The White House used a private server hosted at the RNC. They used a private domain - gwb43.com - for reasons of privacy. They sent sensitive information through this server, information used by the White House. That would be the Office of the President of the United States of America. When pressed, they deleted 22,000,000 documents. Is this sounding familiar at this point? No charges there either. I would hope that the fact the White House used a private server, and deleted 22,000,000 emails, so how seems a little more egregious than what has happened at the State Department? Neither are right, but the fact of the matter is there was no law that made it illegal, which is why the FBI failed to lay charges in either incident. Until the rules were changed there was no foul. Is this the final .45 round to be fired into this horse?
Finally, why Trump shouldn't, and wouldn't, be in this race, if the media only found the sack to press him on his policy flip flops and his lies. They talk tough in print and after the fact, but they never hit him while he's in the act of lying to their own faces.
Neither are right, but the fact of the matter is there was no law that made it illegal, which is why the FBI failed to lay charges in either incident. Until the rules were changed there was no foul. Is this the final .45 round to be fired into this horse?
Not in my eyes.
Bush, Gonzalez, the firing of the AGs, and the subsequent cover up were detestable and criminal activities.
The fact that they were not prosecuted by the FBI only serves to buttress my claim that the FBI doesn't prosecute cabinet level officials unless they are absolutely compelled to do so.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
If it looks like tax fraud, and it sounds like tax fraud....
Quote:
Donald Trump’s charitable foundation has received approximately $2.3 million from companies that owed money to Trump or one of his businesses but were instructed to pay Trump’s tax-exempt foundation instead, according to people familiar with the transactions.
In cases where he diverted his own income to his foundation, tax experts said, Trump would still likely be required to pay taxes on the income. Trump has refused to release his personal tax returns. His campaign said he paid income tax on one of the donations, but did not respond to questions about the others.
That gift was a $400,000 payment from Comedy Central, which owed Trump an appearance fee for his 2011 “roast.”
Then there were payments totaling nearly $1.9 million from a man in New York City who sells sought-after tickets and one-of-a-kind experiences to wealthy clients.
That man, Richard Ebers, bought goods and services — including tickets — from Trump or his businesses, according to two people familiar with the transactions, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the payments. They said that Ebers was instructed to pay the Donald J. Trump Foundation instead. Ebers did not respond to requests for comment.
The gifts begin to answer one of the mysteries surrounding the foundation: Why would other people continue giving to Trump’s charity when Trump himself gave his last recorded donation in 2008?
The donations from Ebers and Comedy Central, which account for half the money given to the Trump Foundation since 2008, also provide new evidence of the Trump Foundation’s ties to Trump’s business empire.
Did Trump, in fact, pay income tax in the cases where he directed his own fees to the Trump Foundation?
The first time The Washington Post asked, Trump’s campaign denied that any of the transactions had taken place.
“He’s never directed fees to the foundation,” said Boris Epshteyn, a senior adviser to Trump, who responded on the campaign’s behalf in a phone interview on Saturday. Epshteyn said that what Trump did was provide a service, renounce any fees, and then merely suggest that the other party make a donation to a charity of their choosing.
“He’s waived fees from time to time,” Epshteyn said. “He’s never directed it to a specific charity.”
The Post later presented Epshteyn with the Comedy Central and Ebers examples during the same interview. Epshteyn acknowledged the Comedy Central case had occurred but refused to comment on the others.
“To my knowledge, Mr. Trump has followed all applicable rules and regulations,” Epshteyn wrote in an email Sunday after being presented with The Post’s reporting on the donations from Ebers. “The rest is pure speculation and worthless conjecture on your part.”
Charges will never be brought, regardless of the magnitude of mockery made of the US code, because shes simply too important. Too connected, too big, too much cachet to be indicted. Eric Holder would agree.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
Oh and just to let Buster know if he still passes thru Dilbert has finally admitted he's voting for Trump. I mean we all knew he was for a while now, but credit I guess for finally admitting the obvious (his horse#### excuse: estate taxes)
The guys from the Keepin' it 1600 podcast are doing a live broadcast of the debate. They're obviously slanted being former Obama staffers but they are hilarious IMO, have Republicans on, and usually have interesting insights into what's going on behind the scenes and neat anecdotes of the 2008 and 2012 campaigns. Entertaining.
Bush, Gonzalez, the firing of the AGs, and the subsequent cover up were detestable and criminal activities.
The fact that they were not prosecuted by the FBI only serves to buttress my claim that the FBI doesn't prosecute cabinet level officials unless they are absolutely compelled to do so.
But that is the thing. Your eyes don't matter. You are not the law, you don't understand the law, nor the technologies in question. The FBI knows the law and has to build a case based on what they can prove. They has some of the best computer forensic scientists on the planet in their employ and they are extremely efficient at recovering data and rebuilding the audit trail to prove exactly what transpired on a system and when. If they cannot find evidence of a crime, charges to be laid against anyone, then there is nothing with substance there.
That is the way the American, and Canadian, judicial systems work. You can only lay a criminal charge if you have enough evidence to support the charge. And don't think for a second the FBI didn't dig deep and try to find some evidence of wrong doing. All of the immunity they provided, limited or not, couldn't develop enough evidence to support a charge as well. I would hope you can understand this is the way we hope our law enforcement and judicial systems work so the innocent are not railroaded into trumped up charges (oh the irony of that term).
The one thing that separates the common man and the likes of Clinton, Bush, Trump, etc, is the number of high priced lawyers they have to represent them. Again, knowing the law is crucial in any defense, and money does allow for the best defense possible. Like it or not, that is part of the process.
