Can you expand on why civil forfeiture based on suspected criminality shouldn't require criminal conviction? Forcibily taking money from someone for a civil reason (e.g. child support) is obviously different from taking money because you suspect a criminal offense.
I don't think you're familiar with /r/the_Donald's rules. The number one rule is no dissenting. Not even polite discussion is allowed. They've already entombed themselves.
It's not discrimination to enforce site wide rules against harassment, racism, and brigading (coordinated upvoting). Just because only a few communities are breaking the rules doesn't make it discrimination. Racists and bigots aren't a protected class.
You left out Petraeus who did worse and still only received probation.
The reality is that most cases of mishandling classified information result in little more than a stern talking to from your manager, re-training, and a blemish in your file.
Abolishing the TSA doesn't mean ending airport security. It would mean replacing it with privatized security. The TSA is universally hated so it wouldn't be that hard to find enough Democrats to go along with it.
They said they don't generate or store images period, which is at best misleading. It might not generate or store a commonly used image format, but it's still an imaging machine. The machine generates images or it's pure security theater. Either way they are attempting to deceive people and they shouldn't be trusted. (doubly so since previous claims that they don't store images is a proven lie)