Are you saying that horrendous pedophile scumbags don't get defense attorneys? When someone leaves the US Attorney's Office they are allowed to join a defense firm. Goldberger had a big firm and was representing Bill Clinton and Donald Trump's pedophile buddy Epstein. Reinhard joined that firm. There is a required recusal period, but I suppose that period had expired because if I remember correctly the US Attorney's Office had previously recused itself. That recusal was awful IMO.
Trumps Florida Home Raided by the FBI
- Thread starter BoilerJS
- Start date
Powell did not have his own server and was just using phone lines for some, but not all business.Sorry, my sarcasm radar isn't working today. So just in case you are serious,
Colin Powell told Clinton he bypassed official servers to email foreign leaders
Former secretary emailed ‘without going through State Department’ and old email exchange shows Republican dismissed some security restrictionswww.theguardian.com
and
Colin Powell defends personal email use
Powell appeared proud that he had defied security officials by using handheld devices in the agency's secure spaces.www.politico.com
Seems like to me back then, the guidance wasn't as strict, and folks basically just ignore them.
The cyber situation was drastically different by the time hc took over state. She even cut a public service announcement for state employees warning them to be sure to follow state dept protocols re emails.
Per you instructions, I am calling you out as a hypocrite if you do not acknowledge the difference.
I didn't say that. I asked you if you think his pre-eminence was why Epstein hired Reinhard as soon as the Florida trial was over?
Correction: per the Beacon, apparently before the trial was over:
While the terms of that deal were being finalized in late 2007, Reinhart opened a limited liability company in Florida listed at the same address used by Epstein's lead attorney, Jack Goldberger. Reinhart resigned from the U.S. Attorney's office on Jan. 1, 2008.
Your witty screen name absolutely sums up you.
Who is "his pre-eminence?' Trump, Reinhard? Not trying to be snarky - don't understand who you're referring to with that. Is that a nickname for someone or are you saying that Reinhard had Epstein case knowledge?
I would venture that Goldberger's firm wanted Reinhard because Reinhard is a very experienced, talented attorney, and because Reinhard was well-versed in the issues that Epstein faced.
Thanks for your service, but unfortunately, I think you are once again misguided.
I never defend Hillary. By the time she took office, the use of email and the scrutiny of it has increased from the Powell's days. She was using Powell as an excuse. If you go back to my post, I was saying Hillary has the Powell excuse (even if it's just an excuse). So what's Ivanka's and Kushner's? They should CLEARLY know it is a violation to use their personal email to conduct government business. The "I am just incredibly stupid and not aware even though my dad was b!tching about HRC on this everyday" excuse?
You understood. You are the one who called Reinhard pre-eminent.
Is that your best guess?
If the Trump kids were part of the Cabinet, there is literally no difference whatsoever. If the Trump kids are just Trump kids, yes, I am aware of the difference.
In no way did I condone what HRC did. As I have said countless times, it was the straw that broke the camel’s back in terms of my willingness to trust her at all.
And again, that the Democrats have people who have done it in the past doesn’t excuse it in any way. The standard is the same, and if what Is alleged here about Trump is true, it is FAR worse than Hillary’s emails, because HRC as SOS wouldn’t have access to that level (SAP) information about nuclear weapons.
Oh crap; I meant to say "prominent." But yes, off the top of my head I would expect that Goldberger hired him because he was talented, experienced, and knew what Epstein was up against. Don't you think?
As an IU fan I do think most everything about Purdue sucks, especially your sports programs. With that being said I have respect for Purdue's academic reputation and tradition and that is why I post on this broad to discuss and debate with supposedly smart people.
Last edited:
Odd hypothetical since that is against the Federal Anti-Nepotism Statute. This reflects your general confusion on matters related to politics.
Want to try again?
It’s not a federal crime to do govt business on private e-mail. It would be a federal crime to knowingly and willfully do so with classified information, and the severity would depend on the classification.
But you need evidence……
I bet you also believe Brandon didn't know anything about Hunter's business dealings, even the ones arranged while flying around on AF2, right?
Obviously they weren’t appointed, but they attended cabinet meetings, did they not as his advisors? They were certainly privy to executive level information which would make it absolutely equivalent.
Are you confused again? You are trying to answer a question posted to chuckpig, while ducking the one posted to you.
Apologize for my post immediately above.
You have evidence for your second sentence, or are you just backpedaling again?
Nope, people have been complaining about Ivanka's and Kushner's role in the WH. Kushner handled foreign policy for Trump, and Ivanka was a federal employee in the White House. Basically, all the Saudi princes knew that they can get to Trump via Kushner, without bothering to deal with the SoS. I suppose it reflects more about your general confusion on matters related to politics.
Can you see you directly contradicted yourself between sentences one and two?
Or should I ask chuckpig to explain it to you?
Nope it is not against the the Federal Anti-Nep Statute, or nope, the Trump kids were in the cabinet?
I am going to have to take back my offer to the nitwit who contracted himself and refer him to bni, who can do a better job of explaining it than you can.
Oh lord. You're not being insulting or rude to me, but I'm not going down the political insult-fest whattaboutism rabbit hole with you or anyone else on Trump, Biden, or anyone else.
I weighed into this thread because I thought you guys might want to intelligently discuss the legal process associated with a federal search warrant. As soon as you asked my how I feel about any political issue I should have run away screaming from the thread and I didn't - my bad. While I won't 'run away screaming', I also won't go down that rabbit hole and I am done with the thread.
Ivanka Trump - Adviser to the President, office in the west wing
Jared Kushner - Assistant to the President and Senior Adviser, routinely joined meetings with the President and foreign officials.
Want me to keep going, or can I stop wasting my time?
He didn’t, though, and I would’ve thought that you, as our resident semantics critic, would be more careful than this.
You came over here instead of discussing with Coach Geese, the witty purduesucksbad, and all the other Rev Coach Leo acolytes?
I don't blame you.
You didn't address your second sentence. "They were certainly privy to executive level information which would make it absolutely equivalent."
Do you have any evidence to back that up, or just popping off again.
You just need to ignore those insulting posters. They didn't know they are such a clown show, and it speaks more about them than you.
I think your value and contribution in this thread, on this particular topic, with your knowledge and expertise, far exceeds those distractors who bring nothing insightful to the discussion (maybe even negative value). For that, I thank you.
Yes. They were both appointed titles Adviser to the President. The President is the Chief Executive of the country. If they are his advisers, they are privy to executive-level information... unless your assertion is that the Advisers to the President do not speak to the President.
Is that your assertion?
To be clear, YOU made the claim that sentences were contradictory, so that's a burden of proof that you have adopted, not me. It just so happens that your claim is not supported by the evidence.
The root of the argument is that gr8 believes Ivanka / Kushner should be held to the same standard as HRC, because of their position to access sensitive information. They are arguably closer to the President and more influence on his foreign policy than the SoS. Your attempt to muddy the water with the Anti-Nep Statute or Cabinet doesn't change the fact of the close ties. You have been critical of Hunter Biden, but he is neither a politician, a White House employee, a Cabinet member, or have any official role to influence government policy. Shall we hold the same standard to Trump's daughter and son-in-law? Should they be held to a higher standard because they do have a role in foreign policies and are WH employee?
That'll be great if you can leave me out of it. I have no idea why you feel the need to loop me into your childish game, and I have absolutely no interest in being a part of it.
Do you have any idea why you feel the need to explain things for gr8nt - or are you just completely out of ideas?
To be clear, I made the claim to the IU nitwit, who apparently understood it well enough to slink back to the leoosier site.
To be further clear, YOU made the claim that what I said to the nitwit was not correct. Are you backpedaling now from the burden of proof you have adopted?
I'm fully aware of the poster to whom you made your claim. I'm not sure of the relevance of this statement to the truth of said claim. I also don't know what evidence you could possibly have that the poster understood that your claim was correct or that they "slink(ed) back to the leoosier (sic) site." In fact, since the poster in question has posted on this site more recently than your post about the supposed contradictory statements, the evidence demonstrates that no such slinking has occurred.
However, whether or not the original poster agrees with your assessment of the two sentences is irrelevant to whether the two sentences are actually contradictory.
I'll happily present the evidence that demonstrates that the two sentences in question are not "directly contradictory" after you present the evidence that you believe demonstrates that they are.
That said, all one need do is read the two sentences--with knowledge of what all the words in them mean--to see that it is self-evident that they are not, in fact, contradictory.
Last edited:
Nitwit: I do think most everything about Purdue sucks ... I have respect for Purdue's academic reputation and tradition.
Purdue's academic reputation and tradition account for more of Purdue's 'most everything' than all other "things" put together.
The nitwit got it but, in fact, the droid didn't?
So the issue is that you, evidently, can't think of more than a couple of "things" one could think "sucks" about Purdue, got it.
Latest posts
-
Shocker - Braden Smith named Cousy Finalist- Latest: Purdue Grad in Texas
-
-
-
-
