Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 1
…is that Biden pardons Trump and drops all the investigations.
When Trump takes office, he pardons Hunter and stops all of the Biden investigations.
It’s time to move forward. Productively.
No. of Recommendations: 9
When Trump takes office, he pardons Hunter and stops all of the Biden investigations.
It’s time to move forward. Productively.
Have you not been paying attention? Trump doesn't make peace offerings when he defeats people who have opposed him. He proceeds to crush them. He's very much a believer in the importance of dominance as a tool in business and in politics.
He doesn't need Biden's pardon, and probably doesn't want it. He gains nothing from pardoning Hunter, and so he won't do it.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Have you not been paying attention? Trump doesn't make peace offerings when he defeats people who have opposed him. He proceeds to crush them. He's very much a believer in the importance of dominance as a tool in business and in politics.
Think so, eh?
Tell me. How many years did Hillary! Clinton serve in prison?
It’s time to move forward, and Trump understands that.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Tell me. How many years did Hillary! Clinton serve in prison?
It’s time to move forward, and Trump understands that.
Clinton didn't serve any time in prison because she didn't commit a violation of a criminal statute that could be proven in a court of law. And I don't think Trump is going to have the DOJ prosecute Joe Biden, either.
That's very different than pardoning Hunter Biden. Hunter was convicted. It would take an affirmative step from Trump to grant a pardon. He's not going to do that. Again, he's not a "let's mend fences" kind of guy - and his supporters probably wouldn't like it if he pardoned Hunter.
If he needed a pardon from Biden, he might do it. But he doesn't need one, and probably doesn't want one. Nor would Biden do it, either - if he was going to do a legacy-killing pardon out the door, he'd just pardon Hunter himself, rather than Trump.
No. of Recommendations: 5
When Trump takes office, he pardons Hunter and stops all of the Biden investigations.
It’s time to move forward. Productively.
hahahahhahahahahhahaa. Oh, yeh, sure. That's the Trump we all know and love.
And the idea that Trump can govern 'productively'? Ludicrous. Oh, it will be a productive time...for his grifting. Wait and see. I hope I'm wrong, but I thought he would become a serious POTUS when he won in 2016. Nope.
No. of Recommendations: 0
…is that Biden pardons Trump and drops all the investigations.
When Trump takes office, he pardons Hunter and stops all of the Biden investigations.
It’s time to move forward. Productively.
****
100% in support and it is a great idea.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Think so, eh?
Tell me. How many years did Hillary! Clinton serve in prison?
***
Well Dope1 you tried, and even the *best* of the anti-trumpers can't get there.
Hillary didn't get investigated - Trump did.
Hillary didn't get eavesdropped on - Trump Towers did (as did Frau Merkel lol)
I really like this pardon Hunter idea. If Trump could get 3-4-5% buy-in from Dems on this issue or that, man he'd have it made.
No. of Recommendations: 7
…is that Biden pardons Trump and drops all the investigations.
When Trump takes office, he pardons Hunter and stops all of the Biden investigations.
Nope.
Let Trump pardon himself.
As far as Hunter goes, let him face the music..
In any event, Trump only pardons criminals who are in his corner. He’s never done anything “for the good of the country”, so why would he start now?
No. of Recommendations: 0
In any event, Trump only pardons criminals who are in his corner. He’s never done anything “for the good of the country”, so why would he start now?
****
YEP, keep showing Trump that no matter what he does, Club401K will rebuke him. Don't encourage him to compromise.
And then wonder why a Manhattan Liberal finds comfort in the arms of the fringe Right.
*sigh* I guess it's a SheepleSequel actually it's part what - W, W, Trump, Trump - wow it's Part 4 Taylor's version. Good god that last part feels gay.
No. of Recommendations: 2
YEP, keep showing Trump that no matter what he does, Club401K will rebuke him. Don't encourage him to compromise.
Been there.
Tried that.
Got our teeth kicked in.
When has Trump ever compromised about anything?
No. of Recommendations: 0
YEP, keep showing Trump that no matter what he does, Club401K will rebuke him. Don't encourage him to compromise.
"Been there.
Tried that.
Got our teeth kicked in.:
When was this? Over what topic or issue did you offer Trump support without him having to 100% go your way and abandon his?
(I've done it on ObamaCare with Barack Obama. I've done it on Infrastructure with Biden - publicly openly on all scores - just to name a few)
"When has Trump ever compromised about anything?"
He praised Planned Parenthood in front of a GOP Primary Audience with Ted Cruz hammering on it just for starters.
Jimmy Carter - if you think he's intelligent had said out of all the Repubs- Trump is malleable.
So - what topic did you openly offer trump support on? Was it immigration?
No. of Recommendations: 2
Clinton didn't serve any time in prison because she didn't commit a violation of a criminal statute that could be proven in a court of law. And I don't think Trump is going to have the DOJ prosecute Joe Biden, either.
That's your narrative. They had her dead to rights for both possessing and disseminating classified information, full stop. That the DOJ declined to pursue is not the same as saying she did nothing wrong.
The point is, Trump could have sicc'd the DOJ on her for whatever political reasons he wanted. That's what Lawfare is. It's time for it to stop, and the steps I outlined would help with that.
But if the democrats want to keep playing this game, they're not gonna like the new rules that go into effect on January 21, 2025.
Still want to play? I don't think you do.
No. of Recommendations: 9
That's your narrative. They had her dead to rights for both possessing and disseminating classified information, full stop. That the DOJ declined to pursue is not the same as saying she did nothing wrong.
Nor saying she did something wrong the same thing as saying she did something criminal.
There is no criminal prohibition against possessing classified information in an unsecure location. There is a criminal statute that prohibits removing classified information from a secure location - but there's no evidence that Clinton did that, since the information in question was in emails that were sent to her by other people. IOW, she received the information - she didn't remove it or disseminate it.
There's no criminal prohibition against mishandling classified information generally - there are instead specific statutes that make very specific actions involving classified information criminal. If you have clearance, don't actually remove the information yourself personally, and don't try to keep documents after the government asks for them back, it's actually very difficult to violate the criminal statutes relating to classified documents. Which again is the point you keep overlooking.
Which is why Trump could not have sic'd the DOJ on her. She didn't commit a crime. She might have broke the rules on handling classified information, but only the specific rules that are incorporated into the U.S. criminal code are prosecutable as crimes - and not all of them are.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Which is why Trump could not have sic'd the DOJ on her.
You're not seeing the forest for the trees. In fact, you've got your face pressed up against the bark.
In Lawfare, the political prosecution is the point. Not the "crime". The point is that Trump, despite having 4 years to do so, never launched the kind of coordinated campaign against his enemies that the left said he would.
Never did it.
And now that he's won again...he has zero incentive to do so now.
No. of Recommendations: 11
In Lawfare, the political prosecution is the point. Not the "crime". The point is that Trump, despite having 4 years to do so, never launched the kind of coordinated campaign against his enemies that the left said he would.
You can't launch a political prosecution unless you have a prima facie case that a crime was committed. The charges will be thrown out within a few days of filing. A grand jury will indict a ham sandwich, but if you don't have any prima facie case then a competent defense attorney will get the charges tossed pretty quickly.
The lack of indictment of Hillary Clinton isn't due to Trump's magnanimity. It's because she didn't commit a provable violation of a U.S. criminal statute.
No. of Recommendations: 3
You can't launch a political prosecution unless you have a prima facie case that a crime was committed.
And all those cases against Trump were on the solidest of solid legal footing, amirite?
It's because she didn't commit a provable violation of a U.S. criminal statute.
I'm not going to litigate this here with you. I know what the NDA's they sign say, and I know what they've done to lesser humans in the past. All of that was on the table for Herself...
...and Trump passed. He didn't have to.
And going forward, he could fry Hunter, Joe Biden, Biden's brother, whatever. He can do to the democrats what the democrats did to him: Try a bunch of them for FARA violations, throw people in jail for contempt of Congress, lying to Congress, all of it.
What I suggest here is to let bygones - you know - be...bygones. But if the democrats want to pretend there's still a war going on, they're not going to like the turf that it will be fought on.
No. of Recommendations: 10
And all those cases against Trump were on the solidest of solid legal footing, amirite?
Solid enough to pass a motion to dismiss, yes.
I'm not going to litigate this here with you. I know what the NDA's they sign say, and I know what they've done to lesser humans in the past. All of that was on the table for Herself...
No, it wasn't. Again, the difference between "lesser humans" and the Secretary of State is that there's almost nothing in the world that the Secretary doesn't have clearance to view and possess. The criminal laws governing classified information are easier for lower-level government employees to violate, because there's less that they're allowed to do with classified information. Once you get up to the highest levels of clearance, though, there's a very narrow universe of actual criminal statutes that you can actually break. Clinton didn't break any of those.
You don't want to litigate it, because in the past when we've discussed this you prefer to just ignore the details of the statutes and assume that if something was wrong (either in this case or in other contexts), it must therefore be criminally prosecutable against Clinton. That's simply not the case. Federal classification of information is mostly a creature of Executive Order (which constitutionally can't support a criminal case); only certain aspects of it were actually incorporated into the criminal code, and there's lots of things that break the rules that aren't actually crimes.
...and Trump passed. He didn't have to.
He did. There was nothing he could have done other than pass. Had he directed DOJ to bring charges, they would have been dismissed out of hand - and possibly resulted in sanctions against whatever AG filed them.
No. of Recommendations: 16
"That's your narrative. They had her dead to rights for both possessing and disseminating classified information, full stop." - Dope
Dope, do you remember when you brought this up many, many years ago just after Clinton was exonerated? You were obviously up in arms and thought the fix was in because your political masters told you to be up in arms by Hillary getting off with no criminal charges and you always do what your political masters tell you what to do. You even repeated a link to the law that Hilary supposedly violated. Like with many of your links, you obviously didn't read it (or comprehend it) because YOUR OWN LINK, said that intent had to be there for it to be a crime. A person has to knowingly and willingly possess classified information (or disseminate it). It said that clearly IN YOUR OWN link.
All of the classified information in Hilary Clinton's emails was there without her knowledge. It was all in emails that were sent to her without her knowledge that it might contain information that was classified. Any emails she forwarded (or replied to) she did so thinking they contained non-classified information. It was clear there was no intent.
Furthermore, it would have been easy for prosecutors to prove intent. All it would have taken was one of the thousands of people interviewed to testify that she asked them to send her classified information. They could have testified that she asked them to copy and paste information from the classified system into an email and send it to her. Any of them could have testified that they told her the information sent to her was classified.
Yet none of the thousands of people interviewed could do that.
If I send you classified information to you in an email without telling you it is classified, you cannot be prosecuted for possessing that information. Even if you forward that email on to your mother, you cannot be prosecuted. Intent has to be demonstrated and that couldn't be done.
This was explained to you in your own link, this could be explained by reading the FBI summary that was widely available in almost every news story about the topic at the time.
Yet you continue to ignore that simple fact. You do this because that seems to be the only way you can make arguments. To make the arguments you make, you have to be willing to ignore the obvious. It makes you look like an idiot by ignoring the obvious, but apparently you are ok with that.
Other facts that you always choose to ignore:
1. Most of the Bush administration used private email servers and not only did they use private email servers, it has been demonstrated that there was classified information on those servers. Every single Sec. of State under that served under Bush had classified information in their private emails. It was because it was the way the underlings at the State Department (the career, non-political underlings). The State Department has had a long history of being lax with classified information (it is in their nature). So it was not uncommon for career service people to cut and paste from a classified document to an email. So despite Hilary having done what every Secretary of State had done before her, you have never ever said anything about anyone else being prosecuted. In fact, during the Bush administration when it became public knowledge that most high level officials were using private emails, you defended the practice.
That is called a double standard.
2. Donald Trump was found in possession of hundreds of classified documents after he left office. Not only was he found with these hundreds of documents, but there are also people who are willing to testify under oath that they were asked by Trump to move the boxes containing the documents so that they wouldn't be found. That is a clear demonstration of intent. Yet you have never ever had any problem with that. It fact you have often defended it.
That makes you a hypocrite.
You are demonstrably willfully ignorant and a hypocrite. Do you really wonder why you have the poor reputation you have?
No. of Recommendations: 6
"That's your narrative. They had her dead to rights for both possessing and disseminating classified information, full stop." - Dope
How thick are you Dope? You've had this all thoroughly explained to you by albaby and others. My God man, you have truly drunk the koolaid.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Solid enough to pass a motion to dismiss, yes.
Really low bar, especially with some of the judges that were drawn.
You don't want to litigate it, because in the past when we've discussed this you prefer to just ignore the details of the statutes and assume that if something was wrong (either in this case or in other contexts), it must therefore be criminally prosecutable against Clinton.
No, I don't want to litigate it because it's a waste of my time. I've shown you the exact USC Hillary! violated and it's never enough.
You guys can live in the past and be consumed with this Holy Hell Of Revenge you think Trump is going to unleash on half the country. Or Something. That's not my concern, nor is it my problem.
No. of Recommendations: 9
I've shown you the exact USC Hillary! violated and it's never enough.It's not enough, because she didn't violate the statute you cited. Here's that thread again:
https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=466388707&wholeThre...As was pointed out to you several times in that thread, one of the required elements of committing that crime is
knowingly removing the document from where it is supposed to be. But Clinton was the
recipient of all of the emails containing classified information. It was sent to her, but
she wasn't the one who sent it to her private server - she was the one who received it. She
possessed it - but the statute doesn't criminalize possessing classified information on an unsecured server. It criminalizes
knowingly removing it.
When it was pointed out to you that she never did the
specific thing that the statute criminalizes, you pivoted to lots of other things she did wrong - and lots of reasons why what she did was wrong. But regardless of whether any of those other arguments you made are correct, doing wrong things and mishandling classified information
is not criminal unless it violates the specific provisions of a criminal statute. Which Clinton's conduct did not.
Albaby
No. of Recommendations: 2
I've shown you the exact USC Hillary! violated and it's never enough.
HDS: Hillary Derangement Syndrome
No. of Recommendations: 1
Umm....
Just wanted to say - like 2004 and 2016 --- *really* appreciate your help in 2024. You helped Trump and I thank you.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Umm....
Just wanted to say - like 2004 and 2016 --- *really* appreciate your help in 2024. You helped Trump and I thank you.
Once a pet, always a pet. I own him. And a number of others. I do feel guilty about it sometimes.
Okay, I lied there. I never feel bad about owning libs.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Okay, I lied there. I never feel bad about owning libs.
****
Hey, you're just owning a few here and there.
While for generations they own MILLIONS from Detroit to Baltimore to Philly to South Central.
And you aren't purposely grooming them to fail, be jailed,d be killed or kill or snort and to perpetuate the cycle via generational bad culture promotion.
What you are doing - is for leisure :)
They play for keeps with the most vulnerable in our country.
