Bannon basically hit the nail on the head with this. There may well be huge money laundering involving the Russians that Trump is involved in. If they have you locked in on that, it's enough to take you down if they spill the beans and so he marches to the beat of their drum - by desperately trying to lift sanctions and so on - which is a dangerous quality in a president. Similar to the manafort situation. He's always been much more scared of saying anything about Russia than he is his own country and probably for a reason.

On top of everything, he's most likely f***ed over the gop for the midterms with his crazy behaviour and if he's still president then, they won't be thanking him for it.

Edited by wordup (04 Jan 2018 3.20pm)

Trump ordered WH lawyer to stop Sessions from recusing himself in Russia probe - [Link]

"President Trump gave firm instructions in March to the White House’s top lawyer: stop the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, from recusing himself in the Justice Department’s investigation into whether Mr. Trump’s associates had helped a Russian campaign to disrupt the 2016 election.

The lawyer, Uttam Dhillon, was convinced that if Mr. Comey was fired, the Trump presidency could be imperiled, because it would force the Justice Department to open an investigation into whether Mr. Trump was trying to derail the Russia investigation."

"Two days after Mr. Comey’s testimony, an aide to Mr. Sessions approached a Capitol Hill staff member asking whether the staffer had any derogatory information about the F.B.I. director. The attorney general wanted one negative article a day in the news media about Mr. Comey, according to a person with knowledge of the meeting."

"The lobbying of Mr. Sessions is one of several previously unreported episodes that the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has learned about as he investigates whether Mr. Trump obstructed the F.B.I.’s Russia inquiry. "

add these to the obstruction of justice pile too.

Edited by wordup (05 Jan 2018 1.36am)

Also following investigation by the FBI this was deemed not to be a threat to security, nor was it deemed to be unusual but common place among representatives, include White House representatives in the Trump administration.

Also the scale of the issue is such that as an offence it wouldn't result in criminal charges, only a required change to Electronic Security measures to be implimented.

Which is a very long way from being a 'lock her up' offence. Essentially most of these offences are people forwarding emails to a 'online account' such as Google mail, because its easier to print them. Bad practice, but probably so common place you'd probably have to arrest and imprison half the security cleared white house staff.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Well, people have actually been found guilty and sentenced for less than what Clinton did, though I was not one of those who deemed that appropriate......Trump was clearly 'over egging the pudding' for effect.

[Link]

I cannot help but have the conclusion that Clinton escaped less harshly than others because of her position as an elite.....At a certain level I recognise that this is necessary....but the fact that elites can operate in different rules is worthy of criticism in a meritocracy. It's a failure of that system...whilst I recognise that the responsibilities and demands upon elites are far higher..but then again, so are the rewards and power.....but perhaps a little more leniency is understandable.....up to a point.

What Clinton did was stupid and careless, but a certain level of incompetence in governance...and indeed most structures, is more the norm than the exception. The investigation, criticism and embarrassment and reputational damage was sufficient feedback.

No, I raise the point only that if Trump had done this democrats and their supporters would have been all over it like a rash.

Which is to say that the republicans and democrats are ethically in the same gutter....but I reserve more irritation for democrats...with exceptions...because it's it's that side who you get the 'we aim high, while they aim low' crap from.....they like to present themselves as more ethical, when in reality they comprise just as many awful people themselves.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Jan 2018 12.01pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Only two of those where arguably less than Clinton.

The first, he stole physical classified documents which he was not authorised to have, took them home and destroyed some of them.

The second one, I agree with you on.

Third, he's director of the CIA.

Fourth, documents which he was not authorised to have - during an ongoing conflict.

fifth, intentionally stole classified documents and sold them to a man he believed was a Chinesse Agent.

Sixth, he took photographs on board a nuclear submarine and destroyed evidence once he realised he was under investigation. 101 of security clearance briefings, is that even in IT sites supplying to MOD, you cannot take photographs above basic security areas - You're not even allowed to take cameras or phones, among numerous otherthings, into a room where there might be secure data, let alone a nuclear submarine.

Sevneth - Yeah he got a harsh penalty.

Eigth - Classified documents from a Nuclear research facility - thats the holy grail of secret documentation protection. Thats nuclear research and data.

nineth - He's a NSA manager leaking classified documents.

Tenth - Kind of harsh as well on reflection.

However in most of these instances you have people who also are not 'civilians', but people within the military and secret services where the rules aren't just told to you, they're drummed in on a regular basis - and have access to highly classified secrets.

Clinton, yeah, she got hacked and she shouldn't have had this material on a private server - but it lacked willful intent and the information even as secretary of state would likely have been reasonably redacted for distribution - and she's a civilian obstentially, operating in an area where information may be classified - where as others are operating in an area where everything is at its lowest level at least classified.

Intent is an important aspect. Did she get away lighter than the three, because she was secretary of state, probably.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Incredible.

[Tweet Link]