The FBI didn't raid Obama and the Clintons because they would have found nothing to seize. The Clintons returned the items in question. Obama never took the documents; I don't know why you keep saying otherwise when we have NARA's word in black and white. Even assuming (without evidence) that NARA lied, the FBI had no mandate to pursue the matter without a complaint from them.Harrison Bergeron said:The Clintons literally stole historical artifacts from the White House.Sam Lowry said:The items that Clinton took from the White House were designated as personal gifts. You'd really have to stretch to call that stealing. The effort wouldn't do you much good, though, since Bush did the same thing and wasn't prosecuted either. So that kind of undermines your "double standard" argument.Harrison Bergeron said:If you can't figure out the different standards applied to Trump, Republicans, and Democrats especially by anti-Trump swampers I can explain it to you but I will never understand it for you. Kind of lack why the Clinton compound was not raided to get all the stuff they stole from the White House or the Clinton "Foundation" was considered a charity by the IRS but Obama sicked IRS agents on his political opponents.Sam Lowry said:Obama's documents have always been in NARA's custody. If you don't believe me, read the letter from NARA saying the documents have always been in their custody. I don't know what was in the documents that Trump took, but I know his refusal to return them left the government little choice but to act. Even conservative legal analysts have recognized this.Harrison Bergeron said:They have they just were not prosecuted or had the FBI-Stassi do a show raid to recover them.Sam Lowry said:I pointed out an example this afternoon. Unlike Trump, other presidents haven't stolen documents from the White House and refused to return them.Harrison Bergeron said:The rule of law should cut both ways. To my knowledge Trump has done nothing concerning the rule of law that was not done by others in the Democrat Party. Part of people's pro-Trump reaction I suspect is the exhaustion at the double standards and the complete lack of self-awareness by TDSers and Democrats in general. The same people that proclaimed Ronald Reagan wants to start World War III and George W. Bush will suspend elections and declare himself emperor are the same behind Russian pee hookers and Normandy fake news and the other ad nauseam silliness breathlessly reported from "sources."Sam Lowry said:You'll never understand the anti-Trump mindset until you understand that some people are genuinely concerned about the rule of law. It's not only corrupt elites and virtue signalers that you're losing. What you do with that is up to you, but until you understand it you'll always be waging war against a cartoon version of your opponent. I'm sure you'll win lots of easy battles...until 2024 rolls around and you get to the one that counts.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:It would be a mistake, but not as bad as going back to Trump. Nominating him a third time would be an endorsement of J6, conspiracy theories, and everything else that he's stood for since the last election. I don't know how the party recovers from that.Doc Holliday said:
I'm not gonna vote for uniparty loyalists. If the GOP thinks it can go back to establishment candidates, they're mistaken.
Actually, the opposite. It would be a great big Foxtrot Uniform to all the virtue posturing nonsense you and establishment elites have been pushing for years. The joy of watching neverTrumpers choke on his next inauguration is perhaps the singular reason why someone should support him, for they are by any measure more contemptible than he could ever be.
Of course, no serious adult would ever let the desire for schafenfraude alone drive the agenda, but it is sorely tempting.
Frustration with Democrats, though justified, is a poor guide to decision-making. Among other things it gives them too much control over us.
Can you show me where Trump had those nuclear codes we were all told he stole to sell to the Chinese, or was this like all the clear evidence in the impeachments and the January 6 TV Show that we were promised but never materialized by Shifty Shiff?
What Obama did with the IRS was reprehensible, but frankly he was a lot smarter about it than Trump. The only evidence he was even involved is circumstantial. And you must realize that how zealously such things are investigated depends greatly on who controls Congress. That cuts both ways and always has.
If your point is simply that left-wing bias exists and D.C. is more hospitable to Democrats, I don't disagree. But generalized complaining about persecution from the left falls a long, long way short of explaining the stuff that Trump has done since losing the last election. He's practically begging to be prosecuted. You may not agree, but if he has competent attorneys I guarantee you he's been told as much. Of course, with Trump that is always a big "if."
The FBI did not kick in their doors with more than 50 armed agents. Obama did not return documents. The FBI did not kick in their doors.
Eric Holder refused to testify before Congress. He did not get prosecuted.
Biden took millions from foreign governments ... crickets.
Yet, the FBI is focused on raiding Trump's home for a few overdue library books ... and attacking journalists to return Biden's daughter's diary secured under lawful means.
You mentioned the rule of law. The current American government is attacking every amendment in the Bill of Rights and launching a full frontal attack on the rule of law from the Russian Hoax to whatever scheme it cooks up once DeSantis wins Iowa and New Hampshire (or whatever the new primaries are). There used to be a time when we all agreed to generally play by the same rules but every year the double standard becomes closer to authoritarianism ... we had the Reichstag Fire with the January 6 silliness ... how much more do you need to see to be at least somewhat concerned.
The difference between us is I can still see Trump as a flawed president that still deserves the same treatment under the rule of law. I do not change my principles based on whether or not I like the subject - I would have been an ACLU lawyer defending the Klan in Skokie. It is not hard for me both to detest Trump and believe he deserves fair treatment under law and polity.
I agree with you about Holder. The Bidens do a lot of influence peddling, but that's not necessarily against the law.
Equal treatment doesn't mean the same action is taken in every case. There are many factors involved, most pertinently national security. A sofa isn't the same as a file full of nuclear secrets. I believe Trump deserves fair treatment and, even beyond that, a degree of deference as a former president. The difference is that I'm not in denial about the facts of the case. Classified documents are not, in fact, the equivalent of overdue library books. Willfully hoarding sensitive material is not the same as receiving a gift that was mislabeled as personal property. Ignoring subpoenas and lying to investigators is not the same as cooperating and returning the items. Trump's situation is one of his own making, and he shows no sign of accepting responsibility for it.
