Trump vs Nordstrom: Ethics Violation or Father Defending Daughter?

[Bricker]

@drad_dog

Sorry, I assumed you did based on your affiliation. If we were talking openly and without spin I would say: Then what was your position then? how does this standard apply to the current admin? Do you admit conway broke the law?

Here is a sample of what I said then:

@Bricker as the OP

Of course, some of those with an axe to grind against Secretary Clinton are now piously announcing their great concern for transparent retention of e-mail records.

But as a Clinton spokesperson points out:

“For government business, she emailed them on their Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained,” he said in an emailed statement. “When the Department asked former Secretaries last year for help ensuring their emails were in fact retained, we immediately said yes.”

To the extent it’s a violation, it’s one of NARA policy, and purely technical in nature. She used a personal account but sent mail to the state.gov accounts of her staff, where that e-mail was properly retained as a record.

This is manufactured outrage.

@Bricker

@drewder

I think the line from the FBI director that “No Reasonable Prosecutor” would pursue a case against Hillary Clinton. This seems to me to be a pretty ballsy statement from him especially considering that the law is clearly against her, since it requires no element of intent. It seems to poison the well against anyone who would decide to prosecute the case since she can just point to the FBI’s statement as proof that she’s being unjustly prosecuted.

To me it seems that he’s exceeded the scope of his job by his pronouncement since his job isn’t to decide who to prosecute rather it is to gather evidence. I know this will get all sorts of partisan responses so I’d like to limit the discussion to should the FBI or Police make statements of this nature where they are basically daring prosecutors to disagree with them?

When there is a complete lack of any prior prosecutions under the same fact pattern?

It’s a very defensible claim.

It’s also not really admissible at a subsequent trial, should one occur.

I understand you are the conservative lawyer who swoops in to lawsplain why conservative crimes are unprosecutable, too minor, unindictable, just like the other side did it, or whatever gradation you can defend.

Actually, I analyze the law and apply to the facts. In a thread accusing Ted Kennedy of being a murderer:

@Bricker

Her death was a tragic accident, and it’s fair to remember both “tragic” as well as “accident.” But I think the OP is a thinly-veiled attempt to blacken Ted Kennedy’s name. Yes, her death was sad. But it was an accident. In this, she differs little from any other tragic accident victim. Why, specifically, are you sadder about her?

@mswas

Blacken his name how? He killed her and everyone knows it. Yes, it’s relevant. So while people are remembering his life, I wanted to remember hers. I mean it’s obvious that I started this thread because Ted Kennedy died, but the hyperbole is unnecessary. I wanted to put up a remembrance of her, and if that blackens Ted Kennedy’s name it’s not because of anything I have done. He killed her. full stop.

Yes, but not intentionally. That’s why we call it an “accident.” Although the death was a result of his driving, it wasn’t something that we’d attach guilt to. When you say, “He killed her,” you deliberately blur that distinction, and suggest a level of guilt that doesn’t exist.

And about another Kennedy:

@Bricker

In the same sense that only Nixon could go to China, I believe I should be above suspicion of pandering to the Kennedy name.

I don’t see one scintilla of evidence that Rep. Kennedy did anything improper with regard to using his influence to change how he was treated. The Capitol Police did not act properly, and they may well have been motivated by the Kennedy name… but that’s not Patrick’s fault, and that doesn’t imply any guilty knowledge or conscience on his part.

There is virtually no evidence that he was drinking. It’s well documented that Ambien can have such effects as amnesia. We’re talking about a crime here – this means that the people bringing the accusation must have SOMETHING in the way of proof that rises higher than mere speculation.

If it should develop that he had been drinking somewhere, and there are actual witnesses to that drinking, THAT is evidence. Right now, there is none. The man took some sleeping pills, got disoriented, and crashed his car. Now he’s seeking expert advice about the use of sleeping pills; very reasonable for a recovering addict.

Sorry - unless and until more damning evidence comes along, I’m willing to skewer the Capitol Police for not following procedure, but not Patrick Kennedy for being the recipient of that largess. Show me he asked for it, or show me he needed it, and I’m a convert to the “hang 'im high” corner. But if the only reasoning you have is “Isn’t it obvious?” then my answer is no. It’s not.

I voted for clintons 3 times for president. I don’t claim specialness for them or me, but I don’t want to get spit on either. I think citizens deserve one standard, no matter who they voted for.

I voted for Clinton once.

And I agree that the standards need to be identical. That’s what I’m applying.