Six is a lot of people, yes. Two would be a lot of criminals to have working for you by coincidence.
I think you are grossly overestimating the severity of the crimes we're talking about, and grossly underestimating the commonality of such among any organization made up of several hundred people (or more). I already laid this out, and you more or less ignored what I wrote. I'm reasonably certain that if you dug this thoroughly into the background of any random board of directors for a large corporation, or non-profit, you'd find similar amounts of white collar crimes somewhere as well. Remember, we're talking about tax filing issues.
We just don't normally look that hard. Which is part of the issue here. We don't see this sort of thing going on in the Clinton campaign, for example, not because it didn't, but because we only appointed a special prosecution to look at the Trump campaign. If we'd spent the same amount of effort focused on her campaign, or any previous presidential campaign by any major party, we would find similar rates.
Yes. They committed a crime, they are criminals.
Yeah. But we do make a distinction between say armed robbery, and say "creative tax filing", right? I mean, it's not like Trump worked with admitted domestic terrorists who detonated bombs at multiple federal buildings or anything. Or a campaign bundler charged with assault. Or the other bundlers who were associated with Mexican crime boss. Or the numerous folks associated with him who were convicted of fraud, conspiracy, and other issues Oh wait! That was Obama. Funny that the same standards don't seem to apply. Or, well, any standards at all when it comes to looking at the other side of the fence.
A few white collar crimes are nothing. Again. Look closely enough and you'll find them. And the stuff that went on with folks associated with Obama are massively more brazen and problematic than with Trump. There's no evidence Trump (for example) benefited in anyway from the decades old tax filings of Manafort and Gates. Obama did benefit directly from his dealings with Tony Rezko, for example. Obama's rise to prominence is almost a textbook case of a young rising politician willing to (as Danny DeVito would say in Johny Dangerously) "Play Ball!", in order to advance his career. Pretty much every corrupt figure in Chicago politics sits clearly in Obama's past. Yet, these associations were ignored or dismissed by the media as nothing at all
But hiring someone who, after the fact, is discovered to have mis filed some taxes a decade earlier, when that person had no association to the candidate at all? That's so serious we need to look into it? Um... No. It's not. Folks actively engaged in fraudulent and corrupt practices while you are directly working with them, and even in many cases on your behalf, is a problem.
Again. The only crimes which anyone associated with Trump committed during the campaign itself was Cohen, and his crimes were committed *against* Trump, not on his behalf. You're applying a strange set of criteria here IMO.
... or America would be buried under gangsters and crooks by Monday.
Um... I've only spoken of Obama. Have you looked at the folks Clinton is associated with? Or Clinton herself? I am by no means a fan of Trump. I am by no means a fan of Clinton. But I can objectively analyze the behaviors of both people and categorically state that Clinton appears to have far far far more dirty stuff going on than Trump. The majority of her money was gained through questionable interactions with government agencies, either through influence peddling, pay for play, or any of a number of other corrupt methodologies. The Clinton foundation appears to have primarily worked as a means for foreign parties to pay into the campaign to get favorable treatment or lobbying from the Clintons themselves. Her husbands fees for speaking in Russia suddenly quadrupled during her tenure as SoS, and then again when she was running for president and appeared likely to win. 3/4ths of all the people outside of the government who ever received a personal meeting with Clinton while she was SoS were donators to the foundation.
Yet, no one seems to want to investigate this. And that's really the sick part of all of this. We have a system that is driven, not by the rule of law, but by public outcry. And that outcry is largely controlled by the media, which overwhelmingly leans left and has no desire to see harm come to prominent Democrats. And so those prominent Democrats just plain get away with this stuff. Over and over.
But you cry about Trump. That's pretty darn biased IMO. Edited, Apr 1st 2019 4:42pm by gbaji