LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?ATL Bear said:It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.whiterock said:It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.ATL Bear said:This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.whiterock said:Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.Sam Lowry said:Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.whiterock said:Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.Osodecentx said:Quote:It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.Quote:Your argument is "what about Hillary" and "the docs shouldn't have been classified." Those won't be issues for a jury to decide.Quote:Quote:When/if the jury gets this case, I'm sure one of the issues they'll decide won't be "should the document have been classified?"Quote:
Presidential Records Act covers some of those questions, and also offer affirmative defense, classified or not.
The classification question is rarely fully discussed in the the press, but those expressing outrage that a classified document would be found in an insecure location, and that such is wildly different that what either of the Clintons did, are on very squishy ground.
In a ten year career I wrote a couple of intel reports a day, occasionally as many as 5-6. (plus operational reporting for the file). Those reports were RARELY (and by rarely I mean "cannot recall a single time, but I'm sure there were a few") about information sourced to a classified document. The reports were stuff like this:
-an account of a cabinet meeting, from a participant.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a participant in the cabinet meeting.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a senior policymaker on any given topic of the day
-an account of decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about the decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about each other
-etc. etc. etc.
There is an enormous gulf between classification and intelligence value. In fact, most of what is of intel value does not come from classified documents.
EVERYTHING on the sock drawer tapes was of intelligence value. (highest)
EVERYTHING on the bathroom server at Chappaqua was of intelligence value. (highest)
Every frickin' keystroke was Valhala-level goldmine intel for foreign powers friendly & not.
The musings of a POTUS at the end of the day about decisions, his opinions about his cabinet?
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.
The email rantings of a SECSTATE about her adulterous husband.
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.
That's why such things are considered government documents/equipment and covered by records acts.
That's why documents not classified by containing classified information are typically considered (even whenn not marked) classified.
So, sure. Talk about the legalities of whether the doc was classified or not, whether it was properly stored or not, whether there were good faith efforts to comply with requests or not.....that's all relevant. But don't be hypocritical about the fate of the western alliance because Trump had a 6 year old planning document about a scenario for a possible for a missile strike on Iran. Similar discussions about similar topics were on those tapes, too. And Hillary for her entire two years as Secstate did all business personal and official on a personally own, unsecure server in an unsecure location. FBI analysis ascertained that numerous foreign entities accessed the server. Every keystroke was intelligence gold for our adversaries, who knew all about her "fundraising" at the Clinton Foundation, her plans & intentions personal & official, etc....in REAL TIME. And those servers were, at the time of their destruction pursuant to Clinton's explicit order, under subpoena.
To overlook what she did and put Trump in jail is.....well, if you didn't realized it before, there's your sign about the dual standard of justice. A really, really big part of the electorate is furious, and justifiably so. Note that Comey did not talk about the number of classified emails on Hillary's server. He talked about "email chains" to obscure the number of classified documents at issue, knowing that every email which contained a classified document was itself a classified email. His phrasing reduced the apparent number of documents in question by orders of magnitude.
Lots & lots & lots of people who know the ins/outs of the classified world know the above, and just shake our head in disgust at the blatant bs going. on here.
There won't be a question like "since Hillary wasn't indicted should Trump have been indicted?"
Likewise there won't be a question like "since Hunter hasn't been indicted, should Trump be allowed to do whatever he wishes regardless of what the law of the USA state?"
The documents for which he was indicted do not belong to him. They are property of the USA. Plans for war generated by the Pentagon aren't Trumps personal papers. He was showing this off to people with no security clearance.
Presidential Daily Briefings are generated by the CIA and don't belong to Trump.
Below is a summary of the charges and their factual basis:
Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta are accused of conspiring to obstruct justice.
Prosecutors say they have assembled evidence showing that Mr. Trump willfully ignored a May 2022 subpoena requiring him to return everything belonging to the National Archives and took extraordinary steps to obstruct the F.B.I. and grand jury.
In the hours before Mr. Trump's lawyer visited his Mar-a-Lago estate to search for documents in a storage room an attempt to comply with the subpoena Mr. Trump directed Mr. Nauta, his co-defendant, to move 64 of the boxes out of the storage room because he maintained they were his property.
Top secret documents were stored so sloppily they spilled onto the floor.
One of the most striking images in the document is a picture of a box of top secret national security documents that in 2021 had spilled on the floor of a Mar-a-Lago storage room accessible to many of the resort's employees. The files were marked with restrictive "five eyes" classification markings, indicating they could only be viewed by officials with top security clearances issued by the United States and its closest allies.
Mr. Trump suggested his lawyer take a folder of documents and 'if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.'
In one of the most problematic pieces of evidence for Mr. Trump, the indictment recounts how, according to his lawyer's words, Mr. Trump and the lawyer discussed what to do with a folder of 38 documents with classification markings. The lawyer said Mr. Trump made a "plucking motion" that implied, "why don't you take them with you to your hotel room and if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out."
Mr. Trump shared secrets with visitors to Bedminster. There's audio.
Many of the episodes recounted in the filing have been reported in the news media including a potentially damaging revelation that he was recorded showing off secret U.S. battle plans describing the material as "highly confidential" and "secret," while admitting it had not been declassified.
"See, as president I could have declassified it," Mr. Trump said. He added, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."
A secret map was said to be shared with a political action committee staff member.
In another incident in August or September 2021, he shared a top secret military map with a staff member at his political action committee who did not have a security clearance.
According to the indictment, the former president suggested that a military operation in an unnamed country was not going well. He showed the map to the staff member but, according to the indictment, warned the person "not to get too close."
M. Evan Corcoran, one of Trump's lawyers, is a key witness.
Mr. Corcoran, who kept meticulous notes (some of them transcribed from iPhone voice memos he made for himself), found himself in the position of pressuring his evasive client into doing both the lawful and self-protective thing by returning the documents to the government.
In one of the more stunning revelations, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta moved around boxes so that Mr. Corcoran, who requested a full accounting of the material to provide to investigators, could not find them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/trump-indictment-highlights.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-raid&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc
Not a terribly germane argument you've madeI am a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, worked on two Supreme Court confirmations, and clerked for two federal appellate judges.
— Will Scharf (@willscharf) June 15, 2023
The indictment and case against President Trump is outrageous and shocking.
But let’s get into the details.
Here are my 6 key points on the case:
The docs weren't Trump's. They belonged to the US. He was asked to return them. He refused. Then docs were subpoenaed. He refused and obstructed their return. He told his lawyer to "pluck out" any docs that looked bad and hide them.
You then post the tweets of a guy running for AG in Missouri.
Scharf-Logo-AG.
Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.
I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.
"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/
The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.
Donald Trump Indicted on Seven Counts......
58,230 Views |
663 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Oldbear83
Trump was not POTUS when Comey announced no charges.FLBear5630 said:Yet, Trump's DOJ didn't indict? Shouldn't Trump and Sessions be held accountable for that?whiterock said:Well, I don't get how Democrats can not be prosecuted for keeping tens of thousands of official documents, hundreds of them classified, on a private server in a private residence then destroy them with hammer and chemicals when they fell under subpoena. But if we're going to let that slide for an appointed official, we have to let it slide for an elected official.FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Hey, doofus. The tapes were, literally, in Clinton's sock drawer. The court ruled that it was Clinton's sole discretion regarding whether they were official or not.Waco1947 said:The tapes were not Clinton's but the interviewer.whiterock said:The problem with that entire analysis is that it flies in the face of the plain words of the ruling....that POTUS has sole discretion as to what is personal and what is official.Waco1947 said:
CLAIM: A case involving Bill Clinton keeping audio tapes in a sock drawer proves that Trump's actions were legally sound.
THE FACTS: The case in question involved very different documents and experts say it isn't the parallel Trump makes it out to be.
In Judicial Watch vs. NARA, a conservative activist group sued for access to audio recordings of wide ranging interviews Clinton did with historian Taylor Branch during his time in the White House. Clinton was reported to have stashed the cassettes in his sock drawer.
The Washington, D.C. based organization had argued the audiotapes were "presidential records" that the agency should provide under the federal public records law, but U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ultimately dismissed the case, ruling NARA didn't have the authority to seize the records from Clinton and hand them over.
David Super, another professor at Georgetown Law, argues the 2012 Clinton case has "absolutely nothing to do with" the charges Trump currently faces.
For one thing, the court didn't dismiss the case because it found that Clinton was entitled to keep the tapes, Super said. Jackson simply ruled that NARA could not turn over the tapes as public records because they were owned by the historian and not government property.
Trump's 2024 presidential campaign didn't respond to an email seeking comment, but the Republican and his allies have argued that the judge's ruling in the case showed that the Presidential Records Act affords presidents complete discretion to delineate between personal and presidential records.
Legal experts this week also dismissed those arguments. Margulies, of Roger Williams University, said the claim "mixes apples and oranges."
"The Clinton materials were audiotapes of conversations with an historian that incidentally recorded some calls on official business," he wrote. "In contrast, the documents that Trump kept were all presidential records from the moment they arrived at the Oval Office from other parts of the government."
Eric Freedman, a professor at Hofstra University's School of Law in Hempstead, New York, also noted that a federal appeals court has already rejected similar arguments raised by Trump's legal team as it sought to block the criminal investigation into the records found at Mar-a-Lago.
In either case, Super said, any discussion about the Presidential Records Act is "largely a red herring" because Trump doesn't face charges of violating that law.
The indictment instead charges Trump with Espionage Act violations, as prosecutors argue the documents he kept could harm the country if obtained by adversaries.
AP
Now, I have a pretty good guess what you and others in this thread will argue about that, but plain fact is....that judge wrote those words in deference to a DEMOCRAT former POTUS. Thus, they should apply to all former presidents, correct? or just the former Democrat presidents?
Even if we agree to modify the ruling in question to exclude stuff that is obviously official, the wording of the ruling makes it incredibly difficult to impute criminality to retention of documents that shouldn't be retained......
But. "It's Trump. So Constitution and rule of law and precedent be damned. We don't like him so we will crucify him, no matter the consequences"....say his critics pretending to be great defenders of the Republic.
You are comparing personal tapes to official briefing documents produced by other agencies on National Defense. Clinton may be able to say his tapes were personal, he wasn't saying NSC briefing documents were personal and declassified through osmosis. Considering you said you read the law and guidance you know that there are documents that the President has no control. I really do not get the defense of Trump on National defense docs.
Good grief, man. ONE standard.
LOL.sombear said:It was not an FBI/Grand Jury subpoena. The FBI and Republican Senate found her team destroyed them in the ordinary course of business and otherwise found no wrongdoing on Hillary's part. And, regardless, the info was only destroyed on her server. They remained on the government server, so they were not destroyed.whiterock said:Well, I don't get how Democrats can not be prosecuted for keeping tens of thousands of official documents, hundreds of them classified, on a private server in a private residence then destroy them with hammer and chemicals when they fell under subpoena. But if we're going to let that slide for an appointed official, we have to let it slide for an elected official.FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Hey, doofus. The tapes were, literally, in Clinton's sock drawer. The court ruled that it was Clinton's sole discretion regarding whether they were official or not.Waco1947 said:The tapes were not Clinton's but the interviewer.whiterock said:The problem with that entire analysis is that it flies in the face of the plain words of the ruling....that POTUS has sole discretion as to what is personal and what is official.Waco1947 said:
CLAIM: A case involving Bill Clinton keeping audio tapes in a sock drawer proves that Trump's actions were legally sound.
THE FACTS: The case in question involved very different documents and experts say it isn't the parallel Trump makes it out to be.
In Judicial Watch vs. NARA, a conservative activist group sued for access to audio recordings of wide ranging interviews Clinton did with historian Taylor Branch during his time in the White House. Clinton was reported to have stashed the cassettes in his sock drawer.
The Washington, D.C. based organization had argued the audiotapes were "presidential records" that the agency should provide under the federal public records law, but U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ultimately dismissed the case, ruling NARA didn't have the authority to seize the records from Clinton and hand them over.
David Super, another professor at Georgetown Law, argues the 2012 Clinton case has "absolutely nothing to do with" the charges Trump currently faces.
For one thing, the court didn't dismiss the case because it found that Clinton was entitled to keep the tapes, Super said. Jackson simply ruled that NARA could not turn over the tapes as public records because they were owned by the historian and not government property.
Trump's 2024 presidential campaign didn't respond to an email seeking comment, but the Republican and his allies have argued that the judge's ruling in the case showed that the Presidential Records Act affords presidents complete discretion to delineate between personal and presidential records.
Legal experts this week also dismissed those arguments. Margulies, of Roger Williams University, said the claim "mixes apples and oranges."
"The Clinton materials were audiotapes of conversations with an historian that incidentally recorded some calls on official business," he wrote. "In contrast, the documents that Trump kept were all presidential records from the moment they arrived at the Oval Office from other parts of the government."
Eric Freedman, a professor at Hofstra University's School of Law in Hempstead, New York, also noted that a federal appeals court has already rejected similar arguments raised by Trump's legal team as it sought to block the criminal investigation into the records found at Mar-a-Lago.
In either case, Super said, any discussion about the Presidential Records Act is "largely a red herring" because Trump doesn't face charges of violating that law.
The indictment instead charges Trump with Espionage Act violations, as prosecutors argue the documents he kept could harm the country if obtained by adversaries.
AP
Now, I have a pretty good guess what you and others in this thread will argue about that, but plain fact is....that judge wrote those words in deference to a DEMOCRAT former POTUS. Thus, they should apply to all former presidents, correct? or just the former Democrat presidents?
Even if we agree to modify the ruling in question to exclude stuff that is obviously official, the wording of the ruling makes it incredibly difficult to impute criminality to retention of documents that shouldn't be retained......
But. "It's Trump. So Constitution and rule of law and precedent be damned. We don't like him so we will crucify him, no matter the consequences"....say his critics pretending to be great defenders of the Republic.
You are comparing personal tapes to official briefing documents produced by other agencies on National Defense. Clinton may be able to say his tapes were personal, he wasn't saying NSC briefing documents were personal and declassified through osmosis. Considering you said you read the law and guidance you know that there are documents that the President has no control. I really do not get the defense of Trump on National defense docs.
Good grief, man. ONE standard.
I believe the jury will rule in Trump's favor. But he will not win on the law, and his case is far different (and worse) than Hillary's and Biden's.
HER SERVER was under subpoena. She destroyed it. Classified records were on that server. (as proved by the documents discovered on the govt servers.) According to standards to which Trump is being held, she had no defense. She should have been prosecuted. But she wasn't. Because GOP did not want to press the issue of prosecuting a former SECSTATE/First Lady and likely POTUS nominee of the Dem Party. Too inflammatory. But now that roles are reversed, we are playing a different sheet of music. There are numerous off-ramps to this Trump affair which still leave the Democrats with a political issue to play with. But we are not headed that way. Trump is being held to a wildly different standard.
The dumbest MF'ers in this whole kibuki are the establishment Republicans who seriously think this is a one-time "get out of Trump" card and then the game will be played fair from here on out. Now is the time to look Democrats in the eye and say very calmly and coolly: "You better hope you never lose another election." And mean it. Until we do that, the double standard will continue.
whiterock said:Letting a long list of Democrats walk free and prosecuting the leader of the GOP is the furthest thing from draining the swam.FLBear5630 said:It is not extralegal! Did he have the documents? Did he give them back? If he did and is proven in a Court of Law, did he break the law? These are all simple yes and no answers. We will find out, but him being indicted is not extralegal.All he had to do was give them back, they ALREADY gave him the benefit of the doubt for several years, the other Presidents turned the docs over to NARA and NARA controlled where they were stored and located. Trump, once again can't follow ANY procedure because he is special, didn't do that. This is all on Trump, the only thing extralegal is the way Trump handles his business! This guy has no business being in a position of public leadership.Oldbear83 said:Name me the last President, or cabinet-level official, to have been so prosecuted.FLBear5630 said:Oldbear83 said:
If you actually believe Donald Trump is guilty of Espionage, you are a Democrat.
That is all.
Ok, so now he has to have been a spy??? He had National Security documents that he shouldn't and wouldn't give back. Others have been prosecuted, but for Donald he has to be a spy as well or he should walk.
It has not happened for significant reasons. Hilary Clinton, for example, was not prosecuted under the Espionage Act, despite many violations far more egregious than anything done by Trump,
Part of that decision was the fact that Hillary Clinton never went through standard security vetting: DOJ officials admitted that politicians who are granted access to classified material are given special clearance which is separate from military/CIA/FBI clearances. That is also the case with Presidents, only more so.
The current situation is extralegal. The outcome of this case will set precedent for all future Presidents, so the notion that this is cut and dried is absurd on its face.
You keep bringing up the lack of someone else being prosecuted as vindication for Trump regardless of whether he is guilty. Don't you believe if you commit a crime it should be prosecuted, equally under the law? I thought you wanted the good old boy system swamp cleaned out? Or, is that only for who you think fits that definition?
Everything you said about Trump could be said about Hillary & Biden. Why on earth would we accept the premise, as you have, that they can go scot free while our we get the book thrown at us?
one standard, for all.
All of that is great at a Trump rally,but doesn't change particulars of case.
I think it will matter to the jury.FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Letting a long list of Democrats walk free and prosecuting the leader of the GOP is the furthest thing from draining the swam.FLBear5630 said:It is not extralegal! Did he have the documents? Did he give them back? If he did and is proven in a Court of Law, did he break the law? These are all simple yes and no answers. We will find out, but him being indicted is not extralegal.All he had to do was give them back, they ALREADY gave him the benefit of the doubt for several years, the other Presidents turned the docs over to NARA and NARA controlled where they were stored and located. Trump, once again can't follow ANY procedure because he is special, didn't do that. This is all on Trump, the only thing extralegal is the way Trump handles his business! This guy has no business being in a position of public leadership.Oldbear83 said:Name me the last President, or cabinet-level official, to have been so prosecuted.FLBear5630 said:Oldbear83 said:
If you actually believe Donald Trump is guilty of Espionage, you are a Democrat.
That is all.
Ok, so now he has to have been a spy??? He had National Security documents that he shouldn't and wouldn't give back. Others have been prosecuted, but for Donald he has to be a spy as well or he should walk.
It has not happened for significant reasons. Hilary Clinton, for example, was not prosecuted under the Espionage Act, despite many violations far more egregious than anything done by Trump,
Part of that decision was the fact that Hillary Clinton never went through standard security vetting: DOJ officials admitted that politicians who are granted access to classified material are given special clearance which is separate from military/CIA/FBI clearances. That is also the case with Presidents, only more so.
The current situation is extralegal. The outcome of this case will set precedent for all future Presidents, so the notion that this is cut and dried is absurd on its face.
You keep bringing up the lack of someone else being prosecuted as vindication for Trump regardless of whether he is guilty. Don't you believe if you commit a crime it should be prosecuted, equally under the law? I thought you wanted the good old boy system swamp cleaned out? Or, is that only for who you think fits that definition?
Everything you said about Trump could be said about Hillary & Biden. Why on earth would we accept the premise, as you have, that they can go scot free while our we get the book thrown at us?
one standard, for all.
All of that is great at a Trump rally,but doesn't change particulars of case.
Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.whiterock said:LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?ATL Bear said:It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.whiterock said:It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.ATL Bear said:This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.whiterock said:Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.Sam Lowry said:Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.whiterock said:Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.Osodecentx said:Quote:It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.Quote:Your argument is "what about Hillary" and "the docs shouldn't have been classified." Those won't be issues for a jury to decide.Quote:Quote:When/if the jury gets this case, I'm sure one of the issues they'll decide won't be "should the document have been classified?"Quote:
Presidential Records Act covers some of those questions, and also offer affirmative defense, classified or not.
The classification question is rarely fully discussed in the the press, but those expressing outrage that a classified document would be found in an insecure location, and that such is wildly different that what either of the Clintons did, are on very squishy ground.
In a ten year career I wrote a couple of intel reports a day, occasionally as many as 5-6. (plus operational reporting for the file). Those reports were RARELY (and by rarely I mean "cannot recall a single time, but I'm sure there were a few") about information sourced to a classified document. The reports were stuff like this:
-an account of a cabinet meeting, from a participant.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a participant in the cabinet meeting.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a senior policymaker on any given topic of the day
-an account of decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about the decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about each other
-etc. etc. etc.
There is an enormous gulf between classification and intelligence value. In fact, most of what is of intel value does not come from classified documents.
EVERYTHING on the sock drawer tapes was of intelligence value. (highest)
EVERYTHING on the bathroom server at Chappaqua was of intelligence value. (highest)
Every frickin' keystroke was Valhala-level goldmine intel for foreign powers friendly & not.
The musings of a POTUS at the end of the day about decisions, his opinions about his cabinet?
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.
The email rantings of a SECSTATE about her adulterous husband.
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.
That's why such things are considered government documents/equipment and covered by records acts.
That's why documents not classified by containing classified information are typically considered (even whenn not marked) classified.
So, sure. Talk about the legalities of whether the doc was classified or not, whether it was properly stored or not, whether there were good faith efforts to comply with requests or not.....that's all relevant. But don't be hypocritical about the fate of the western alliance because Trump had a 6 year old planning document about a scenario for a possible for a missile strike on Iran. Similar discussions about similar topics were on those tapes, too. And Hillary for her entire two years as Secstate did all business personal and official on a personally own, unsecure server in an unsecure location. FBI analysis ascertained that numerous foreign entities accessed the server. Every keystroke was intelligence gold for our adversaries, who knew all about her "fundraising" at the Clinton Foundation, her plans & intentions personal & official, etc....in REAL TIME. And those servers were, at the time of their destruction pursuant to Clinton's explicit order, under subpoena.
To overlook what she did and put Trump in jail is.....well, if you didn't realized it before, there's your sign about the dual standard of justice. A really, really big part of the electorate is furious, and justifiably so. Note that Comey did not talk about the number of classified emails on Hillary's server. He talked about "email chains" to obscure the number of classified documents at issue, knowing that every email which contained a classified document was itself a classified email. His phrasing reduced the apparent number of documents in question by orders of magnitude.
Lots & lots & lots of people who know the ins/outs of the classified world know the above, and just shake our head in disgust at the blatant bs going. on here.
There won't be a question like "since Hillary wasn't indicted should Trump have been indicted?"
Likewise there won't be a question like "since Hunter hasn't been indicted, should Trump be allowed to do whatever he wishes regardless of what the law of the USA state?"
The documents for which he was indicted do not belong to him. They are property of the USA. Plans for war generated by the Pentagon aren't Trumps personal papers. He was showing this off to people with no security clearance.
Presidential Daily Briefings are generated by the CIA and don't belong to Trump.
Below is a summary of the charges and their factual basis:
Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta are accused of conspiring to obstruct justice.
Prosecutors say they have assembled evidence showing that Mr. Trump willfully ignored a May 2022 subpoena requiring him to return everything belonging to the National Archives and took extraordinary steps to obstruct the F.B.I. and grand jury.
In the hours before Mr. Trump's lawyer visited his Mar-a-Lago estate to search for documents in a storage room an attempt to comply with the subpoena Mr. Trump directed Mr. Nauta, his co-defendant, to move 64 of the boxes out of the storage room because he maintained they were his property.
Top secret documents were stored so sloppily they spilled onto the floor.
One of the most striking images in the document is a picture of a box of top secret national security documents that in 2021 had spilled on the floor of a Mar-a-Lago storage room accessible to many of the resort's employees. The files were marked with restrictive "five eyes" classification markings, indicating they could only be viewed by officials with top security clearances issued by the United States and its closest allies.
Mr. Trump suggested his lawyer take a folder of documents and 'if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.'
In one of the most problematic pieces of evidence for Mr. Trump, the indictment recounts how, according to his lawyer's words, Mr. Trump and the lawyer discussed what to do with a folder of 38 documents with classification markings. The lawyer said Mr. Trump made a "plucking motion" that implied, "why don't you take them with you to your hotel room and if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out."
Mr. Trump shared secrets with visitors to Bedminster. There's audio.
Many of the episodes recounted in the filing have been reported in the news media including a potentially damaging revelation that he was recorded showing off secret U.S. battle plans describing the material as "highly confidential" and "secret," while admitting it had not been declassified.
"See, as president I could have declassified it," Mr. Trump said. He added, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."
A secret map was said to be shared with a political action committee staff member.
In another incident in August or September 2021, he shared a top secret military map with a staff member at his political action committee who did not have a security clearance.
According to the indictment, the former president suggested that a military operation in an unnamed country was not going well. He showed the map to the staff member but, according to the indictment, warned the person "not to get too close."
M. Evan Corcoran, one of Trump's lawyers, is a key witness.
Mr. Corcoran, who kept meticulous notes (some of them transcribed from iPhone voice memos he made for himself), found himself in the position of pressuring his evasive client into doing both the lawful and self-protective thing by returning the documents to the government.
In one of the more stunning revelations, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta moved around boxes so that Mr. Corcoran, who requested a full accounting of the material to provide to investigators, could not find them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/trump-indictment-highlights.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-raid&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc
Not a terribly germane argument you've madeI am a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, worked on two Supreme Court confirmations, and clerked for two federal appellate judges.
— Will Scharf (@willscharf) June 15, 2023
The indictment and case against President Trump is outrageous and shocking.
But let’s get into the details.
Here are my 6 key points on the case:
The docs weren't Trump's. They belonged to the US. He was asked to return them. He refused. Then docs were subpoenaed. He refused and obstructed their return. He told his lawyer to "pluck out" any docs that looked bad and hide them.
You then post the tweets of a guy running for AG in Missouri.
Scharf-Logo-AG.
Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.
I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.
"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/
The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.
We aren't accepting they should go free. Only by allowing Trump to skate too would we be accepting it. How can you go after Biden when you justify your own malfeasance? The one standard you're promoting is they're all above the law.whiterock said:Letting a long list of Democrats walk free and prosecuting the leader of the GOP is the furthest thing from draining the swam.FLBear5630 said:It is not extralegal! Did he have the documents? Did he give them back? If he did and is proven in a Court of Law, did he break the law? These are all simple yes and no answers. We will find out, but him being indicted is not extralegal.All he had to do was give them back, they ALREADY gave him the benefit of the doubt for several years, the other Presidents turned the docs over to NARA and NARA controlled where they were stored and located. Trump, once again can't follow ANY procedure because he is special, didn't do that. This is all on Trump, the only thing extralegal is the way Trump handles his business! This guy has no business being in a position of public leadership.Oldbear83 said:Name me the last President, or cabinet-level official, to have been so prosecuted.FLBear5630 said:Oldbear83 said:
If you actually believe Donald Trump is guilty of Espionage, you are a Democrat.
That is all.
Ok, so now he has to have been a spy??? He had National Security documents that he shouldn't and wouldn't give back. Others have been prosecuted, but for Donald he has to be a spy as well or he should walk.
It has not happened for significant reasons. Hilary Clinton, for example, was not prosecuted under the Espionage Act, despite many violations far more egregious than anything done by Trump,
Part of that decision was the fact that Hillary Clinton never went through standard security vetting: DOJ officials admitted that politicians who are granted access to classified material are given special clearance which is separate from military/CIA/FBI clearances. That is also the case with Presidents, only more so.
The current situation is extralegal. The outcome of this case will set precedent for all future Presidents, so the notion that this is cut and dried is absurd on its face.
You keep bringing up the lack of someone else being prosecuted as vindication for Trump regardless of whether he is guilty. Don't you believe if you commit a crime it should be prosecuted, equally under the law? I thought you wanted the good old boy system swamp cleaned out? Or, is that only for who you think fits that definition?
Everything you said about Trump could be said about Hillary & Biden. Why on earth would we accept the premise, as you have, that they can go scot free while our we get the book thrown at us?
one standard, for all.
Translation - ATL says the only way we fix the abuse of the system by Hillary, Schiff, Biden et al is to put Trump in prison.ATL Bear said:We aren't accepting they should go free. Only by allowing Trump to skate too would we be accepting it. How can you go after Biden when you justify your own malfeasance? The one standard you're promoting is they're all above the law.whiterock said:Letting a long list of Democrats walk free and prosecuting the leader of the GOP is the furthest thing from draining the swam.FLBear5630 said:It is not extralegal! Did he have the documents? Did he give them back? If he did and is proven in a Court of Law, did he break the law? These are all simple yes and no answers. We will find out, but him being indicted is not extralegal.All he had to do was give them back, they ALREADY gave him the benefit of the doubt for several years, the other Presidents turned the docs over to NARA and NARA controlled where they were stored and located. Trump, once again can't follow ANY procedure because he is special, didn't do that. This is all on Trump, the only thing extralegal is the way Trump handles his business! This guy has no business being in a position of public leadership.Oldbear83 said:Name me the last President, or cabinet-level official, to have been so prosecuted.FLBear5630 said:Oldbear83 said:
If you actually believe Donald Trump is guilty of Espionage, you are a Democrat.
That is all.
Ok, so now he has to have been a spy??? He had National Security documents that he shouldn't and wouldn't give back. Others have been prosecuted, but for Donald he has to be a spy as well or he should walk.
It has not happened for significant reasons. Hilary Clinton, for example, was not prosecuted under the Espionage Act, despite many violations far more egregious than anything done by Trump,
Part of that decision was the fact that Hillary Clinton never went through standard security vetting: DOJ officials admitted that politicians who are granted access to classified material are given special clearance which is separate from military/CIA/FBI clearances. That is also the case with Presidents, only more so.
The current situation is extralegal. The outcome of this case will set precedent for all future Presidents, so the notion that this is cut and dried is absurd on its face.
You keep bringing up the lack of someone else being prosecuted as vindication for Trump regardless of whether he is guilty. Don't you believe if you commit a crime it should be prosecuted, equally under the law? I thought you wanted the good old boy system swamp cleaned out? Or, is that only for who you think fits that definition?
Everything you said about Trump could be said about Hillary & Biden. Why on earth would we accept the premise, as you have, that they can go scot free while our we get the book thrown at us?
one standard, for all.
TDS gonna TDS
Ok, let's look at the logic here.Oldbear83 said:Translation - ATL says the only way we fix the abuse of the system by Hillary, Schiff, Biden et al is to put Trump in prison.ATL Bear said:We aren't accepting they should go free. Only by allowing Trump to skate too would we be accepting it. How can you go after Biden when you justify your own malfeasance? The one standard you're promoting is they're all above the law.whiterock said:Letting a long list of Democrats walk free and prosecuting the leader of the GOP is the furthest thing from draining the swam.FLBear5630 said:It is not extralegal! Did he have the documents? Did he give them back? If he did and is proven in a Court of Law, did he break the law? These are all simple yes and no answers. We will find out, but him being indicted is not extralegal.All he had to do was give them back, they ALREADY gave him the benefit of the doubt for several years, the other Presidents turned the docs over to NARA and NARA controlled where they were stored and located. Trump, once again can't follow ANY procedure because he is special, didn't do that. This is all on Trump, the only thing extralegal is the way Trump handles his business! This guy has no business being in a position of public leadership.Oldbear83 said:Name me the last President, or cabinet-level official, to have been so prosecuted.FLBear5630 said:Oldbear83 said:
If you actually believe Donald Trump is guilty of Espionage, you are a Democrat.
That is all.
Ok, so now he has to have been a spy??? He had National Security documents that he shouldn't and wouldn't give back. Others have been prosecuted, but for Donald he has to be a spy as well or he should walk.
It has not happened for significant reasons. Hilary Clinton, for example, was not prosecuted under the Espionage Act, despite many violations far more egregious than anything done by Trump,
Part of that decision was the fact that Hillary Clinton never went through standard security vetting: DOJ officials admitted that politicians who are granted access to classified material are given special clearance which is separate from military/CIA/FBI clearances. That is also the case with Presidents, only more so.
The current situation is extralegal. The outcome of this case will set precedent for all future Presidents, so the notion that this is cut and dried is absurd on its face.
You keep bringing up the lack of someone else being prosecuted as vindication for Trump regardless of whether he is guilty. Don't you believe if you commit a crime it should be prosecuted, equally under the law? I thought you wanted the good old boy system swamp cleaned out? Or, is that only for who you think fits that definition?
Everything you said about Trump could be said about Hillary & Biden. Why on earth would we accept the premise, as you have, that they can go scot free while our we get the book thrown at us?
one standard, for all.
TDS gonna TDS
Your complaining that the establishment is letting people off the hook because they are insiders or politically connected.
OK DOJ is doing - Trump and Hunter Biden were charged. Biden has a Special Counsel investigating him.
ATL says Trump needs to be prosecuted. H Biden already plead guilty to lesser charges.
You say the only way to rectify it is to NOT prosecute Trump, but do prosecute H Biden and J Biden, while their at it they should go back and prosecute Hillary too. That will make things right?
And you say that ATL is biased??????
There's not a double standard in this case, but there has been in other cases (e.g. Russiagate). What you're talking about would ensure more double standards and more weaponizing of the system.whiterock said:Now is the time to look Democrats in the eye and say very calmly and coolly: "You better hope you never lose another election." And mean it. Until we do that, the double standard will continue.sombear said:It was not an FBI/Grand Jury subpoena. The FBI and Republican Senate found her team destroyed them in the ordinary course of business and otherwise found no wrongdoing on Hillary's part. And, regardless, the info was only destroyed on her server. They remained on the government server, so they were not destroyed.whiterock said:Well, I don't get how Democrats can not be prosecuted for keeping tens of thousands of official documents, hundreds of them classified, on a private server in a private residence then destroy them with hammer and chemicals when they fell under subpoena. But if we're going to let that slide for an appointed official, we have to let it slide for an elected official.FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Hey, doofus. The tapes were, literally, in Clinton's sock drawer. The court ruled that it was Clinton's sole discretion regarding whether they were official or not.Waco1947 said:The tapes were not Clinton's but the interviewer.whiterock said:The problem with that entire analysis is that it flies in the face of the plain words of the ruling....that POTUS has sole discretion as to what is personal and what is official.Waco1947 said:
CLAIM: A case involving Bill Clinton keeping audio tapes in a sock drawer proves that Trump's actions were legally sound.
THE FACTS: The case in question involved very different documents and experts say it isn't the parallel Trump makes it out to be.
In Judicial Watch vs. NARA, a conservative activist group sued for access to audio recordings of wide ranging interviews Clinton did with historian Taylor Branch during his time in the White House. Clinton was reported to have stashed the cassettes in his sock drawer.
The Washington, D.C. based organization had argued the audiotapes were "presidential records" that the agency should provide under the federal public records law, but U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ultimately dismissed the case, ruling NARA didn't have the authority to seize the records from Clinton and hand them over.
David Super, another professor at Georgetown Law, argues the 2012 Clinton case has "absolutely nothing to do with" the charges Trump currently faces.
For one thing, the court didn't dismiss the case because it found that Clinton was entitled to keep the tapes, Super said. Jackson simply ruled that NARA could not turn over the tapes as public records because they were owned by the historian and not government property.
Trump's 2024 presidential campaign didn't respond to an email seeking comment, but the Republican and his allies have argued that the judge's ruling in the case showed that the Presidential Records Act affords presidents complete discretion to delineate between personal and presidential records.
Legal experts this week also dismissed those arguments. Margulies, of Roger Williams University, said the claim "mixes apples and oranges."
"The Clinton materials were audiotapes of conversations with an historian that incidentally recorded some calls on official business," he wrote. "In contrast, the documents that Trump kept were all presidential records from the moment they arrived at the Oval Office from other parts of the government."
Eric Freedman, a professor at Hofstra University's School of Law in Hempstead, New York, also noted that a federal appeals court has already rejected similar arguments raised by Trump's legal team as it sought to block the criminal investigation into the records found at Mar-a-Lago.
In either case, Super said, any discussion about the Presidential Records Act is "largely a red herring" because Trump doesn't face charges of violating that law.
The indictment instead charges Trump with Espionage Act violations, as prosecutors argue the documents he kept could harm the country if obtained by adversaries.
AP
Now, I have a pretty good guess what you and others in this thread will argue about that, but plain fact is....that judge wrote those words in deference to a DEMOCRAT former POTUS. Thus, they should apply to all former presidents, correct? or just the former Democrat presidents?
Even if we agree to modify the ruling in question to exclude stuff that is obviously official, the wording of the ruling makes it incredibly difficult to impute criminality to retention of documents that shouldn't be retained......
But. "It's Trump. So Constitution and rule of law and precedent be damned. We don't like him so we will crucify him, no matter the consequences"....say his critics pretending to be great defenders of the Republic.
You are comparing personal tapes to official briefing documents produced by other agencies on National Defense. Clinton may be able to say his tapes were personal, he wasn't saying NSC briefing documents were personal and declassified through osmosis. Considering you said you read the law and guidance you know that there are documents that the President has no control. I really do not get the defense of Trump on National defense docs.
Good grief, man. ONE standard.
I believe the jury will rule in Trump's favor. But he will not win on the law, and his case is far different (and worse) than Hillary's and Biden's.
I don't know one person who has argued Dems will play fair when Trump is gone. They all say the exact opposite. The dumbest MF'ers I know are the ones arguing to re-nominate someone who makes it easy for the Dems to go after.whiterock said:LOL.sombear said:It was not an FBI/Grand Jury subpoena. The FBI and Republican Senate found her team destroyed them in the ordinary course of business and otherwise found no wrongdoing on Hillary's part. And, regardless, the info was only destroyed on her server. They remained on the government server, so they were not destroyed.whiterock said:Well, I don't get how Democrats can not be prosecuted for keeping tens of thousands of official documents, hundreds of them classified, on a private server in a private residence then destroy them with hammer and chemicals when they fell under subpoena. But if we're going to let that slide for an appointed official, we have to let it slide for an elected official.FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:Hey, doofus. The tapes were, literally, in Clinton's sock drawer. The court ruled that it was Clinton's sole discretion regarding whether they were official or not.Waco1947 said:The tapes were not Clinton's but the interviewer.whiterock said:The problem with that entire analysis is that it flies in the face of the plain words of the ruling....that POTUS has sole discretion as to what is personal and what is official.Waco1947 said:
CLAIM: A case involving Bill Clinton keeping audio tapes in a sock drawer proves that Trump's actions were legally sound.
THE FACTS: The case in question involved very different documents and experts say it isn't the parallel Trump makes it out to be.
In Judicial Watch vs. NARA, a conservative activist group sued for access to audio recordings of wide ranging interviews Clinton did with historian Taylor Branch during his time in the White House. Clinton was reported to have stashed the cassettes in his sock drawer.
The Washington, D.C. based organization had argued the audiotapes were "presidential records" that the agency should provide under the federal public records law, but U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ultimately dismissed the case, ruling NARA didn't have the authority to seize the records from Clinton and hand them over.
David Super, another professor at Georgetown Law, argues the 2012 Clinton case has "absolutely nothing to do with" the charges Trump currently faces.
For one thing, the court didn't dismiss the case because it found that Clinton was entitled to keep the tapes, Super said. Jackson simply ruled that NARA could not turn over the tapes as public records because they were owned by the historian and not government property.
Trump's 2024 presidential campaign didn't respond to an email seeking comment, but the Republican and his allies have argued that the judge's ruling in the case showed that the Presidential Records Act affords presidents complete discretion to delineate between personal and presidential records.
Legal experts this week also dismissed those arguments. Margulies, of Roger Williams University, said the claim "mixes apples and oranges."
"The Clinton materials were audiotapes of conversations with an historian that incidentally recorded some calls on official business," he wrote. "In contrast, the documents that Trump kept were all presidential records from the moment they arrived at the Oval Office from other parts of the government."
Eric Freedman, a professor at Hofstra University's School of Law in Hempstead, New York, also noted that a federal appeals court has already rejected similar arguments raised by Trump's legal team as it sought to block the criminal investigation into the records found at Mar-a-Lago.
In either case, Super said, any discussion about the Presidential Records Act is "largely a red herring" because Trump doesn't face charges of violating that law.
The indictment instead charges Trump with Espionage Act violations, as prosecutors argue the documents he kept could harm the country if obtained by adversaries.
AP
Now, I have a pretty good guess what you and others in this thread will argue about that, but plain fact is....that judge wrote those words in deference to a DEMOCRAT former POTUS. Thus, they should apply to all former presidents, correct? or just the former Democrat presidents?
Even if we agree to modify the ruling in question to exclude stuff that is obviously official, the wording of the ruling makes it incredibly difficult to impute criminality to retention of documents that shouldn't be retained......
But. "It's Trump. So Constitution and rule of law and precedent be damned. We don't like him so we will crucify him, no matter the consequences"....say his critics pretending to be great defenders of the Republic.
You are comparing personal tapes to official briefing documents produced by other agencies on National Defense. Clinton may be able to say his tapes were personal, he wasn't saying NSC briefing documents were personal and declassified through osmosis. Considering you said you read the law and guidance you know that there are documents that the President has no control. I really do not get the defense of Trump on National defense docs.
Good grief, man. ONE standard.
I believe the jury will rule in Trump's favor. But he will not win on the law, and his case is far different (and worse) than Hillary's and Biden's.
HER SERVER was under subpoena. She destroyed it. Classified records were on that server. (as proved by the documents discovered on the govt servers.) According to standards to which Trump is being held, she had no defense. She should have been prosecuted. But she wasn't. Because GOP did not want to press the issue of prosecuting a former SECSTATE/First Lady and likely POTUS nominee of the Dem Party. Too inflammatory. But now that roles are reversed, we are playing a different sheet of music. There are numerous off-ramps to this Trump affair which still leave the Democrats with a political issue to play with. But we are not headed that way. Trump is being held to a wildly different standard.
The dumbest MF'ers in this whole kibuki are the establishment Republicans who seriously think this is a one-time "get out of Trump" card and then the game will be played fair from here on out. Now is the time to look Democrats in the eye and say very calmly and coolly: "You better hope you never lose another election." And mean it. Until we do that, the double standard will continue.
So you acknowledge it wasn't an FBI subpoena. She did not destroy anything. She and everyone else on her team told the FBI and other investigators that Hillary did not know they were deleted after the subpoena. The FBI and Senat investigators believed her. Given your background, I know you can easily do this research.
None of the core allegations against Trump himself were at issue in Hillary's case. None.
No, let's really look at the logic.FLBear5630 said:Ok, let's look at the logic here.Oldbear83 said:Translation - ATL says the only way we fix the abuse of the system by Hillary, Schiff, Biden et al is to put Trump in prison.ATL Bear said:We aren't accepting they should go free. Only by allowing Trump to skate too would we be accepting it. How can you go after Biden when you justify your own malfeasance? The one standard you're promoting is they're all above the law.whiterock said:Letting a long list of Democrats walk free and prosecuting the leader of the GOP is the furthest thing from draining the swam.FLBear5630 said:It is not extralegal! Did he have the documents? Did he give them back? If he did and is proven in a Court of Law, did he break the law? These are all simple yes and no answers. We will find out, but him being indicted is not extralegal.All he had to do was give them back, they ALREADY gave him the benefit of the doubt for several years, the other Presidents turned the docs over to NARA and NARA controlled where they were stored and located. Trump, once again can't follow ANY procedure because he is special, didn't do that. This is all on Trump, the only thing extralegal is the way Trump handles his business! This guy has no business being in a position of public leadership.Oldbear83 said:Name me the last President, or cabinet-level official, to have been so prosecuted.FLBear5630 said:Oldbear83 said:
If you actually believe Donald Trump is guilty of Espionage, you are a Democrat.
That is all.
Ok, so now he has to have been a spy??? He had National Security documents that he shouldn't and wouldn't give back. Others have been prosecuted, but for Donald he has to be a spy as well or he should walk.
It has not happened for significant reasons. Hilary Clinton, for example, was not prosecuted under the Espionage Act, despite many violations far more egregious than anything done by Trump,
Part of that decision was the fact that Hillary Clinton never went through standard security vetting: DOJ officials admitted that politicians who are granted access to classified material are given special clearance which is separate from military/CIA/FBI clearances. That is also the case with Presidents, only more so.
The current situation is extralegal. The outcome of this case will set precedent for all future Presidents, so the notion that this is cut and dried is absurd on its face.
You keep bringing up the lack of someone else being prosecuted as vindication for Trump regardless of whether he is guilty. Don't you believe if you commit a crime it should be prosecuted, equally under the law? I thought you wanted the good old boy system swamp cleaned out? Or, is that only for who you think fits that definition?
Everything you said about Trump could be said about Hillary & Biden. Why on earth would we accept the premise, as you have, that they can go scot free while our we get the book thrown at us?
one standard, for all.
TDS gonna TDS
Your complaining that the establishment is letting people off the hook because they are insiders or politically connected.
OK DOJ is doing - Trump and Hunter Biden were charged. Biden has a Special Counsel investigating him.
ATL says Trump needs to be prosecuted. H Biden already plead guilty to lesser charges.
You say the only way to rectify it is to NOT prosecute Trump, but do prosecute H Biden and J Biden, while their at it they should go back and prosecute Hillary too. That will make things right?
And you say that ATL is biased??????
Precedent matters in legal matters,
Hillary, Sandy Berger, Biden, and so many others see no legal trouble at all for their classified doc issues. Way too late now to go after them just to look fair.
That sets the precedent.
They saw no trial, let alone prison. The only rational solution is grant Trump the same, and if you want different, put rules in place going forward where the DOJ is actually non-partisan.
Stop pretending you are objective on this.
Objective? Trump's DOJ didn't prosecute! Hunter, Hillary, and even Joe his DOJ didn't do squat. Two separate AGs and nothing. Yet, the DOJ that did appoint a Special Counsel for Biden, did indict Hunter, and did indict Trump is playing politics?Oldbear83 said:No, let's really look at the logic.FLBear5630 said:Ok, let's look at the logic here.Oldbear83 said:Translation - ATL says the only way we fix the abuse of the system by Hillary, Schiff, Biden et al is to put Trump in prison.ATL Bear said:We aren't accepting they should go free. Only by allowing Trump to skate too would we be accepting it. How can you go after Biden when you justify your own malfeasance? The one standard you're promoting is they're all above the law.whiterock said:Letting a long list of Democrats walk free and prosecuting the leader of the GOP is the furthest thing from draining the swam.FLBear5630 said:It is not extralegal! Did he have the documents? Did he give them back? If he did and is proven in a Court of Law, did he break the law? These are all simple yes and no answers. We will find out, but him being indicted is not extralegal.All he had to do was give them back, they ALREADY gave him the benefit of the doubt for several years, the other Presidents turned the docs over to NARA and NARA controlled where they were stored and located. Trump, once again can't follow ANY procedure because he is special, didn't do that. This is all on Trump, the only thing extralegal is the way Trump handles his business! This guy has no business being in a position of public leadership.Oldbear83 said:Name me the last President, or cabinet-level official, to have been so prosecuted.FLBear5630 said:Oldbear83 said:
If you actually believe Donald Trump is guilty of Espionage, you are a Democrat.
That is all.
Ok, so now he has to have been a spy??? He had National Security documents that he shouldn't and wouldn't give back. Others have been prosecuted, but for Donald he has to be a spy as well or he should walk.
It has not happened for significant reasons. Hilary Clinton, for example, was not prosecuted under the Espionage Act, despite many violations far more egregious than anything done by Trump,
Part of that decision was the fact that Hillary Clinton never went through standard security vetting: DOJ officials admitted that politicians who are granted access to classified material are given special clearance which is separate from military/CIA/FBI clearances. That is also the case with Presidents, only more so.
The current situation is extralegal. The outcome of this case will set precedent for all future Presidents, so the notion that this is cut and dried is absurd on its face.
You keep bringing up the lack of someone else being prosecuted as vindication for Trump regardless of whether he is guilty. Don't you believe if you commit a crime it should be prosecuted, equally under the law? I thought you wanted the good old boy system swamp cleaned out? Or, is that only for who you think fits that definition?
Everything you said about Trump could be said about Hillary & Biden. Why on earth would we accept the premise, as you have, that they can go scot free while our we get the book thrown at us?
one standard, for all.
TDS gonna TDS
Your complaining that the establishment is letting people off the hook because they are insiders or politically connected.
OK DOJ is doing - Trump and Hunter Biden were charged. Biden has a Special Counsel investigating him.
ATL says Trump needs to be prosecuted. H Biden already plead guilty to lesser charges.
You say the only way to rectify it is to NOT prosecute Trump, but do prosecute H Biden and J Biden, while their at it they should go back and prosecute Hillary too. That will make things right?
And you say that ATL is biased??????
Precedent matters in legal matters,
Hillary, Sandy Berger, Biden, and so many others see no legal trouble at all for their classified doc issues. Way too late now to go after them just to look fair.
That sets the precedent.
They saw no trial, let alone prison. The only rational solution is grant Trump the same, and if you want different, put rules in place going forward where the DOJ is actually non-partisan.
Stop pretending you are objective on this.
If there were classified docs with Hillary why did Trump let her walk?? Especially after screaming on National TV Lock her up?? To be a good guy?? There was enough evidence for Trump to ask Zelinski to investigate Biden, but not enough for his DOJ???? Your guy dropped the ball. If there is an issue with letting people walk, it is Trump's, not Biden.
Man, you are the most biased pro-Trump person on this site. You do realize that you lose credibility when you don't recognize both sides.
You keep pretending the DOJ/FBI leadership was pro-Trump.
That's absolute BS.
Trump carries the blame for putting Wray in charge, but the guy is a total swamp creature.
And for all the false claims that I am a Trump guy, no I am not voting for him.
I just call a lynching what it is when I see all the nooses and mobs forming.
That's absolute BS.
Trump carries the blame for putting Wray in charge, but the guy is a total swamp creature.
And for all the false claims that I am a Trump guy, no I am not voting for him.
I just call a lynching what it is when I see all the nooses and mobs forming.
They aren't pro Trump, and neither are they anti Trump. What they are biased against is criminals, so I can see how that might look like being anti Trump to the uninformed observer.
Just ignore the Durham Report, I see ...HuMcK said:
They aren't pro Trump, and neither are they anti Trump. What they are biased against is criminals, so I can see how that might look like being anti Trump to the uninformed observer.
The one that blew up in Durham's face with a pair of embarrassing acquittals? I agree, it is worth ignoring.
I see. Life must be very convenient when you make your own "facts" ...HuMcK said:
The one that blew up in Durham's face with a pair of embarrassing acquittals? I agree, it is worth ignoring.
Ok, I get it. But, on the one hand we are saying that Trump had no control over the DOJ on his watch.Oldbear83 said:
You keep pretending the DOJ/FBI leadership was pro-Trump.
That's absolute BS.
Trump carries the blame for putting Wray in charge, but the guy is a total swamp creature.
And for all the false claims that I am a Trump guy, no I am not voting for him.
I just call a lynching what it is when I see all the nooses and mobs forming.
But, Biden is calling all the shots on the Garland DOJ, even though his son was indicted and he has a Special Counsel investigating.
Personally, I am a registered Independent. I voted for Trump twice. Why? The choices were horrible. I adamantly said Trump SHOULD NOT be prosecuted for Jan 6th. I think he handles COVID well and I liked his relationship with China. Those are my pro-Trump moments.
My Trump negatives-
I do not believe him on the election being stolen, he lost. I agree with Barr's assessment, that makes the most sense to me.
I believe Trump is WRONG on the documents and if he really has or had those docs and did not return them he should be prosecuted.
I believe Trump can't win in 2024 General Election. Women hate him and the educated voters do not like him. Too much baggage and he self-inflicts too many election wounds.
Biden, he has done three things well in my opinion.
Public Service Student Loan Forgiveness rules loosening. I agree with it. Not free money, but 10 years of payments and public service.
Ukraine
DOJ - They seem to be operating above board and independently. Many will disagree, but Trump, H Biden were indicted and J Biden has a SC. That to me is better than I expected.
Negative, everything else...
Holding him accountable and watching Dems get away simply emboldens Dems to be more corrupt.ATL Bear said:It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.whiterock said:It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.ATL Bear said:This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.whiterock said:Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.Sam Lowry said:Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.whiterock said:Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.Osodecentx said:Quote:It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.Quote:Your argument is "what about Hillary" and "the docs shouldn't have been classified." Those won't be issues for a jury to decide.Quote:Quote:When/if the jury gets this case, I'm sure one of the issues they'll decide won't be "should the document have been classified?"Quote:
Presidential Records Act covers some of those questions, and also offer affirmative defense, classified or not.
The classification question is rarely fully discussed in the the press, but those expressing outrage that a classified document would be found in an insecure location, and that such is wildly different that what either of the Clintons did, are on very squishy ground.
In a ten year career I wrote a couple of intel reports a day, occasionally as many as 5-6. (plus operational reporting for the file). Those reports were RARELY (and by rarely I mean "cannot recall a single time, but I'm sure there were a few") about information sourced to a classified document. The reports were stuff like this:
-an account of a cabinet meeting, from a participant.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a participant in the cabinet meeting.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a senior policymaker on any given topic of the day
-an account of decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about the decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about each other
-etc. etc. etc.
There is an enormous gulf between classification and intelligence value. In fact, most of what is of intel value does not come from classified documents.
EVERYTHING on the sock drawer tapes was of intelligence value. (highest)
EVERYTHING on the bathroom server at Chappaqua was of intelligence value. (highest)
Every frickin' keystroke was Valhala-level goldmine intel for foreign powers friendly & not.
The musings of a POTUS at the end of the day about decisions, his opinions about his cabinet?
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.
The email rantings of a SECSTATE about her adulterous husband.
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.
That's why such things are considered government documents/equipment and covered by records acts.
That's why documents not classified by containing classified information are typically considered (even whenn not marked) classified.
So, sure. Talk about the legalities of whether the doc was classified or not, whether it was properly stored or not, whether there were good faith efforts to comply with requests or not.....that's all relevant. But don't be hypocritical about the fate of the western alliance because Trump had a 6 year old planning document about a scenario for a possible for a missile strike on Iran. Similar discussions about similar topics were on those tapes, too. And Hillary for her entire two years as Secstate did all business personal and official on a personally own, unsecure server in an unsecure location. FBI analysis ascertained that numerous foreign entities accessed the server. Every keystroke was intelligence gold for our adversaries, who knew all about her "fundraising" at the Clinton Foundation, her plans & intentions personal & official, etc....in REAL TIME. And those servers were, at the time of their destruction pursuant to Clinton's explicit order, under subpoena.
To overlook what she did and put Trump in jail is.....well, if you didn't realized it before, there's your sign about the dual standard of justice. A really, really big part of the electorate is furious, and justifiably so. Note that Comey did not talk about the number of classified emails on Hillary's server. He talked about "email chains" to obscure the number of classified documents at issue, knowing that every email which contained a classified document was itself a classified email. His phrasing reduced the apparent number of documents in question by orders of magnitude.
Lots & lots & lots of people who know the ins/outs of the classified world know the above, and just shake our head in disgust at the blatant bs going. on here.
There won't be a question like "since Hillary wasn't indicted should Trump have been indicted?"
Likewise there won't be a question like "since Hunter hasn't been indicted, should Trump be allowed to do whatever he wishes regardless of what the law of the USA state?"
The documents for which he was indicted do not belong to him. They are property of the USA. Plans for war generated by the Pentagon aren't Trumps personal papers. He was showing this off to people with no security clearance.
Presidential Daily Briefings are generated by the CIA and don't belong to Trump.
Below is a summary of the charges and their factual basis:
Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta are accused of conspiring to obstruct justice.
Prosecutors say they have assembled evidence showing that Mr. Trump willfully ignored a May 2022 subpoena requiring him to return everything belonging to the National Archives and took extraordinary steps to obstruct the F.B.I. and grand jury.
In the hours before Mr. Trump's lawyer visited his Mar-a-Lago estate to search for documents in a storage room an attempt to comply with the subpoena Mr. Trump directed Mr. Nauta, his co-defendant, to move 64 of the boxes out of the storage room because he maintained they were his property.
Top secret documents were stored so sloppily they spilled onto the floor.
One of the most striking images in the document is a picture of a box of top secret national security documents that in 2021 had spilled on the floor of a Mar-a-Lago storage room accessible to many of the resort's employees. The files were marked with restrictive "five eyes" classification markings, indicating they could only be viewed by officials with top security clearances issued by the United States and its closest allies.
Mr. Trump suggested his lawyer take a folder of documents and 'if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.'
In one of the most problematic pieces of evidence for Mr. Trump, the indictment recounts how, according to his lawyer's words, Mr. Trump and the lawyer discussed what to do with a folder of 38 documents with classification markings. The lawyer said Mr. Trump made a "plucking motion" that implied, "why don't you take them with you to your hotel room and if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out."
Mr. Trump shared secrets with visitors to Bedminster. There's audio.
Many of the episodes recounted in the filing have been reported in the news media including a potentially damaging revelation that he was recorded showing off secret U.S. battle plans describing the material as "highly confidential" and "secret," while admitting it had not been declassified.
"See, as president I could have declassified it," Mr. Trump said. He added, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."
A secret map was said to be shared with a political action committee staff member.
In another incident in August or September 2021, he shared a top secret military map with a staff member at his political action committee who did not have a security clearance.
According to the indictment, the former president suggested that a military operation in an unnamed country was not going well. He showed the map to the staff member but, according to the indictment, warned the person "not to get too close."
M. Evan Corcoran, one of Trump's lawyers, is a key witness.
Mr. Corcoran, who kept meticulous notes (some of them transcribed from iPhone voice memos he made for himself), found himself in the position of pressuring his evasive client into doing both the lawful and self-protective thing by returning the documents to the government.
In one of the more stunning revelations, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta moved around boxes so that Mr. Corcoran, who requested a full accounting of the material to provide to investigators, could not find them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/trump-indictment-highlights.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-raid&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc
Not a terribly germane argument you've madeI am a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, worked on two Supreme Court confirmations, and clerked for two federal appellate judges.
— Will Scharf (@willscharf) June 15, 2023
The indictment and case against President Trump is outrageous and shocking.
But let’s get into the details.
Here are my 6 key points on the case:
The docs weren't Trump's. They belonged to the US. He was asked to return them. He refused. Then docs were subpoenaed. He refused and obstructed their return. He told his lawyer to "pluck out" any docs that looked bad and hide them.
You then post the tweets of a guy running for AG in Missouri.
Scharf-Logo-AG.
Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.
I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.
"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/
The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.
"Ok, I get it. But, on the one hand we are saying that Trump had no control over the DOJ on his watch.
But, Biden is calling all the shots on the Garland DOJ, even though his son was indicted and he has a Special Counsel investigating."
Here's the difference. There is documented proof, both that the DOJ treated Trump as a target, not only from when he was a candidate but continuing through his time as President. While the expected prosecutions never happened, Durham's investigation at least established beyond dispute that the DOJ leadership was hostile to Trump, and so was never really under his control.
As for Biden and Garland, again there is evidence of actual meetings where Biden made clear to Garland in mid-2022 that he wanted Garland to prevent Trump from ever holding office again. Garland's actions have been completely consistent with that goal ever since, including conflating Trump's tactless but non-criminal comments into complicity with the January 6 riots, and ignoring the PRA while pursuing Espionage charges against Trump.
If the DOJ filed nominal charges under the PRA, they would have a very strong case and frankly could easily make Trump look the fool. Instead Biden has once again screwed up his opportunity and is generating strong and broad sympathy for Trump. But the cases against Trump are absurd and a clear abuse of power by Biden's DOJ.
But, Biden is calling all the shots on the Garland DOJ, even though his son was indicted and he has a Special Counsel investigating."
Here's the difference. There is documented proof, both that the DOJ treated Trump as a target, not only from when he was a candidate but continuing through his time as President. While the expected prosecutions never happened, Durham's investigation at least established beyond dispute that the DOJ leadership was hostile to Trump, and so was never really under his control.
As for Biden and Garland, again there is evidence of actual meetings where Biden made clear to Garland in mid-2022 that he wanted Garland to prevent Trump from ever holding office again. Garland's actions have been completely consistent with that goal ever since, including conflating Trump's tactless but non-criminal comments into complicity with the January 6 riots, and ignoring the PRA while pursuing Espionage charges against Trump.
If the DOJ filed nominal charges under the PRA, they would have a very strong case and frankly could easily make Trump look the fool. Instead Biden has once again screwed up his opportunity and is generating strong and broad sympathy for Trump. But the cases against Trump are absurd and a clear abuse of power by Biden's DOJ.
Hunter plead out. Bill Clinton was pursued all throughout his Presidency. Hillary is in a gray area. Hunter has plead out, and the potential for investigating Joe Biden is still there and would likely have to occur when out of office given executive privilege. But Trump! He's being railroaded and not allowed to get away with something, Trump is as swampy as any of them.Doc Holliday said:Holding him accountable and watching Dems get away simply emboldens Dems to be more corrupt.ATL Bear said:It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.whiterock said:It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.ATL Bear said:This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.whiterock said:Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.Sam Lowry said:Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.whiterock said:Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.Osodecentx said:Quote:It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.Quote:Your argument is "what about Hillary" and "the docs shouldn't have been classified." Those won't be issues for a jury to decide.Quote:Quote:When/if the jury gets this case, I'm sure one of the issues they'll decide won't be "should the document have been classified?"Quote:
Presidential Records Act covers some of those questions, and also offer affirmative defense, classified or not.
The classification question is rarely fully discussed in the the press, but those expressing outrage that a classified document would be found in an insecure location, and that such is wildly different that what either of the Clintons did, are on very squishy ground.
In a ten year career I wrote a couple of intel reports a day, occasionally as many as 5-6. (plus operational reporting for the file). Those reports were RARELY (and by rarely I mean "cannot recall a single time, but I'm sure there were a few") about information sourced to a classified document. The reports were stuff like this:
-an account of a cabinet meeting, from a participant.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a participant in the cabinet meeting.
-an account of the opinions/reactions of a senior policymaker on any given topic of the day
-an account of decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about the decisions made by key policymakers
-an account of key policymakers opinions about each other
-etc. etc. etc.
There is an enormous gulf between classification and intelligence value. In fact, most of what is of intel value does not come from classified documents.
EVERYTHING on the sock drawer tapes was of intelligence value. (highest)
EVERYTHING on the bathroom server at Chappaqua was of intelligence value. (highest)
Every frickin' keystroke was Valhala-level goldmine intel for foreign powers friendly & not.
The musings of a POTUS at the end of the day about decisions, his opinions about his cabinet?
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.
The email rantings of a SECSTATE about her adulterous husband.
GOLD. Career making collection targets for intel officers.
That's why such things are considered government documents/equipment and covered by records acts.
That's why documents not classified by containing classified information are typically considered (even whenn not marked) classified.
So, sure. Talk about the legalities of whether the doc was classified or not, whether it was properly stored or not, whether there were good faith efforts to comply with requests or not.....that's all relevant. But don't be hypocritical about the fate of the western alliance because Trump had a 6 year old planning document about a scenario for a possible for a missile strike on Iran. Similar discussions about similar topics were on those tapes, too. And Hillary for her entire two years as Secstate did all business personal and official on a personally own, unsecure server in an unsecure location. FBI analysis ascertained that numerous foreign entities accessed the server. Every keystroke was intelligence gold for our adversaries, who knew all about her "fundraising" at the Clinton Foundation, her plans & intentions personal & official, etc....in REAL TIME. And those servers were, at the time of their destruction pursuant to Clinton's explicit order, under subpoena.
To overlook what she did and put Trump in jail is.....well, if you didn't realized it before, there's your sign about the dual standard of justice. A really, really big part of the electorate is furious, and justifiably so. Note that Comey did not talk about the number of classified emails on Hillary's server. He talked about "email chains" to obscure the number of classified documents at issue, knowing that every email which contained a classified document was itself a classified email. His phrasing reduced the apparent number of documents in question by orders of magnitude.
Lots & lots & lots of people who know the ins/outs of the classified world know the above, and just shake our head in disgust at the blatant bs going. on here.
There won't be a question like "since Hillary wasn't indicted should Trump have been indicted?"
Likewise there won't be a question like "since Hunter hasn't been indicted, should Trump be allowed to do whatever he wishes regardless of what the law of the USA state?"
The documents for which he was indicted do not belong to him. They are property of the USA. Plans for war generated by the Pentagon aren't Trumps personal papers. He was showing this off to people with no security clearance.
Presidential Daily Briefings are generated by the CIA and don't belong to Trump.
Below is a summary of the charges and their factual basis:
Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta are accused of conspiring to obstruct justice.
Prosecutors say they have assembled evidence showing that Mr. Trump willfully ignored a May 2022 subpoena requiring him to return everything belonging to the National Archives and took extraordinary steps to obstruct the F.B.I. and grand jury.
In the hours before Mr. Trump's lawyer visited his Mar-a-Lago estate to search for documents in a storage room an attempt to comply with the subpoena Mr. Trump directed Mr. Nauta, his co-defendant, to move 64 of the boxes out of the storage room because he maintained they were his property.
Top secret documents were stored so sloppily they spilled onto the floor.
One of the most striking images in the document is a picture of a box of top secret national security documents that in 2021 had spilled on the floor of a Mar-a-Lago storage room accessible to many of the resort's employees. The files were marked with restrictive "five eyes" classification markings, indicating they could only be viewed by officials with top security clearances issued by the United States and its closest allies.
Mr. Trump suggested his lawyer take a folder of documents and 'if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.'
In one of the most problematic pieces of evidence for Mr. Trump, the indictment recounts how, according to his lawyer's words, Mr. Trump and the lawyer discussed what to do with a folder of 38 documents with classification markings. The lawyer said Mr. Trump made a "plucking motion" that implied, "why don't you take them with you to your hotel room and if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out."
Mr. Trump shared secrets with visitors to Bedminster. There's audio.
Many of the episodes recounted in the filing have been reported in the news media including a potentially damaging revelation that he was recorded showing off secret U.S. battle plans describing the material as "highly confidential" and "secret," while admitting it had not been declassified.
"See, as president I could have declassified it," Mr. Trump said. He added, "Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."
A secret map was said to be shared with a political action committee staff member.
In another incident in August or September 2021, he shared a top secret military map with a staff member at his political action committee who did not have a security clearance.
According to the indictment, the former president suggested that a military operation in an unnamed country was not going well. He showed the map to the staff member but, according to the indictment, warned the person "not to get too close."
M. Evan Corcoran, one of Trump's lawyers, is a key witness.
Mr. Corcoran, who kept meticulous notes (some of them transcribed from iPhone voice memos he made for himself), found himself in the position of pressuring his evasive client into doing both the lawful and self-protective thing by returning the documents to the government.
In one of the more stunning revelations, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump and Mr. Nauta moved around boxes so that Mr. Corcoran, who requested a full accounting of the material to provide to investigators, could not find them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/us/politics/trump-indictment-highlights.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-trump-raid&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_levelup_swipe_recirc
Not a terribly germane argument you've madeI am a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, worked on two Supreme Court confirmations, and clerked for two federal appellate judges.
— Will Scharf (@willscharf) June 15, 2023
The indictment and case against President Trump is outrageous and shocking.
But let’s get into the details.
Here are my 6 key points on the case:
The docs weren't Trump's. They belonged to the US. He was asked to return them. He refused. Then docs were subpoenaed. He refused and obstructed their return. He told his lawyer to "pluck out" any docs that looked bad and hide them.
You then post the tweets of a guy running for AG in Missouri.
Scharf-Logo-AG.
Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.
I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.
"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/
The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as being obtuse and blindly loyal, instead of stupid and ignorant.Oldbear83 said:Translation - ATL says the only way we fix the abuse of the system by Hillary, Schiff, Biden et al is to put Trump in prison.ATL Bear said:We aren't accepting they should go free. Only by allowing Trump to skate too would we be accepting it. How can you go after Biden when you justify your own malfeasance? The one standard you're promoting is they're all above the law.whiterock said:Letting a long list of Democrats walk free and prosecuting the leader of the GOP is the furthest thing from draining the swam.FLBear5630 said:It is not extralegal! Did he have the documents? Did he give them back? If he did and is proven in a Court of Law, did he break the law? These are all simple yes and no answers. We will find out, but him being indicted is not extralegal.All he had to do was give them back, they ALREADY gave him the benefit of the doubt for several years, the other Presidents turned the docs over to NARA and NARA controlled where they were stored and located. Trump, once again can't follow ANY procedure because he is special, didn't do that. This is all on Trump, the only thing extralegal is the way Trump handles his business! This guy has no business being in a position of public leadership.Oldbear83 said:Name me the last President, or cabinet-level official, to have been so prosecuted.FLBear5630 said:Oldbear83 said:
If you actually believe Donald Trump is guilty of Espionage, you are a Democrat.
That is all.
Ok, so now he has to have been a spy??? He had National Security documents that he shouldn't and wouldn't give back. Others have been prosecuted, but for Donald he has to be a spy as well or he should walk.
It has not happened for significant reasons. Hilary Clinton, for example, was not prosecuted under the Espionage Act, despite many violations far more egregious than anything done by Trump,
Part of that decision was the fact that Hillary Clinton never went through standard security vetting: DOJ officials admitted that politicians who are granted access to classified material are given special clearance which is separate from military/CIA/FBI clearances. That is also the case with Presidents, only more so.
The current situation is extralegal. The outcome of this case will set precedent for all future Presidents, so the notion that this is cut and dried is absurd on its face.
You keep bringing up the lack of someone else being prosecuted as vindication for Trump regardless of whether he is guilty. Don't you believe if you commit a crime it should be prosecuted, equally under the law? I thought you wanted the good old boy system swamp cleaned out? Or, is that only for who you think fits that definition?
Everything you said about Trump could be said about Hillary & Biden. Why on earth would we accept the premise, as you have, that they can go scot free while our we get the book thrown at us?
one standard, for all.
TDS gonna TDS
Then I shall grant you the same benefit ...ATL Bear said:I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as being obtuse and blindly loyal, instead of stupid and ignorant.Oldbear83 said:Translation - ATL says the only way we fix the abuse of the system by Hillary, Schiff, Biden et al is to put Trump in prison.ATL Bear said:We aren't accepting they should go free. Only by allowing Trump to skate too would we be accepting it. How can you go after Biden when you justify your own malfeasance? The one standard you're promoting is they're all above the law.whiterock said:Letting a long list of Democrats walk free and prosecuting the leader of the GOP is the furthest thing from draining the swam.FLBear5630 said:It is not extralegal! Did he have the documents? Did he give them back? If he did and is proven in a Court of Law, did he break the law? These are all simple yes and no answers. We will find out, but him being indicted is not extralegal.All he had to do was give them back, they ALREADY gave him the benefit of the doubt for several years, the other Presidents turned the docs over to NARA and NARA controlled where they were stored and located. Trump, once again can't follow ANY procedure because he is special, didn't do that. This is all on Trump, the only thing extralegal is the way Trump handles his business! This guy has no business being in a position of public leadership.Oldbear83 said:Name me the last President, or cabinet-level official, to have been so prosecuted.FLBear5630 said:Oldbear83 said:
If you actually believe Donald Trump is guilty of Espionage, you are a Democrat.
That is all.
Ok, so now he has to have been a spy??? He had National Security documents that he shouldn't and wouldn't give back. Others have been prosecuted, but for Donald he has to be a spy as well or he should walk.
It has not happened for significant reasons. Hilary Clinton, for example, was not prosecuted under the Espionage Act, despite many violations far more egregious than anything done by Trump,
Part of that decision was the fact that Hillary Clinton never went through standard security vetting: DOJ officials admitted that politicians who are granted access to classified material are given special clearance which is separate from military/CIA/FBI clearances. That is also the case with Presidents, only more so.
The current situation is extralegal. The outcome of this case will set precedent for all future Presidents, so the notion that this is cut and dried is absurd on its face.
You keep bringing up the lack of someone else being prosecuted as vindication for Trump regardless of whether he is guilty. Don't you believe if you commit a crime it should be prosecuted, equally under the law? I thought you wanted the good old boy system swamp cleaned out? Or, is that only for who you think fits that definition?
Everything you said about Trump could be said about Hillary & Biden. Why on earth would we accept the premise, as you have, that they can go scot free while our we get the book thrown at us?
one standard, for all.
TDS gonna TDS
In your view, acquittal by DC juries means not slimy and entirely on the up and up? I do not see how anyone can read the report (or even media accounts of it) and think this way.HuMcK said:
The one that blew up in Durham's face with a pair of embarrassing acquittals? I agree, it is worth ignoring.
sombear said:In your view, acquittal by DC juries means not slimy and entirely on the up and up? I do not see how anyone can read the report (or even media accounts of it) and think this way.HuMcK said:
The one that blew up in Durham's face with a pair of embarrassing acquittals? I agree, it is worth ignoring.
Then you aren't looking hard enough.
The idea that the Trump campaign was unfairly targeted in the Russia investigation is flat out absurd. His campaign manager came to them after working for Victor Yanukovych for God's sake, and what a surprise when Mueller and the Senate investigation discovered that he turned out to be in bed with actual Russian intelligence.
Durham started with a false premise and worked backwards, that the allegations were made up, and he flat out ignored the findings of multiple previous investigations to do it. That's what a weaponized DOJ looks like, and plenty of people including me were predicting it would fail in court just like it did. Call me partisan, whatever else you want, but I was right and the court decisions weigh in my favor.
The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.ATL Bear said:Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.whiterock said:LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?ATL Bear said:It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.whiterock said:It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.ATL Bear said:This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.whiterock said:Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.Sam Lowry said:Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.whiterock said:Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.Osodecentx said:Quote:
It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.
Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.
I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.
"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/
The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.
LOL Durham was appointed to investigate the previous investigations precisely because it was bloody frickin' obvious they were based on a false premise and then worked backwards.HuMcK said:sombear said:In your view, acquittal by DC juries means not slimy and entirely on the up and up? I do not see how anyone can read the report (or even media accounts of it) and think this way.HuMcK said:
The one that blew up in Durham's face with a pair of embarrassing acquittals? I agree, it is worth ignoring.
Then you aren't looking hard enough.
The idea that the Trump campaign was unfairly targeted in the Russia investigation is flat out absurd. His campaign manager came to them after working for Victor Yanukovych for God's sake, and what a surprise when Mueller and the Senate investigation discovered that he turned out to be in bed with actual Russian intelligence.
Durham started with a false premise and worked backwards, that the allegations were made up, and he flat out ignored the findings of multiple previous investigations to do it. That's what a weaponized DOJ looks like, and plenty of people including me were predicting it would fail in court just like it did. Call me partisan, whatever else you want, but I was right and the court decisions weigh in my favor.
So you're ignoring the Steele dossier, Brookings, and Hillary lawyer stuff, eh? There is a world of difference between criminal conviction (which did not happen) and improper conduct and utter fabrication (which did happen). The core facts are not even dispute.HuMcK said:sombear said:In your view, acquittal by DC juries means not slimy and entirely on the up and up? I do not see how anyone can read the report (or even media accounts of it) and think this way.HuMcK said:
The one that blew up in Durham's face with a pair of embarrassing acquittals? I agree, it is worth ignoring.
Then you aren't looking hard enough.
The idea that the Trump campaign was unfairly targeted in the Russia investigation is flat out absurd. His campaign manager came to them after working for Victor Yanukovych for God's sake, and what a surprise when Mueller and the Senate investigation discovered that he turned out to be in bed with actual Russian intelligence.
Durham started with a false premise and worked backwards, that the allegations were made up, and he flat out ignored the findings of multiple previous investigations to do it. That's what a weaponized DOJ looks like, and plenty of people including me were predicting it would fail in court just like it did. Call me partisan, whatever else you want, but I was right and the court decisions weigh in my favor.
Sussman admitted planting the story with the FBI. The criminal issue was whether he lied about who he was representing in that meeting. The DC jury chose to disregard the contemporaneous statements by the FBI. That is their right. But it was never in dispute that he planted a false story. It was a Hillary campaign plant from the start.
Similarly, the Steele sources admitted they made the stuff up.
And the FBI admitted not following their own case procedures in numerous instances.
These are admissions, not conspiracy theories.
And your comeback is . . . . Manafort, a longtime, well-known swamp creature?
I criticize Trump about as much as anyone on here, but you are delusional on the Russia BS.
sombear said:So you're ignoring the Steele dossier, Brookings, and Hillary lawyer stuff, eh? There is a world of difference between criminal conviction (which did not happen) and improper conduct and utter fabrication (which did happen). The core facts are not even dispute.HuMcK said:sombear said:In your view, acquittal by DC juries means not slimy and entirely on the up and up? I do not see how anyone can read the report (or even media accounts of it) and think this way.HuMcK said:
The one that blew up in Durham's face with a pair of embarrassing acquittals? I agree, it is worth ignoring.
Then you aren't looking hard enough.
The idea that the Trump campaign was unfairly targeted in the Russia investigation is flat out absurd. His campaign manager came to them after working for Victor Yanukovych for God's sake, and what a surprise when Mueller and the Senate investigation discovered that he turned out to be in bed with actual Russian intelligence.
Durham started with a false premise and worked backwards, that the allegations were made up, and he flat out ignored the findings of multiple previous investigations to do it. That's what a weaponized DOJ looks like, and plenty of people including me were predicting it would fail in court just like it did. Call me partisan, whatever else you want, but I was right and the court decisions weigh in my favor.
Sussman admitted planting the story with the FBI. The criminal issue was whether he lied about who he was representing in that meeting. The DC jury chose to disregard the contemporaneous statements by the FBI. That is their right. But it was never in dispute that he planted a false story. It was a Hillary campaign plant from the start.
Similarly, the Steele sources admitted they made the stuff up.
And the FBI admitted not following their own case procedures in numerous instances.
These are admissions, not conspiracy theories.
And your comeback is . . . . Manafort, a longtime, well-known swamp creature?
I criticize Trump about as much as anyone on here, but you are delusional on the Russia BS.
Few things:
1) Sussman "planting" a story with the FBI sure sounds a lot like what Giuliani did to Hunter (I wonder if Rudy disclosed who he was doing that for?), which resulted in yesterday's guilty plea. Somehow I missed your complaints about that process.
2) the veracity of Sussman's info actually is in dispute. His interpretation of it may have been wrong, but the data he presented was real. There was a server in Trump Tower seemingly communicating with an entity in Russia, but my understanding of the explanation is that such a thing isn't all that noteworthy. That's also a very small part of the overall allegations and was pretty inconsequential, seeing as the FBI largely dismissed it and didn't even follow up. The other guy Durham charged was a prolific FBI source (in their own words) who had his cover blown to assuage Trump's ego, and of course that one blew up in Durham's face with an acquittal as well.
3) Speaking of admissions, Manafort's right hand man admits that his boss was meeting with someone he knew was a Russian spy to exchange confidential information and discuss campaign strategy. That's what we colloquially call "collusion". We also know Don Jr was explicitly offered help from "Russia and its government for your [his] father", and he accepted it in writing. Your going to completely ignore it and pretend like it never happened because that's the GOP party line, but light of those things and so much more, I will repeat that it is flat out absurd to believe none of that warranted investigation.
100% wrong on #2, and the FBI did not know about Manafort until much later. And the investigators believed Manafort was trying to impress former clients, and there was zero evidence Trump or anyone else from inner-circle even new what Manafort was doing. As it turns out, Hillary's campaign had far mor extensive contacts with Russia than Trump's did.HuMcK said:sombear said:So you're ignoring the Steele dossier, Brookings, and Hillary lawyer stuff, eh? There is a world of difference between criminal conviction (which did not happen) and improper conduct and utter fabrication (which did happen). The core facts are not even dispute.HuMcK said:sombear said:In your view, acquittal by DC juries means not slimy and entirely on the up and up? I do not see how anyone can read the report (or even media accounts of it) and think this way.HuMcK said:
The one that blew up in Durham's face with a pair of embarrassing acquittals? I agree, it is worth ignoring.
Then you aren't looking hard enough.
The idea that the Trump campaign was unfairly targeted in the Russia investigation is flat out absurd. His campaign manager came to them after working for Victor Yanukovych for God's sake, and what a surprise when Mueller and the Senate investigation discovered that he turned out to be in bed with actual Russian intelligence.
Durham started with a false premise and worked backwards, that the allegations were made up, and he flat out ignored the findings of multiple previous investigations to do it. That's what a weaponized DOJ looks like, and plenty of people including me were predicting it would fail in court just like it did. Call me partisan, whatever else you want, but I was right and the court decisions weigh in my favor.
Sussman admitted planting the story with the FBI. The criminal issue was whether he lied about who he was representing in that meeting. The DC jury chose to disregard the contemporaneous statements by the FBI. That is their right. But it was never in dispute that he planted a false story. It was a Hillary campaign plant from the start.
Similarly, the Steele sources admitted they made the stuff up.
And the FBI admitted not following their own case procedures in numerous instances.
These are admissions, not conspiracy theories.
And your comeback is . . . . Manafort, a longtime, well-known swamp creature?
I criticize Trump about as much as anyone on here, but you are delusional on the Russia BS.
Few things:
1) Sussman "planting" a story with the FBI sure sounds a lot like what Giuliani did to Hunter (I wonder if Rudy disclosed who he was doing that for?), which resulted in yesterday's guilty plea. Somehow I missed your complaints about that process.
2) the veracity of Sussman's info actually is in dispute. His interpretation of it may have been wrong, but the data he presented was real. There was a server in Trump Tower seemingly communicating with an entity in Russia, but my understanding of the explanation is that such a thing isn't all that noteworthy. That's also a very small part of the overall allegations and was pretty inconsequential, seeing as the FBI largely dismissed it and didn't even follow up. The other guy Durham charged was a prolific FBI source (in their own words) who had his cover blown to assuage Trump's ego, and of course that one blew up in Durham's face with an acquittal as well.
3) Speaking of admissions, Manafort's right hand man admits that his boss was meeting with someone he knew was a Russian spy to exchange confidential information and discuss campaign strategy. That's what we colloquially call "collusion". We also know Don Jr was explicitly offered help from "Russia and its government for your [his] father", and he accepted it in writing. Your going to completely ignore it and pretend like it never happened because that's the GOP party line, but light of those things and so much more, I will repeat that it is flat out absurd to believe none of that warranted investigation.
I know nothing about the Guliani issue you raise. He is a nutjob, and I zone any stories about him out. He's a slimeball, but so obviously is Hunter. Not sure about Joe yet.
It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.whiterock said:The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.ATL Bear said:Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.whiterock said:LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?ATL Bear said:It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.whiterock said:It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.ATL Bear said:This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.whiterock said:Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.Sam Lowry said:Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.whiterock said:Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.Osodecentx said:Quote:
It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.
Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.
I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.
"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/
The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.
whiterock said:The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.ATL Bear said:Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.whiterock said:LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?ATL Bear said:It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.whiterock said:It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.ATL Bear said:This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.whiterock said:Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.Sam Lowry said:Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.whiterock said:Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.Osodecentx said:Quote:
It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.
Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.
I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.
"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/
The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.
apropos of nothing … pic.twitter.com/PToFjhV5Bb
— CJ Ciaramella (@cjciaramella) June 21, 2023
ATL Bear said:It's only a double standard in this situation if Biden or Pence had acted like Trump when their documents were discovered, and been given a pass.whiterock said:The "unforced error" argument is ironic in the extreme. Pointing out the intolerable double standard is not rallying support. It's just pointing out the intolerable double standard. If we do not protest loudly now, we are ceding the premise that others may be similarly targeted in the future, should they become too effective.ATL Bear said:Trump's been persecuted before (Russia hoax, feckless impeachment,etc.). This isn't one of those times. Even worse, it was an unforced error. Your man screwed himself on this one, and watching the classic Trumper mental origami to justify his behavior (and rally support) is frankly embarrassing.whiterock said:LOL dear God my man....we persecute our own to hold Democrats accountable? What are you smoking?ATL Bear said:It's baffling how you and others don't see how Trump plays by his own rules that are as destructive as the Democrats. Holding him accountable is tantamount to holding them accountable.whiterock said:It is baffling why you would accept the premise that WE, in order to save the republic, have to play by rules which do not apply to Democrats.ATL Bear said:This logic is baffling and a sad state of politics. Let's prop up our worst options. Dems did this with Hillary, and here we are advocating to do it with Trump.whiterock said:Keep it up. You're doing your best to get him re-elected.Sam Lowry said:Not an affirmative defense. At best it might help him at sentencing.whiterock said:Of course it is a defense. Under no circumstances should you or I or anyone else put up with a dual standard of justice, which is manifestly on display here.Osodecentx said:Quote:
It is unacceptable for one's political party affiliation to be a material factor in legal process.
Hillary did WAAAAY worse. 30k+ electronic documents UNDER SUBPOENA were bleac-bitted and smashed to smithereens. Clearest case of obstruction imaginable. No charges.
I'll reason with you on a lot of things, but under no circumstances am I going to let you play by a different set of rules than are enforced on me. Flip the table over time.
"What about Hillary " isn't an affirmative defense. She should have been held accountable; she wasn't. Trump's DOJ let her slide
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/18/harvard-poll-55-percent-of-the-public-view-the-trump-indictment-as-politically-motivated/
The way to combat hypocritical Justice application is to show you don't participate, not double down by becoming part of it. The rejection of the Trump indictments would be politically motivated too. Let's not be blind and actually have some principles.
Honest question, as I really don't know.
Does the law make allowances for those that say " I'm sorry, here are the top secret documents I never should have possessed to begin with."
If so Trumps situation is different .
If not there is a double standard being applied.