Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Ex-NSA Head and Trump critic:

Trump criminally responsible for what media reports

Trump critic Michael Hayden suggested that Donald Trump is not responsible for what he actually says, but for what people (aka - the media) decide that they hear. This starts to blur the lines between the long standing American justice system of individual rights, and a Gestapo style systematic use of Government power to squelch dissent.

It's one thing when the media decides to constantly misrepresent, misquote, or generally lie about what a political candidate says, in order to influence a Presidential election. It's quite another when someone suggests that a political candidate can be held "legally" accountable for how the media reports statements or actions.

Yes, there is some truth to what I am suggesting...

Compare and contrast the idea that Donald Trump could be held criminally liable for suggesting proponents of the Second Amendment have the power to prevent Hillary Clinton from being able to nominate Supreme Court Justices that would overturn previous rulings on the Second Amendment... with the idea that the Director of the FBI stated under oath that there was evidence of criminal behavior by Hillary Clinton, but that she couldn't be charged because there was no "malicious intent".

Bottom line: 

If you are Republican, you should be held criminally responsible for an otherwise perfectly legal call for political action... because media cronies convince the sheep that follow them that there had to be some cryptic malicious intent. 

But if you are a Democrat, you should not be held responsible at "all" (criminally or politically) for actions that are deemed (by the FBI) to be against the law, because it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you had malicious intent when you committed them.  

Some days I feel like all the events of the world have been taken over by the editors of "The Onion".


James said...

Ch, you cannot believe that Trump's not so veiled insinuation meant other than what it meant.

When the uproar started -- AND IT DID NOT COME ONLY FROM HILLARY SUPPORTERS AND DEMOCRATS -- his campaign and later he himself tried to walk it back and give it an innocuous interpretation.

In doing that, he repeated a familiar pattern: Say something outrageous and then later deny he said it.

Not only that, but he combined his lie about what he really intended to say with his oft-repeated lie that Hillary is going to take away our guns.

But do continue to defend his every outrageous remark. In doing so, you do the future GOP no favor, assuming there is a future for that party.

Roger Amick said...

He's not alone. Many Republicans who put the country before the party, have strongly condemned his comments.

Some think that party comes first.

C.H. Truth said...

Some of us believe that the "country" comes first.

Any average person with absolutely no criminal history, criminal behavior, criminal arrests... absolutely no history of violence or aiding violent acts... is not assumed guilty of anything.

This was a political statement that had two possible meanings:

1) A candidate for President calls on Second Amendment supporters to prevent his opponent (who is hostile to second amendment rights) to rise up and prevent her from winning an election.

2) A candidate for President calls on people to assassinate a political opponent.

Which one of those two meanings "you" decide to choose, tells us more about "you" than about the candidate.

C.H. Truth said...

Oddly, many on the left have still not figured out that Trump has enemies on both sides.

Very specifically it has become very personal between Trump and the Bush family (including Bush allies).

In many ways those critics are harder on him than the left, because he already brought down Jeb in very humiliating fashion.

Anyone still surprised by Bush supporters and ex-Bush aids/appointees going after Trump is probably still surprised to find out that Rosebud was the name of a sled.

Roger Amick said...

Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people—maybe there is, I don’t know.
But—but I’ll tell you what. That will be a horrible day. If—if Hillary gets to put her judges—right now, we’re tied. You see what’s going on.

Perfectly acceptable. Clinton brought up the RFK assassination, you went nuts. But this is just fine.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger... I never once wrote about, provided an opinion, or even brought up Hillary and the JFK assassination, much less went "nuts".

You seriously need a reality check.

Roger Amick said...

Reality would tell you that Trump should never be President.

C.H. Truth said...

Reality is that neither should be. If one is both honest and objective.

But seriously Roger... where did you pull the Hillary JFK stuff from? You stated I went crazy over it, when I never so much as brought it up.

KD said...

Perfectly acceptable. Clinton brought up the RFK assassination, you went nuts.'

Actually, I did not know of HER> statement on RFK until your team talked about the statement made by Trump.

Don't forget Biden issueing a threat not to mess with HIS> Berretta or Obama would have troubles.

James said...

Speaking of taking a reality check, Ch:

When Trump said what he said, he was not talking about a candidate for President, but about someone who had already become President and thus could "pick" Supreme Court Justices (something a candidate cannot do.)

Trump then speculated that there was something "2nd Amendment people" could do to stop her from picking such Justices.

Assassination come to mind?

I repeat, Trump was not calling for action at the ballot box to stop Clinton, because once she is President she can pick or appoint Supreme Court Justices -- and there is nothing 2nd Amendment people can do to stop her unless it is by exercising their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and ... and do what?

Yep. The words are clear.

TRUMP: “If she GETS TO PICK HER JUDGES, NOTHING YOU CAN DO FOLKS. Although the second amendment people, MAYBE THERE IS, I don't know."

"I don't know."
See how he was backing away from it a little even as he said it?

Again, it is simple:

When Trump spoke of Clinton "picking" judges, that was an obvious admission that she had already won the election! If she was selecting judges, she was the President, and mobilizing 2nd amendment right voters to the polls would be useless because THE ELECTION WAS OVER.

What else could Trump possibly have been talking about except assassinating Clinton?

Assassinating her pick of Justices?


KD, 1.7 Trillion in Savings Sheltered by Elite Investors said...

"I don't know."
See how he was backing away from it a little even as he said it?"

No I don't. You must have never heard him speak in your life prior to that innocent statement, It is his way of speaking.

Jane, can you tell us what was your take away when you learned as I did for the first time, both HER> and Biden threatened Obama??

C.H. Truth said...

I don't know James...

When a Presidential Candidate asks for action from a political group... I generally believe they are referring to political activism, including donations and voting.

And if "anyone" (much less some Trump critic) can make sense of everything Trump says in such a way that he/she believes it's not even open to other interpretation... I would offer that this person is bat shit crazy or smoking crack.

wphamilton said...

It's weird how people get frightened when someone mentions "Second Amendment people." I think it's more about the basic idea of people owning guns.

Actually the hue and cry is a slur on gun-owners. As if just mentioning them as a group is to incite them to trigger-happy mayhem. Consider, would you have the same reaction if he suggested that Labor Union people do something about her? The Sierra Club? Why not, since they own guns just like everyone else, and probably aren't as level-headed as most "2nd Amendment people" are. So it's just the idea that Trump is trying to stir up people who like guns, not that he's calling for an assassination, and it's an insult to law abiding citizens.

What did Trump really mean, God only knows. He thought it was funny before, talking about shooting someone in the street, so maybe he thought that a double-entendre was funny. At least to stir up the liberals, and that always good for a laugh from his crowd. But inciting a shooting - that's just being silly.

wphamilton said...

This wasn't incitement to a shooting, obviously. It wasn't clever, but it wasn't rabble-rousing either.

Roger Amick said...

"We all remember that Robert Kennedy was killed last June in California."

Next CH, the RNC has been losing staff because of Donald Trump. In recent months, deputy press secretary James Hewitt, spokesman Fred Brown, director of Hispanic media Ruth Guerra, and research analysts Lars Trautman and Colin Spence have all left the RNC with Trump as one of the reasons for their resignations, according to sources familiar with their decisions. At least three other staff members have also left the RNC with opposition to Trump as a contributing factor.

C.H. Truth said...

Problem Roger,

That's not my quote. Even if it was, what sane person would describe this as going nuts.

James said...

I repeat what I said above. There is really no other reasonable interpretation for Trump's words.

So much for Ch.

As for Wp, I'm willing to grant that in a way Trump didn't mean it as a serious encouragement to shoot Hillary. He meant it as SORT OF a joke.

But the point of much of the outraged response is precisely this: THAT'S not something ANYone should joke about, not even Trump. Despite all his crassness and insensitivity, even he should know that.

What if, in the near future, Hillary WERE to be assassinated?

C.H. Truth said...


So in your first paragraph you offer that the only explanation was a "veiled insinuation" regarding assassination.

Then in your response to WP you offer that a completely different explanation of a more obvious joke might be reasonable.

You contradict yourself in one comment.

James said...

If I were Wp, Ch, I might accuse you of being "the Father of Lies."

Desperately searching for a way out of the fact that my simple logic demolishes your lack of logic, you misquote me.

You say I referred to Trump's "veiled insinuation" when that is not what I said.

I referred to his "not so veiled insinuation."

Obviously the man did not say, "Take your guns, you 2nd Amendment loving folks, and go and shoot Hillary."

Even he is not crazy enough for that.

But what he DID say is this
(and the parts below in brackets are more than implied:

“If she GETS [ELECTED AND GETS] TO PICK HER JUDGES [AS PRESIDENT], NOTHING YOU CAN DO FOLKS. Although [FOR] the second amendment people [with all your guns], MAYBE THERE IS [SOMETHING YOU CAN DO]."

And then, as if realizing he has gone too far, he adds, "I don't know" as of this not so veiled threat should not be taken too seriously.

The indignant response from both Democrats and Republicans and Independents and everyone escept his most fanatic supporters == the indignant reponse to his offhand remark is exactly what it should be.

Even to joke about the assassination of a potential President is beyond the pale, beyond anything that should be said.

This man is in no way fit to be President. He is in no way presidential timber, as even you and Wp know.

Of course, if he still wants to get into politics after his defeat (or withdrawal), he could still be an excellent Grand Klavern of the Ku Klux Klan.

James said...

Wp says Trump's remark "wasn't rabble rousing."
In that, Wp reveals that he (Wp) has a serious brain problem.

wphamilton said...

For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.

What is in the heart James, of someone who speaks only lies and for her own benefit over others? Or who ridicules and demeans when he or she hears the truth?

The answer to the question I asked you the other day is: the Devil is the father of lies. Who are his children?

C.H. Truth said...


You keep quoting Trump as if reading the words again will change someone's opinion?

If you read it a thousand times, would it change your opinion? If not, why would you assume it would change someone else's.

Besides the fact that words on paper generally don't pick up context expression, or the demeaner of the person speaking, or the reaction of the crowd.

For instance the transcript of Trump talking about the Russians and Hillary's emails looked one way. But it was different when you saw him say it and the press laughed.

James said...

Wp and Ch, you both KNOWINGLY distort what Trump actually said.

Thank goodness a lot of Republicans had and have enough simple, common integrity to get upset by the obvious meaning of his words.

James said...

Why did the Secret Service speak to the Trump campaign about his 2nd Amendment remark if if was so innocuous, Ch? Wp?

C.H. Truth said...

James, according to Reuters, Federal sources say that there was no formal discussions with the Trump campaign. Other sources(CNN) who have suggested as such, cannot provide any specific information as to who from the ss or Trump campaign was involved.

Quite honestly James, I have not been, am not now, and never will be convinced by you or anyone that Trump was calling for an Assassination attempt.

Commonsense said...

The whole idea that someone is responsible for the thoughts in another's head fly's in the face of the constitution as well as 1500 years of English Common Law.

For anyone to proposed such insanity, has to have TDS.

opie' said...

Quite honestly James, I have not been, am not now, and never will be convinced by you or anyone

Just like science and GW. Sad CH, a shadow of your former self.

James said...

Quite honestly James, I have not been, am not now, and never will be convinced by you or anyone that Trump was calling for an Assassination attempt.

I guess the bailers-out on Trump understand simple English.

Commonsense said...

Or you don't understand political motivation James.

James said...

I too am convinced that Trump was not "seriously" calling for an assassination attempt. But he sure was "jokingly" hinting at it. And so crossed a line.

Anyone's whose Mother Tongue is English understands that.

And as for what the Secret Service said to Trump/and/ or his campaign, they would of course not make public.

But they DID state that they spoke to him/them about it.

Wonder why.