NEW lawbreaking pops up, like having a bunch of boxes of TS/SCI in your golf club, let’s spend our time there.

[nsplayr]

4 minutes ago, Standby said:

So you are saying that mishandling classified is a lesser offense than murder?

Ummmm…yes, absolutely I am saying this.

[Prozac]

14 minutes ago, Standby said:

Lmao. So you are saying that mishandling classified is a lesser offense than murder? If I released the names of case officers who were subsequently murdered…where does that fall in your spectrum of justice? If a critical capability was leaked to an adversary and then resulted in the deaths of thousands of service members…how does that compare to a single murder?

I realize you probably didn’t mean that leaks of “just secret material” is not equivalent to murder. That being said, I’m also sure you don’t mean that equitable levels of scrutiny and punishment be applied to all offenders. Hypocrites everywhere these days. 

Yes. Murder is worse than mishandling classified. Are you suggesting they’re equivalent offenses? Should we execute or imprison for life every airman or soldier who misplaces a document? That’s a bit over the top, no? Even if you do think that kind of punishment is appropriate, I think you might also find the DOJ and every court in the land disagrees with your assertion. Yikes man. Hope you’re not in charge of anyone. 😬

[Sua Sponte]

38 minutes ago, Standby said:

Lmao. So you are saying that mishandling classified is a lesser offense than murder? If I released the names of case officers who were subsequently murdered…where does that fall in your spectrum of justice? If a critical capability was leaked to an adversary and then resulted in the deaths of thousands of service members…how does that compare to a single murder?

I realize you probably didn’t mean that leaks of “just secret material” is not equivalent to murder. That being said, I’m also sure you don’t mean that equitable levels of scrutiny and punishment be applied to all offenders. Hypocrites everywhere these days. 

What planet do you live on where someone intentionally ending someone's life and mishandling classified information are weighted the same in the eyes of federal law?

[Standby]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

What planet do you live on where someone intentionally ending someone's life and mishandling classified information are weighted the same in the eyes of federal law?

The world where classified isn’t just an ATO with standard load outs in a permissive environment dubbed the worlds largest live fire range. The world where US case officers have been executed as a result of leaked classified. In this scenario, you are essentially saying that the person who hired the hitman is less culpable than the person who actually committed the act.

If you don’t understand, there isn’t much more I can say to convince you otherwise. Providing the name and location of a member of our intelligence community is equivalent to a death sentence in certain parts of the world…yet this somehow isn’t equivalent?

Edit…the difference between murder and being a hero just depends on the side of the fence you stand behind. I’m quite certain AQ feels we murdered Bin Laden. Americans likely feel differently. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Standby

[Standby]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Yes. Murder is worse than mishandling classified. Are you suggesting they’re equivalent offenses? Should we execute or imprison for life every airman or soldier who misplaces a document? That’s a bit over the top, no? Even if you do think that kind of punishment is appropriate, I think you might also find the DOJ and every court in the land disagrees with your assertion. Yikes man. Hope you’re not in charge of anyone. 😬

Being negligent with confidential isn’t the same as selling/leaking national treasures in the form of nuclear material or HUMINT case officers. If some shitbag decided to sell our plans for an operational NGAD (if it existed…right?) to the Chinese, where does that rank against some crackhead who stabbed another crackhead for a poncho?

[nsplayr]

Whelp, if I ever need the exact opposite of a lawyer, I now know who to call! 😄

[Lawman]

Whelp, if I ever need the exact opposite of a lawyer, I now know who to call!

You and others might have a leg to stand on as far as the “ignore the past and let’s do the right thing!” tack had the whole shut our eyes and pretend it didn’t happen gone way outside of just Hillary Clinton.

Her entire inner circle and everybody on her staff was negligent and should have lost their clearances immediately following the revelations of what happened. Instead it was a meme joke to the left with “buttery males” while nobody connected to that shit show lost a clearance. You could still look them up in JPAS. Likewise, nobody is calling for Trumps staffers to face any kind of punishment just that they want him jailed like he was sitting in his room tweeting off cell phone pictures of papers from SAPs and STO stuff.

The problem with suddenly pretending to be concerned now is that it’s intellectually dishonest to argue that conviction when we’ve seen just how far it will go ignored to not punish anybody on a political side, not just the key Target political bullseye in Clinton or Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sim]

 

Absolutely nothing political when FBI asks Facebook to sensor Laptop story. Nothing political at all. Nope. 🙄

 

[Day Man]

that's not at all what zuck said...and its 'censor'.

ETA: disregard: I googled posobiec and didn't realize it was troll shit. my bad.

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Day Man

[Prozac]

4 hours ago, Standby said:

The world where classified isn’t just an ATO with standard load outs in a permissive environment dubbed the worlds largest live fire range. The world where US case officers have been executed as a result of leaked classified. In this scenario, you are essentially saying that the person who hired the hitman is less culpable than the person who actually committed the act.

If you don’t understand, there isn’t much more I can say to convince you otherwise. Providing the name and location of a member of our intelligence community is equivalent to a death sentence in certain parts of the world…yet this somehow isn’t equivalent?

Edit…the difference between murder and being a hero just depends on the side of the fence you stand behind. I’m quite certain AQ feels we murdered Bin Laden. Americans likely feel differently. 

Ok Col Jessup. 

[dream big]

10 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I guess it seems political because it specifically targets Hillary alone. Are we going to investigate Bill for financial stuff? How amount GWB and Cheney over Abu Ghraib and GITMO? Should we investigate and charge Henry Kissinger?

I say no to all. Primarily because the statute of limitations has passed. And yes, those statutes are different for different crimes for a reason.

I am a fan of holding “elites” to the same laws and standards as us normies, let’s do that starting right now.

If some NEW lawbreaking pops up, like having a bunch of boxes of TS/SCI in your golf club, let’s spend our time there.

I say yes to all, “drain the swamp” and if Trump goes with the drain so be it. 

[Sua Sponte]

11 hours ago, Standby said:

The world where classified isn’t just an ATO with standard load outs in a permissive environment dubbed the worlds largest live fire range. The world where US case officers have been executed as a result of leaked classified. In this scenario, you are essentially saying that the person who hired the hitman is less culpable than the person who actually committed the act.

If you don’t understand, there isn’t much more I can say to convince you otherwise. Providing the name and location of a member of our intelligence community is equivalent to a death sentence in certain parts of the world…yet this somehow isn’t equivalent?

Edit…the difference between murder and being a hero just depends on the side of the fence you stand behind. I’m quite certain AQ feels we murdered Bin Laden. Americans likely feel differently. 

A large part of your theory is someone using some abstract interpretation of intent. I guess the next time you’re caught speeding the cop can just arrest you, and the DA charge you, for attempted murder since there was no reason for you to speed. You were also speeding in a vehicle weighing thousands of pounds and you could’ve killed someone had you hit them.

[Boomer6]

Why is it that when stories like the Twitter post above (assuming it’s true), the Hunter Biden Laptop saga, or HRC’s emails come up there are a large number of conservatives on here up in arms over it, while we have what seems like crickets from the liberal side? Then when the HRC investigation concluded we have the liberals clamoring to defend Comey when they know they’d be in jail if they’d done what HRC did. Liberals loving law enforcement, that’s neat. Meanwhile we have the thin blue line bumpers sticker republicans ready to abolish the FBI.
 

There’s a lot of arguing back and forth going on, but somehow I don’t see a lot of staunch conservatives ever really agreeing with any liberals on any of these topics or any of the other ones for the last decade. Can’t say I’ve seen any staunch liberals ever take the conservative side on any of these discussions either. The prominent members on either side of the fence have been arguing since Rainman left. Turns out the political threads are a waste of time. Liberals and Conservatives disagree on everything, and in other news water is wet.
 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Boomer6
words are hard

[tac airlifter]

30 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

Turns out the political threads are a waste of time. Liberals and Conservatives disagree on everything..

I think the vast majority of readers on this site agree with you.  We have a lot in common here and I wager 99% of us could fly missions together, do well, and like each other afterwards. I like everybody I work with.  
Which is why I am interested in these threads: I’m not talking to Internet trolls (we do a good job identifying those types), I’m talking to people with a shared background and reasoning abilities.  I’m morbidly curious to understand how somebody like nsplayr, who is a warrior I know, could willingly embrace cognitive dissonance. He’s probably wondering the same about me!

Despite disagreeing with each other, we have to find a way to live together. The alternative is shitty governments and corruption and tribalism like all of the places we deploy to.  Or civil war.  This is a hyper polarized time, and there are real consequences to our nation if half of them simply cannot stand to live with the other half. And I don’t want that, I love our country.  So despite frustrating comms, which I frequently tap out of early, I do think there’s value in the discussion.  And why censorship is anti-American and those who censor must be rejected.

Edited August 26, 2022 by tac airlifter

[Swizzle]

14 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

... I do think there’s value in the discussion.  And why censorship is anti-American and those who censor must be rejected.

There is a reason the 1st Amendment basically encourages discourse in all non-violent forms...its this - keep the discussion open and going, also your natural inclination; its a means to address grievances (literally written). 

The moment someone censors the political discourse unjustly, unnecessarily the whole should/can-reasonably-address-grievances-thing falls apart. Thus, politics via other means as a last resort.

We are on this cusp of too much censorship. And in some ways, already past the edge. To me, this is what makes the unsealing of documents so interesting, revealing the reasoning and justification behind action and/or inaction when action is warranted.