Trump says he will imprisons Hillary Clinton if elected

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HopelessMedic)
    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.
    Have you even listened to the tape? About half of the instances where right-wingers claim Clinton is laughing it's actually the journalist interviewing her who is laughing.

    It's clear that what Clinton is ruefully laughing at is how incompetent, ineffectual and unjust the Arkansan justice system was. And people who are involved in really unpleasant work (like paramedics, like soldiers, like doctors, like lawyers who have to represent really awful people and hear some of the most terrible things), they often adopt a really dark sort of gallows humour that people outside that situation wouldn't really understand. Naturally in this day and age you will have some people whining "I'm offended", but the reality is that the vast majority of people can see right through this smear.

    There's a reason this smear isn't getting traction. The incessant focus on nonsense like this is one of the main reasons why the Republicans are about to lose their their third presidential election in a row.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    AlexanderHam

    Just for the record i couldn't care less about either candidate, both are terrible.

    Yes i have listened to the tape. This is what she said:

    “He took a lie detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,”

    So she thought he was guilty and found it funny that he passed. Its really not that complicated
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    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.
    That's not the implication, and you know it.

    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    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.
    You've put things into my quote that simply are not there. I don't know Clinton's guilt, I don't know enough about the case. But the truth of it is irrelevant to the intentions and implications of Trump's statement.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    While I don't hope it comes to pass by Trump getting elected, I do hope she's imprisoned some day.*
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Idk why you're choosing the "you'd be in jail" point as your thread title in an anti-trump post when that quote is by far the best thing he's ever said.

    The entire election can be summed up like this really:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    imprisoning people without trial, sounds like an america i'd wanna live in!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    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/...e-needed-help/

    Gary Kasparov (who knows a thing or two about oppression and authoritarianism) posted this excellent tweet;
    Trump is just scared and trying to blackmail people to boye for him. He's already nearly lost so he took a gamble.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    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/...e-needed-help/

    Gary Kasparov (who knows a thing or two about oppression and authoritarianism) posted this excellent tweet;
    Trump is just scared and trying to blackmail people to vote for him. He's already nearly lost so he took a gamble.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    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.
    Extreme carelessness when handling classified intelligence is by definition gross negligence. There is no circumstance involving classified intelligence where you can logically be deemed to be extremely careless but somehow not grossly negligent.
    Comey is a former Republican, currently an Independent. Which is meant to prove what, exactly?
    Nice appeal to authority logical fallacy btw. If we are playing that game, most of the Republicans on the House Oversight Committee, such as Trey Gowdy, are respected lawyers, and they seem to think that Clinton should have been charged with something. One is a former CIA agent, and he thinks Clinton was grossly negligent in handling classified intelligence.

    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    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.
    It was a figure of speech used to describe the FBI's actions. They're applying a standard not in the statute and clearly not how Congress intended it to be used. For all intents and purposes, rewriting the law.

    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    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.
    Yes I know what Comey has said. I'm not disputing that he indeed did reach that conclusion. Restating that doesn't change anything when the original point was that there were logical flaws to his conclusion. Such as, criminal intent is not mentioned in the statute, and it has been used in the pass to prosecute people for unintentional gross negligence. Again, I do not dispute what criminal intent means, the point is that it's irrelevant here. It seems doubly absurd to claim that 793 (f) requires criminal intent when for example 793 (e) covers the wilful mishandling of classified information. It seems pretty obvious and clear that Congress wrote one statute to cover intentional acts and one to cover unintentional acts.

    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    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.
    How have you made this conclusion, which is awfully and ironically totally judgemental and prejudiced? It's a major scandal in America, on national news, which televised Congressional hearings on the matter.
    Just like Brexit, I know it makes liberals feel better if they believe their opponents are all ignorant hicks, but it's really, really, really not the case.
    Furthermore I did say regardless of your opinion on Trump. Trump being a pitiful human being and you having a condescendingly low opinion of his voters doesn't mean Hillary Clinton should get off scot-free.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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 said he would hire a proper prosecutor to investigate the allegations, did he not?

    Where/when did he say he would just chuck her in jail if he was president?!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    He said he would hire a proper prosecutor to investigate the allegations, did he not?

    Where/when did he say he would just chuck her in jail if he was president?!
    What trump says and what people say he has said are 2 different things, he recently said that ptsd is a serious problem but he was apparently insulting sufferers by saying he would help them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    What trump says and what people say he has said are 2 different things, he recently said that ptsd is a serious problem but he was apparently insulting sufferers by saying he would help them.
    Bloody libtards.

    Meanwhile busybodies claim they have PTSD at University after being offended by "offensive" opinions and need safe-spaces to help rehabilitate them. ****ing fruitloops.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moura)
    imprisoning people without trial, sounds like an america i'd wanna live in!
    how do you even have the nerve to create such a blatant strawman?!

    trump said: "If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there has never been so many lies, so much deception"

    either you don't care about facts or you don't understand the point of an attorney general
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    how do you even have the nerve to create such a blatant strawman?!

    trump said: "If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there has never been so many lies, so much deception"

    either you don't care about facts or you don't understand the point of an attorney general
    he said if he were president she would be in jail. he has no evidence that would put her in jail.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    I doubt he believes what he's saying. He just thinks that his target audience will.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moura)
    he said if he were president she would be in jail. he has no evidence that would put her in jail.
    ...if he were the president, he would trigger a further legal investigation of her, hence causing her likelihood of ending up in jail to significantly increase...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    I doubt he believes what he's saying. He just thinks that his target audience will.
    he never even *claimed* that *he* would be putting her in jail! this isn't trump personally claiming that he as president will indict her - this is him claiming to get the attorney general to bring proceedings forward to investigate her illegal activities
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Given that Donald Trump is not going to elected President, his bizarre ramblings can be discounted. The problem I see is not the danger of Hilary's imprisonment, but that such a question can be quasi-legitimately asked about her.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    he never even *claimed* that *he* would be putting her in jail! this isn't trump personally claiming that he as president will indict her - this is him claiming to get the attorney general to bring proceedings forward to investigate her illegal activities
    Again, I don't think he serious believes that would work. The last person who tried this was Nixon, whereupon the Attorney General quit rather than comply.*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Again, I don't think he serious believes that would work. The last person who tried this was Nixon, whereupon the Attorney General quit rather than comply.*
    how can you compare the two cases when we're talking about hillary clinton? why would an AG quit over a criminal like her?
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 13, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.