[flagged]
The Clintons?
> There is no comparison to anything here not even Richard Nixon.
I'd compare him to Kennedy. Minus the mob 'losing' a few ballot boxes for him.
It's unfortunate that otherwise intelligent people minds shut down when partisanship comes into play.
Please share the legal filing where the Clintons were named as Individual 1 and Individual 2 as those who directed the crime to take place, in a criminal case by federal prosecutors.
> It's unfortunate that otherwise intelligent people minds shut down when partisanship comes into play.
this is nonsense. Democrats are indicted and convicted of crimes as well and there is no need to deny these facts - Bob Menendez should likely have resigned, Anthony Weiner went to prison, Rod Blagoyovich is I think still serving time for widespread corruption. These people are criminals. The Clintons played fast and loose with rules but they are not in the same universe as even garden variety criminals much less the Trumps. You have to at least be indicted or in Trump's case named as an unindicted coconspirator for indicted parties for "criminality" to have a bit of a factual basis.
https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/chapter/343893
>Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary were ever prosecuted, after three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land deal. The matter was handled by the Whitewater Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr. The last of these inquiries came from the final Independent Counsel, Robert Ray (who replaced Starr) in 2000.[6] Susan McDougal was granted a pardon by Bill Clinton before he left office.
About as shoddy as shoddy gets, especially the part with the pardon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controvers...
Again, partisanship is a hell of a drug.
sorry, your post does not establish any criminality on the part of the Clintons, whereas the criminality within the Trump Whitehouse is unprecedented. More than 34 indictments and half a dozen guilty pleas including from the national security advisor himself, where the Trump white house refused to do anything about Flynn for 17 days after Sally Yates directly informed the WH that he was an active security leak.
There is simply no comparison.
This is a very common form of verbal sleight of hand.
* Step 1: Choose two disparate symbols.
* Step 2: Describe each in as vague of terms as possible.
* Step 3: Keep only the vague descriptions that are consistent between the two.
* Step 4: Imply that since the same reduced description fit both symbols, those original symbols are the same. Everything up to this point is a useful form of humor. It is this implication that is the false equivalence that zzzeek is referring to.
For example, a band of misfits attacking an empire would be expected to use guerilla tactics and execute concentrated attacks against high-value targets. It only becomes a false equivalence if you try to argue that the 9/11 terrorists were capable of interstellar travel based on the Star Wars analogy.
Not to mention the fact that he has a hostile media and the entire cultural segment (from sports athletes to celebrities) to contend with, a hostile Congress (certainly the House, and even the Senate), a judiciary that blocks him at every turn (and frequently overstepping their bounds), and an existing regulatory, and military hierarchy that is tepid (at best) towards him and has him in check. There's also a pending independent investigation that is looking at the more egregious accusations (for which we have no evidence at this point).
We had 2 years of Trump, and so far, his tenure has been a nothing burger compared to the Bush years, and the beginning of the Obama years when the entire economy was at risk of collapse. His tweets do suck, but everyone just ignores them now. He shit-posts on Twitter - once you get past that, there's nothing there.
I would be way more apprehensive with Bernie Sanders as president or a Democratic party where AOC-types are in charge. That kind of leaderships would have a far greater effect on day to day life.
Being a criminal doesn't automatically win you a ~90% party approval rating for wanting to build a massive racism wall or banning Muslims from entering the country. A hegemonic power structure and violent ideology does that. To say that the horrible shit trump has been pushing is not a symptom of a larger structure is to ignore the fact that equivalent horrifying injustices have also been committed by other Republicans (ICE, Patriot Act, invasion of iraq) and Democrats (civilian drone strikes, refugee child concentration camps) alike.
The only thing which is not out in the open (though highly likely to be at some point) is collusion with foreign powers like Russia.
So while it can be productive to state opinion that someone may be guilty of criminal acts. The key part is a trial and conviction, before pronouncing someone guilty. Using precise language makes it less likely to be spun around and arguing with others who disagree, I think.
For example Jared did lie to congress (along with many other Trump appointments):
https://www.justsecurity.org/61682/perjury-chart-trump-assoc...
Trump and his attorney Cohen did intimidate and bribe witnesses (to adultery):
See the link below, and his admission that he paid off the prostitute Stormy Daniels.
Trump did assault his first wife, and has been accused by multiple other women:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/documenting-tr...
Trump has not properly divested himself of his businesses, and violated emoluments rules on multiple occasions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/05/15...
These are not opinions or speculation.
Furthermore, even if I accept that criminality requires a guilty verdict to be a valid descriptor, it is something that applies retroactively. Once the conviction is given, it is retroactively correct to have called them a criminal between the time that the crime was committed and the time that the conviction was given. In this view, describing somebody as "criminal" prior to a verdict is an expression of belief as to what the verdict should or will be.
In either case, it is not incorrect to refer to the actions of the Trump campaign as criminal, to use one specific example. We know (1) that it is illegal to receive foreign aid in a campaign, (2) that the Trump campaign openly requested foreign aid (campaign speech, 2016-07-26), and (3) that the Trump campaign were in active negotiation for foreign aid (self-released emails from Trump Jr, dated 2016-06-03). From these, I conclude that the Trump campaign has performed criminal acts.