The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Trump says he will imprisons Hillary Clinton if elected

In the second debate last night, Trump said he will put Clinton in prison if he becomes president. Maybe he's trying to emulate his master Putin? His stunt in bringing all these women from the Clinton era (who had accused Bill Clinton of sexually harassing them, most of whom are flakes who Trump himself called "losers" in 1998) as his guests to sit in the debate audience is the sign of a man who is completely demented and lost all sense of propriety (not a good thing in a country which, as anyone who has traveled there can attest, is extremely polite and committed to decorum and good manners).

Trump shows his inner dictator

I don't think someone so unqualified (by his history, temperament and intellectual deficits) has ever run to be president of the United States.

Although Trump exceeded expectations by not basically keeling over on stage, all he did was fire up his base; the sort of morons who chant "lock her up" at rallies. He did nothing that will reach out beyond his base, and thus nothing that stands any chance of getting him across the line on November 8th.

In fact, it was reported last night that Trump's running mate Mike Pence was waiting to see how he did before deciding whether to jump off the ticket; that's right, Trump's campaign is spinning so far out of control that his VP candidate was thinking of giving up the ticket.

Fivethirtyeight wrote a good article about how Trump did nothing last night that moves him closer to being president.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-second-debate-probably-didnt-help-trump-and-he-needed-help/

Gary Kasparov (who knows a thing or two about oppression and authoritarianism) posted this excellent tweet;

Trump's "President Day 1" checklist: 1 Jail opponent. 2 Media crackdown. 3 Support Assad. Coincidentally, that was also Putin's checklist.
(edited 7 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

I don't think Trump had a particularly bad debate by his own standards last night, he certainly did better than in the first one. But as FiveThirtyEight have said, he didn't perform well enough to substantially move his poll ratings. At best he'll have contained the damage caused by the tape and stalled the flood of GOP politicians unendorsing him.
It is not the President's decision who goes to jail and who doesn't.

yet again, Trump proves he doesnt know what he's talking about.
Reply 3
Avatar for Fenneko
Fenneko
20
You really have nothing better to do, do you?

Hillary wants a pathway for illegals to get citizenship, she wants open borders, she likes dead unborn babies, she deleted 30,000 emails, she laughs at rape victims, etc. She is substantially worse than Trump.
So true

Original post by Joel 96
You really have nothing better to do, do you?


He says while he's writing a response. Your comment is invariably an "argument" offered by stupid people when they become frustrated that someone has attacked their leader.

Hillary wants a pathway for illegals to get citizenship


So what? There are something like 20 million illegal aliens in America, deporting them all is simply not possible. Giving them a pathway to citizenship, which requires them to meet certain requirements, means that they no longer work in the underground economy (thus not taking under-minimum wages), they are no longer outside the system meaning that it's very difficult to track them down if they commit a crime.

Ronald Reagan allowed 4 million illegal aliens to get citizenship in the 1980s. Are you going to criticise that? Sorry, I forgot; you're probably a 17 year old Brit who doesn't have the first clue about American politics and American political history. All you know is that you like Trump because he appeals to your conspiracist, pro-Putin, crypto-fascist mentality and makes you feel okay about being a bigot.

she wants open borders


Has she proposed open borders in this election as a policy? Even if she had, would such a policy pass congress? The answer is no. So calm down, Myrtle.

she likes dead unborn babies


What is it with you sickos getting off talking about dead babies? Nobody likes abortions, what people who aren't insane tend to conclude that legal abortions (with limits on when it can be performed) is the least worst solution.

she deleted 30,000 emails


Her lawyers deleted about 30,000 emails of a personal nature out of about 70,000 emails total. They were legally entitled to do this. The FBI was able to recover these emails anyway, and it's very clear that what was deleted broadly fell into the category of personal, non-relevant emails. The FBI concluded there was no basis to bring charges.

Morons keep saying "She deleted 30,000 emails". So what? I delete emails all the time. Maybe you can try to fashion an actual argument rather than just blathering "30,000 emails... 30,000 emails" as if that actually means anything.

she laughs at rape victims, etc.


Nope. Never happened. It's been completely debunked (not that it will stop credulous fools like you repeating it; if Trump says it, you believe it and repeat it. No fact-checking, no verification. I may as well just go to the Trump website if I want to read his propaganda; at least there they hire people who can actually write)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/donald-trump/trump-says-clinton-laughed-about-rape-case/

She was working as a legal-aid lawyer (you know, lawyers who earn very little defending people for free, when she could have gone to work for a top law firm given her Harvard law degree) and defending a man accused of rape. That is how the English and American justice system works. She never laughed at the victim of that crime, it's yet another Trump lie.

If you were caught by the police for raping a woman (not a wholly unlikely scenario given the mentality of many Trumpites) I'm sure you'd demand that your lawyer defend you as aggressively as possible. I wonder if you'd still be attacking lawyers who, as they are professionally obliged to do, defend those accused of rape?
(edited 7 years ago)
good - she deserves to spend a good amount of time behind bars after all she's done - stupid b-witch
Original post by sleepysnooze
good - she deserves to spend a good amount of time behind bars after all she's done - stupid b-witch


For "all she's done"? Tell me, what has she done? You people never seem to be able to answer that question; some conspiracy nut like Alex Jones tells you that she's this evil criminal and you just nod your head like a little credulous fool, not seeking any detail or verification.
Original post by AlexanderHam
Her lawyers deleted about 30,000 emails of a personal nature out of about 70,000 emails total. They were legally entitled to do this. The FBI was able to recover these emails anyway, and it's very clear that what was deleted broadly fell into the category of personal, non-relevant emails. The FBI concluded there was no basis to bring charges.


Regardless of anyone's opinion of Trump, it's pretty obvious Hillary Clinton should have faced charges. Watch FBI Director James Comey testify before Congress, his logic is full of holes. He freely declares and admits that Hillary Clinton was grossly negligent in handling classified information, but has decided to rewrite the law to include the requirement for 'criminal intent' even though it does not say it anywhere in the statute Congress and the FBI are focusing on in the investigation-

US Penal Code Article 793 (f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

The Director also claims it would be unfair to set a precedent by charging Clinton since no one else has ever been charged under the statute, which turned out to be false since there have been seven cases, two involving solely gross negligence with no criminal intention. In both cases the guilty parties realised their mistakes and tried to remedy the situation, yet one was sentenced to five years with the other to five months. Compared with Clinton trying to cover her tracks and lie under oath but gets away scot-free. Coupled with the Attorney-General's secret meeting on the runway with Bill Clinton before deciding to accept the FBI's recommendation, I can't believe how many people are willing to accept the wholesale corruption clearly involved in this scandal for the sake of sticking it to Donald Trump.
Original post by AlexanderHam
For "all she's done"? Tell me, what has she done? You people never seem to be able to answer that question; some conspiracy nut like Alex Jones tells you that she's this evil criminal and you just nod your head like a little credulous fool, not seeking any detail or verification.


Gross negligence in the handling of classified information.
Original post by AlexanderHam
For "all she's done"? Tell me, what has she done? You people never seem to be able to answer that question; some conspiracy nut like Alex Jones tells you that she's this evil criminal and you just nod your head like a little credulous fool, not seeking any detail or verification.


1) the email scandal heavily implies that, if there was something she desperately didn't want people to find out about, she's been involved in some *seriously* shady or criminal activities.
2) she is given substantial sums of money from wall street - you honestly think that's not a form of bribery? why the **** would wallstreet give her money if she wasn't going to "play ball"? this is blatant political bribery. elizabeth warren has told her story about how one meeting with wallstreet representatives caused hillary to drop her banking reform proposals (or the proposals of the democrats) out of nowhere. again, clearly she is a ****ing crook.
3) benghazi clarifies her baffling incompetence in office which she was booted out of - if she was unfit to be a secretary of state, how on earth would she be fit to be president of the united states?
4) she voted passionately for the iraq war that was clearly a false flag operation and got hundreds of thousands unjustly killed. and she voted in favour of both the patriot act and the act which brought in a federal ban of gay marriage.
5) her entrance into politics wasn't through merit but family. I don't know about you but I can't stand political nepotism. minor point but a massive pet peeve of mine.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlexanderHam
He says while he's writing a response. Your comment is invariably an "argument" offered by stupid people when they become frustrated that someone has attacked their leader.



So what? There are something like 20 million illegal aliens in America, deporting them all is simply not possible. Giving them a pathway to citizenship, which requires them to meet certain requirements, means that they no longer work in the underground economy (thus not taking under-minimum wages), they are no longer outside the system meaning that it's very difficult to track them down if they commit a crime.

Ronald Reagan allowed 4 million illegal aliens to get citizenship in the 1980s. Are you going to criticise that? Sorry, I forgot; you're probably a 17 year old Brit who doesn't have the first clue about American politics and American political history. All you know is that you like Trump because he appeals to your conspiracist, pro-Putin, crypto-fascist mentality and makes you feel okay about being a bigot.



Has she proposed open borders in this election as a policy? Even if she had, would such a policy pass congress? The answer is no. So calm down, Myrtle.



What is it with you sickos getting off talking about dead babies? Nobody likes abortions, what people who aren't insane tend to conclude that legal abortions (with limits on when it can be performed) is the least worst solution.



Her lawyers deleted about 30,000 emails of a personal nature out of about 70,000 emails total. They were legally entitled to do this. The FBI was able to recover these emails anyway, and it's very clear that what was deleted broadly fell into the category of personal, non-relevant emails. The FBI concluded there was no basis to bring charges.

Morons keep saying "She deleted 30,000 emails". So what? I delete emails all the time. Maybe you can try to fashion an actual argument rather than just blathering "30,000 emails... 30,000 emails" as if that actually means anything.



Nope. Never happened. It's been completely debunked (not that it will stop credulous fools like you repeating it; if Trump says it, you believe it and repeat it. No fact-checking, no verification. I may as well just go to the Trump website if I want to read his propaganda; at least there they hire people who can actually write)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/donald-trump/trump-says-clinton-laughed-about-rape-case/

She was working as a legal-aid lawyer (you know, lawyers who earn very little defending people for free, when she could have gone to work for a top law firm given her Harvard law degree) and defending a man accused of rape. That is how the English and American justice system works. She never laughed at the victim of that crime, it's yet another Trump lie.

If you were caught by the police for raping a woman (not a wholly unlikely scenario given the mentality of many Trumpites) I'm sure you'd demand that your lawyer defend you as aggressively as possible. I wonder if you'd still be attacking lawyers who, as they are professionally obliged to do, defend those accused of rape?


Funnily enough, I don't debate people who base their arguments on ad hominems and presumptions.
Original post by AlexanderHam
For "all she's done"? Tell me, what has she done? You people never seem to be able to answer that question; some conspiracy nut like Alex Jones tells you that she's this evil criminal and you just nod your head like a little credulous fool, not seeking any detail or verification.


Are you serious? Hillary helped the embargo against Iraq and stated that the civilian deaths many babies was worth it. She intimated Bill Clinton's rape victims to go away. The Clinton's are a crime family. No one can state how they made their hundreds of millions because it's from shady deals and political favours. She ignored a federal subpoena to hand over around 35,000 emails that were on non-secure server, and many of these emails have now come out on Wikileaks and show that she was instrumental in getting momentum for the attacks against Libya. The has been involved in manufacturing reasons for the reforms change game.





Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by AlexanderHam
For "all she's done"? Tell me, what has she done? You people never seem to be able to answer that question; some conspiracy nut like Alex Jones tells you that she's this evil criminal and you just nod your head like a little credulous fool, not seeking any detail or verification.


It isn't simply a conspiracy theory at this point. Very serious questions need to be raised about her practices during her time as Secretary of State. Firstly, her e-mail practices were interesting, to the say the least. To use a private server to handle confidential information is reckless and her clear disregard for protocol is unacceptable for someone in her position.

Secondly, her role in Benghazi. Although it may not be possible to prove if the attack on the embassy was a cover-up by the Obama administration, Clinton was responsible for its security and she must bear the responsibility for Ambassador Steven's death.
Original post by Isambard Kingdom Brunel
It is not the President's decision who goes to jail and who doesn't.

yet again, Trump proves he doesnt know what he's talking about.


He's not saying he would personally order the imprisonment Clinton, but that if he was president she would be in jail.

The implication is that if he were President, there would not be cases of Politicians getting out of criminal convictions due to political connections. The implication was a removal of corrupt politics.
Original post by pol pot noodles
He freely declares and admits that Hillary Clinton was grossly negligent in handling classified information


Actually, he didn't. He said she was "extremely careless". "Extreme carelessness" and "gross negligence" are, by definition, not the same thing. James Comey is a highly respected lawyer, a Republican who served as Deputy AG in the Bush administration. It's laughable when people who have no legal education and often no university education at all think themselves competent to comment on this in any credible way.

but has decided to rewrite the law to include the requirement for 'criminal intent


Obviously you're confused about how the law works in America. An FBI director cannot rewrite the law. What he does is investigate an alleged crime and then decide whether to pass it on to the US Attorney with a recommendation to prosecute or not.

The express terms of 793(f)(b) require that the person "knowingly" remove the classified data. 793(f)(a) requires "gross negligence". What Comey said is that "we can't establish that she acted with the necessary criminal intent". It helps if you understand the distinction between general intent and specific intent in American criminal law; if you don't, it's easy to get confused about what Comey means by criminal intent; he's talking about the state of mind necessary to give rise to liability under this clause. Comey also said that Clinton's actions did not constitute gross negligence.

It's clear the arguments were finely balanced, and it is a legal judgment as to whether Clinton's actions constituted gross negligence (which still requires general intent) per 793(f)(a) or "knowingly" (possessed specific intent) per 793(f)(b).

Now it's possible for people to have differing opinions on this, but the vast majority of people coming down on the side of prosecution are doing so from a position of total ignorance and prejudice; they simply want to hurt Clinton (hence the chants of "lock her up") and don't care what they have to do. The fact that Trump said he would basically instruct prosecutors to pursue Clinton, something presidents do not do in the United States viz. US attorneys, with a view to putting her in jail, demonstrates that this has nothing to do with the finely balanced arguments of the law and everything to do with a desperate, pathetic man with authoritarian tendencies who feels like his campaign is spinning out of control and is lashing out.
Original post by Farm_Ecology
He's not saying he would personally order the imprisonment Clinton, but that if he was president she would be in jail.


So he's prejudging a trial, in other words not "innocent until proven guilty" but "If I'm president you go to prison". Those are the words of a man who cares nothing for the rule of law.

The implication is that if he were President, there would not be cases of Politicians getting out of criminal convictions due to political connections


Dude, you obviously know next to nothing about American law. Please don't make statements of this kind implying that you have even the first clue about how Comey (a Republican who also served in the Bush administration) came to his decision.
Original post by Aceadria
Firstly, her e-mail practices were interesting, to the say the least. To use a private server to handle confidential information is reckless and her clear disregard for protocol is unacceptable for someone in her position.


Actually, quite a few others did the same including officials in the Bush administration like Colin Powell. She made a mistake in terms of protocol for her communications, but James Comey clearly indicated it does not rise to the level of criminal liability and by itself it's pretty insubstantial as a reason to say she can't be president (especially when she's running against a lunatic like Trump).

Obsessing over the emails is demonstrative of a complete lack of any sense of proportion and a lack of political judgment. If this and Benghazi are the worst you have on Clinton, no wonder she is winning.

Although it may not be possible to prove if the attack on the embassy was a cover-up by the Obama administration


"May not be possible to prove". In other words, you got nothing. But it doesn't stop you from continuing to insinuate it. Right-wingers and co don't seem to realise that their obsession with Benghazi (arising from their obsession with Hillary Clinton) is not shared by the majority of the American people; they recognise that sometimes these things happen. It's not a coincidence that Stevens family have attacked Trump and the Republican's disgusting attempt to ride his corpse all the way into the White House.

Clinton was responsible for its security and she must bear the responsibility for Ambassador Steven's death.


It's so laughable when right-wing Brits, and conspiracist fellow-travellers, talk about these issues and are even more ignorant about the facts that right-wing Americans who have actually been paying attention and can at least argue based on some substantive basis. Clinton repeatedly requested that the Republican congress provide more money for security for embassies; instead they cut it.

The requests for upgraded security went to the Diplomatic Security Service not Secretary Clinton. And the State Department also made a justifiable policy decision that they wanted to keep a low-profile in Benghazi. Sometimes these things happen when you operate in dangerous parts of the world. It's tragic for the family, but you can never be 100% safe 100% of the time.

There have been nine Republican congressional inquiries into Benghazi, none of them have managed to find anything that supports their hysterical attacks on Clinton. No wonder they're going to lose another presidential election; they seem totally incapable of focusing on the issues and utterly determined to demonstrate at every turn their irrational obsession with, and hatred of, the Clintons.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Lollypop100
Are you serious? Hillary helped the embargo against Iraq and stated that the civilian deaths many babies was worth it


You're utterly clueless. The person who made the "worth it" comment was Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton had no involvement in the foreign policy of the Clinton administration, period.

If you're so ignorant of American political history that you don't even know who Madeleine Albright is and think she is the same person as Clinton, then you're simply not intelligent or knowledgeable enough to have your opinion taken seriously on this subject.

Oh and btw, the reason babies in Iraq were dying was because Saddam Hussein gamed the UN Oil for Food programme to buy luxury goods, build palaces and acquire weaponry. The terms of the UN sanctions allowed the Iraqi government to buy as much food and medicine with their oil revenues as they liked. Instead, Saddam diverted it into his own pocket and then had the gall to blame America. What is remarkable is that there are people who, even twenty years later when all the facts are known, are still stupid enough to buy it.

Then again, I'd bet you don't even know what the UN Oil for Food programme was or what the terms of the sanctions regimes were. You just read something on some conspiracy website and start babbling on here, regurgitating false information and even doing that you get confused and can't even regurgitate it accurately.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlexanderHam


Nope. Never happened. It's been completely debunked (not that it will stop credulous fools like you repeating it; if Trump says it, you believe it and repeat it. No fact-checking, no verification. I may as well just go to the Trump website if I want to read his propaganda; at least there they hire people who can actually write)



She did laugh at the fact that the man passed a lie detector when she thought he wouldn't. So essentially she found it funny that someone she believed to be a rapist wouldn't be found guilty, which is unacceptable.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you