[ExI] Wise Donald Trump

Fri Jun 3 21:40:29 UTC 2016

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark

>…Spike, with a monster like that about to become the most powerful man in the world why the hell are we still talking about a bunch of stupid Emails?

Ja.  Note I haven’t defended Trump against any of this.  I know he is a bad guy.  We have two bad guys here.  The US sails betwixt Scylla and Charybdis, and we have nukes.  These are grim times indeed.

>>Doesn’t it make you want to hug your Constitution?  

>…Yes the Constitution is nice but remember it's just a piece of paper, a very nice piece of paper but paper nevertheless…

It is the law of the land, yes.  No one can become president without swearing to uphold that piece of paper.  It defines freedoms that the president, the legislature and the court cannot countermand, such as freedom of speech.  Rights are not permissions.  The government’s power is not absolute.  This is most fortunate, for absolute power corrupts absolutely.  There are no known exceptions.

>… I've been making the case that Hillary did nothing illegal…

Ja, and I have repeatedly disputed this.  You did read the recent IG report, ja?

>…but if Trump wins I predict she will indeed end up in prison but she won't be alone, hundreds of Trump's political opponents will get rounded up too…

I fear this is true as well.  Hear the footsteps.  Don’t vote for these two.

>… Trump is how fascism starts…

And Clinton.  Trump, Clinton, Nixon, Hitler, Mao, Stalin.  These are all kindred spirits.

>… and don't think the USA is immune from it just because it has a constitution, Trump will wipe his ass on it and the people will cheer…

I won’t cheer.  Clinton and Trump are threats to our constitution.

If there is any silver lining to any of this abhorrent situation, the next president will likely take office severely crippled and go in as the most hated president in American history.  Congress will do nothing for either of them.  It will reduce the power of the presidency back to the level it was intended to carry.

> 

How do we know that? 

We can't. If you demand I turn over to you all the documents I have on subject X and I give you a cubic mile of paper I can't prove that I didn't leave one sheet out. So do I go to jail?

So why did not Clinton realize when she was participating in erasing the evidence that this would happen?  Answer: she didn’t.  She already knew that whatever was in those yoga routines was far worse than a mere obstruction of justice and treason charge.  So what was it?

> >…When Mrs. Clinton arranged to have her own server

 [...]

>…Just like what 5 previous secretaries of  state did.

Woohooo!  We net five bad guys in one dragnet!

Oh wait, the others didn’t have a private server and didn’t somehow divert all State Department business to it.  Perhaps you haven’t read the Inspector General’s report?

>>…When people destroy evidence, they appear guilty. 

>…Not when you can't explain evidence or what, not when you can't even explain exactly what they're supposed to be guilty of…

John, sheesh, where have you been?  We watches as an sitting Secretary of State set up a family “charity” knowing that enables all kinds of secret dealings.  That is a conflict of interest to even enable it.  We know that the State Department did business with entities known or suspected to be contributing to the “charity.”  How hard was that to figure out what is going on?

How hard was it to figure out what was going on when Mrs. Clinton exploded under questioning about what possible motive the Benghazi attackers might have had?  Could it possibly be someone was arming Syrian rebels in exchange for anonymous contributions through Canada to… I don’t know… an orphanage or a soup kitchen… something?

When the obvious was pointed out to the Clintons that having a family controlled “charity” while acting as Secretary of State would carry the appearance of what plenty of us already confidently suspect that was used for, why did they do it anyway? 

Sheesh how hard is it to follow that money trail?

> >…perhaps arranged to arm Syrian rebels, perhaps in exchange for anonymous donations to a charity,

>…Perhaps, and maybe she conspired with martians to invade the Earth but you have zero evidence of that, and zero evidence those Emails were about anything immoral, much less illegal, much less TREASONABLE…

Indeed?  So why the big hurry to erase them, knowing what that looks like?  Why did Nixon erase those 18 minutes of audio, knowing that very well could be the end of road?  Where is the evidence that 18 minutes had nothing on there worth having to resign in disgrace?  Why is Clinton not held to the same standards as Nixon was?

>… WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT EMAILS  John K Clark

Ah, the old bullhorn argument.  If the investigation is sufficiently annoying, get a bullhorn and shout “MOVE ALONG CITIZENS!  THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE!”  

Yet somehow, that indicates there might be something to see here.

Could it all be a vast Sanders-wing conspiracy?

Just as in that distasteful Watergate affair 40 years ago, I am seeing more and more stories every day, and they are making it into the more mainstream news outlets, including the BBC.  The Brits are talking about US politics now.  Whooda thunk?  I remember folding newspapers when I was 13 yrs old, and getting a sense over the months leading up to August 1974 that there was a snowball rolling.  I am definitely getting that sense again.

We are still talking about emails because there are still so many unanswered and most mysterious questions, such as how that information got across the gap.  And is that mechanism, whatever it is, still there?  And if so, who dunnit, when, where and how?  And who has that information Mrs. Clinton was prepared to face prison to get rid of?  And where can we buy the evidence that it was all yoga and wedding plans (the literal variety?)

Why is it that Hilliary’s aid is taking the fifth?  What did he do wrong?  Why is Hilliary’s lawyers advising the inner circle to not talk?  If it was just yoga and weddings, what are they afraid of?

If the Hillary wants all this to go away, just tell us how this was all done, who did it, what was erased, what was the criterion for erasure, who participated in the erasure, why was it erased, and how did this all happen to start with?   Why didn’t they pick out the State Department business and just keep the rest of it in the home server?  Why was it necessary to risk legal jeopardy to get rid of it?  

John, Clinton has the burden of proof here.  Let’s see it.

I am finding reason to hope.  Perhaps sunshine really is the best disinfectant.  Twenty years ago, all this would have been easily swept under the rug.  Now, it can’t be.  We win.

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160603/0e4f7601/attachment.html>