Question for the people who said "Lock her up"

[GHOSTRIDER AZ]

Originally Posted by getitgotitgood

For the people who wanted Hillary locked up for using an unsecure email server, does the same apply to Trump if it turns out he was colluding with the Russians to influence the election on his behalf?

What the Trump team is being accused of is far, far worse than what Hillary did.
If evidence is produced that Trump is guilty. Why shouldn't he be removed from office and locked up as well?

If you don't think Trump should be locked up, are you willing to admit that Hillary shouldn't be either or are you comfortable with your double standards?

The Clinton Cartel is still criminal and should be locked up the release top secured information and should pay retribution for steeling from the Haiti Relief fund.
The Russian Allegations is not clear. However it looks more like Obamites Operatives looking to discredit the President. The leaks themselves are Illegal and should be prosecuted.


As these stories of Fake News comes up most of these have been discredited. If there is clear case with no questions yes any President should be removed.

[uggabugga]

Originally Posted by bluesjuke

Sure, got any evidence?
Until there is we can only speak hypothetically.

of course not.

[Vector1]

Originally Posted by getitgotitgood

For the people who wanted Hillary locked up for using an unsecure email server, does the same apply to Trump if it turns out he was colluding with the Russians to influence the election on his behalf?

What the Trump team is being accused of is far, far worse than what Hillary did.
If evidence is produced that Trump is guilty. Why shouldn't he be removed from office and locked up as well?

If you don't think Trump should be locked up, are you willing to admit that Hillary shouldn't be either or are you comfortable with your double standards?

Wow, you couldn't get two more disparate examples, could you.

What Flynn, apparently did (at least according to one viewpoint) was help overt a diplomatic crisis with Russia that Obama created for purely political reasons. Of course that will fall on deaf ears for those looking for a pound of flesh or to score political points.
The progressive Democrats are looking for any excuse to strike back at Russia for what they perceive as harming Hillary's chances to get elected.
[On a side note I can empathize in that I wouldn't like it if the shoe were on the other foot. HOWEVER, it is not as if Wikileaks, the FBI, or Russia created fake stories to undermine Hillary. All they supposedly did was expose the dirty underbelly of Hillary and the DNC's corruption. Not an enviable position to be in if you want to defend your party if you are a Democrat.
None of the leaked emails were refuted by anyone other than Donna Brazille. She later admitted to it being real (i.e. she reflexive lied hoping it would blow over), having given Hillary the CNN questions ahead of time]

Anyway, an incoming administration is involved with many aspects of preparing to run the country once the new potus is sworn in.
Did Flynn violate the Logan Act with what he did?
Frankly, I do not know, just like everyone else here. But that is not stopping the leftists from declaring Flynn is a Russian spy, and so is Trump, thus he should be removed from office.

So your totally partisan thread is predicated on a false narrative and comparative analogy. However I will still answer your question, at least in part.
If Hillary is proved to have committed crimes (in theory she has already admitted to having done so, and Comey outlined in great detail things she did that were in direct violation of the law) then yes she should be prosecuted.
If not, then she should be exonerated publicly. Fair is fair.

As to Trump, I know of no credible accusations, much less evidence that he "colluded with Russia" to influence our election. Sure as a candidate he publicly said Russia should release Hillary's emails to the press if they had them. Still that is a far cry from what you think he might have done.

Yet that does not stop the low information people out there from thinking Russia hacked into the voting machines to give Trump the votes needed to win.
Some in the DNC are glad people are misinformed, as they hope it will lead to future votes coming their way. Yet, exposing actual events/corruption is hardly a crime in and of itself. Thus Hillary & Co only have themselves to blame for actually having done what they did.


`

[getitgotitgood]

Originally Posted by Vector1

Wow, you couldn't get two more disparate examples, could you.

What Flynn, apparently did (at least according to one viewpoint) was help overt a diplomatic crisis with Russia that Obama created for purely political reasons. Of course that will fall on deaf ears for those looking for a pound of flesh or to score political points.
The progressive Democrats are looking for any excuse to strike back at Russia for what they perceive as harming Hillary's chances to get elected.
[On a side note I can empathize in that I wouldn't like it if the shoe were on the other foot. HOWEVER, it is not as if Wikileaks, the FBI, or Russia created fake stories to undermine Hillary. All they supposedly did was expose the dirty underbelly of Hillary and the DNC's corruption. Not an enviable position to be in if you want to defend your party if you are a Democrat.
None of the leaked emails were refuted by anyone other than Donna Brazille. She later admitted to it being real (i.e. she reflexive lied hoping it would blow over), having given Hillary the CNN questions ahead of time]

Anyway, an incoming administration is involved with many aspects of preparing to run the country once the new potus is sworn in.
Did Flynn violate the Logan Act with what he did?
Frankly, I do not know, just like everyone else here. But that is not stopping the leftists from declaring Flynn is a Russian spy, and so is Trump, thus he should be removed from office.

So your totally partisan thread is predicated on a false narrative and comparative analogy. However I will still answer your question, at least in part.
If Hillary is proved to have committed crimes (in theory she has already admitted to having done so, and Comey outlined in great detail things she did that were in direct violation of the law) then yes she should be prosecuted.
If not, then she should be exonerated publicly. Fair is fair.

As to Trump, I know of no credible accusations, much less evidence that he "colluded with Russia" to influence our election. Sure as a candidate he publicly said Russia should release Hillary's emails to the press if they had them. Still that is a far cry from what you think he might have done.

Yet that does not stop the low information people out there from thinking Russia hacked into the voting machines to give Trump the votes needed to win.
Some in the DNC are glad people are misinformed, as they hope it will lead to future votes coming their way. Yet, exposing actual events/corruption is hardly a crime in and of itself. Thus Hillary & Co only have themselves to blame for actually having done what they did.


`

You are absolutely wrong.
You are characterizing what Flynn did as averting a diplomatic crisis that Obama created and then accuse ME of being partisan??

Our own intelligence community has serious questions about what happened. I don't know what happened. I don't claim to. What I am saying is that IF it is discovered that Trump and this administration colluded with Russia to influence this election, that is FAR worse than what Hillary did which caused chants of "lock her up".

So if Hillary deserves to be locked up for her unsecure email server, wouldn't Trump deserve to be locked up if it's discovered he was colluding with Russia to influence our election in his favor?