Hillary Asks China To Hack IRS !!!!

[columbus]

Please explain the difference between his treason & hers.

His happened and her's didn't.
Tom

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What Trump tweets or says is often reprehensible.

With the economy soaring to record highs, stock market at record highs, employment at record highs, unemployment at record lows, pay increases rising, I have concluded that what he says is completely separate from what his administration accomplishes.

I will accept the nonsense for the positive benefits. Remember, obammy said we would have to accept 2% growth as the highest we could expect, in perpetuity.

Demonstrate a causal link between the administration and the cited claims and I'll happily concede the point. However;

The economy and the stock market doing well doesn't translate as good news for people who don't have investments, and bearing in mind that to be considered employed only needs an hour of work a week, I think I'd look askance at those figures. How many people are forced to work a second job? How many people have materially benefited directly from the Trump administration? How many have materially suffered?

Does misspelling and not capitalising Obama's name help your case, do you think?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The point is, she was so flagrantly out of policy, and her system so easily hacked, we may never know what harm she caused.

Opening the gate, as she did, to possibly allow other governments in, is harm in itself.

But she is safe, her crimes will go unpunished, because the political hierarchy protects their own, regardless of party.

So no actual harm then. Understood.

 

[sealchan]

Everything Trump says is a joke...that is his endless out for criticism. He has no verbal integrity at all.

Trump, therefore, is a joke.

 

[shmogie]

That's comparing oranges to apples.

You're right, they were wrong and I'll agree with that. But would you like to start a new thread on that?

No need for a new thread.

Politicians should be taken in totality, not a piece here or a piece there.

She said what she said as an acerbic joke, just as Trump did.

Since she insured that the emails she deleted could never be recovered, his statement could not be taken as a genuine request, it was a joke.

 

[shmogie]

So no actual harm then. Understood.

No known harm fron Trumps joke about emails, or hers

 

[suncowiam]

Yes, by creating a "what if" scenario around an old false narrative that just happened to pop up again in the relatively short lead up to the 2020 election I'd say it was attempt to dog-whistle a distant memory in the public's mind to refreshen it- a trigger if you wish to possibly help the democrats.



In Trumps case it was a reaction/joke against those that claimed he was working with Russia right before the election, so yes in a way it was partisan in the sense he was reacting to a dubious claim.
Adding to that other fear based claims if Trump won in 2016:
Trump will put Muslims in concentration camps
Trump will start a Nuclear war
It will be open season on black people



That is the narrative at least

I can agree with some of what you suggested, but the course of resulting actions did in fact happen.

"Ignorance is not blessed." Some actions can still be wrong and punishable, even in jest.

"Now we know." So we should know that even jestful candor should be cautioned against.

 

[Sanzbir]

... didn't the returns already leak?? I've seen the returns already, they were broadcast on the news. Did I slip dimensions again?? Did it not leak in your timeline??

 

[Father Heathen]

Something fun in the news....
Hillary Clinton suggests scenario in which Democrat asks China to hack IRS for Trump's tax returns - CNNPolitics


This post is for people who believe Trump openly asked the Russians to hack her emails.
Please explain the difference between his treason & hers.

None.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No known harm fron Trumps joke about emails, or hers

If you don't count Russia's actions against your country, sure, I guess.

 

[Stanyon]

but the course of resulting actions did in fact happen.
"Ignorance is not blessed." Some actions can still be wrong and punishable, even in jest.
"Now we know." So we should know that even jestful candor should be cautioned against.

I assume (rightly or wrongly) you meant the Russians hacked her emails just five hours after Trump made the joke, if that is the case this is my reply:

Do you find anything wrong about the timing, Trump says something and then all of a sudden "Russian hackers" respond within hours? Were they just waiting around for orders from Trump OR is it possible that the emails were leaked instead of hacked from within the DNC itself by someone or someones angry at Hillary because of her treatment of Bernie Sanders ?

If you listen to the Ray McGovern video below you will find it seems that he is not a Trump supporter and even suggests that Trump might be impeached on something other than non-existent collusion.


Ray McGovern 27 year C.I.A. veteran and co-founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) on Russia- gate

Ray McGovern - Wikipedia

Ray McGover on RT news from Jan, 2019 Starts @14:25, interesting piece on Pelosi and impeachment :

From April 22, 2019:
Pelosi To Democratic Colleagues: This Is Why We Can't Impeach Trump

John Bonifield, CNN supervising producer from 2017:

 

[Revoltingest]

The other context here, although you might disagree with this, is that she wouldn't have asked for China's help in any other situation. It is specifically to illustrate the harm of Trump's actions. That is the difference between her actions and Trump's.

So Trump & Hillary do the same thing (but for different hacker countries),
but you know Trump was serious & Hillary was wasn't. How is this known?

 

[Revoltingest]

His happened and her's didn't.
Tom

Did you not understand the article? It was a hypothetical that she proposed for a candidate to show how wrong what Trump did. She did not actually suggest such an action.

You misread the article you linked to. She was making a point you seemed to have missed. Her point is that there is no difference between her hypothetical and Trump's actions.

I think Trump purposefully makes it ambiguous whether he is serious or not. He speaks in order to cause offense rather than to avoid it.

These posts wonderfully illustrate how partisan politics determines
how people judge whether a politicians is serious or facetious when
stating something which is superficially wrongful.

 

[shmogie]

If you don't count Russia's actions against your country, sure, I guess.

You think a joke converts into russian nefarious activity ?

They certainly have been doing whatever they can to disrupt the country, and have succeeded somewhat with the connivance of the democrats, but I think a joke from either of them means nothing.

I am pretty sure that the russians have targeted your country as well.

The new normal for them.

They want to be a big player in the world, but their economy is tiny compared to ours. If they didn´t have nukes, they would be totally irrelevant.

 

[shmogie]

These posts wonderfully illustrate how partisan politics determines
how people judge whether a politicians is serious or facetious when
stating something which is superficially wrongful.

The guy you responded to here must be psychic. He knows hillary posited a hypothetical ( she didn´t say so ) and apparently Trumps joke was an ¨action¨.

LOL, that is more spin than on a big league curve ball.

 

[Revoltingest]

The guy you responded to here must be psychic. He knows hillary posited a hypothetical ( she didn´t say so ) and apparently Trumps joke was an ¨action¨.

LOL, that is more spin than on a big league curve ball.

I find it odd that people cannot stand outside of themselves,
& look at their own thought processes. What they'd see....

Trump said something. He is worse than Hitler, and so
I will see how it can be viewed in the worst possible way.
Hillary said something. She is a Democrat, & they're good, so
I will see how it can be viewed in the best possible way.
Yes....this is all true because it's factual.

 

[sun rise]

I assume those who are drawing equivalences have studied the entire redacted Mueller report and compared it to a similar report about her.

I thought so.

The point is ethically and morally, no one should be asking other countries to do illegal activities even in jest.

I do agree with this.

 

[sealchan]

These posts wonderfully illustrate how partisan politics determines
how people judge whether a politicians is serious or facetious when
stating something which is superficially wrongful.

I think Trump purposefully makes it ambiguous whether he is serious or not. He speaks in order to cause offense rather than to avoid it.

 

[sealchan]

I find it odd that people cannot stand outside of themselves,
& look at their own thought processes. What they'd see....

Trump said something. He is worse than Hitler, and so
I will see how it can be viewed in the worst possible way.
Hillary said something. She is a Democrat, & they're good, so
I will see how it can be viewed in the best possible way.
Yes....this is all true because it's factual.

It is no where near that simple. You are ignoring a great deal of highly relevant context.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is no where near that simple. You are ignoring a great deal of highly relevant context.

I made it simple for illustrative purposes.
But I've paid more attention to the thinking
processes of some than they have to themselves.