I don't think he has a low IQ or anything like that, it's just his unrivaled arrogance dramatically inhibits his judgment, making him act like an idiot. Then again, I'm no Freud.
Tread lightly on that argument, because it gets dangerously close to the “defense” here that Trump supposedly had unfettered discretion to decide that national security briefings were his personal papers. But as I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t think there’s a terribly meaningful distinction to be drawn with respect to the underlying document issues. What got Trump in trouble where Hillary didn’t was, depending on how you look at it, either obstructing the investigation or being stupid enough to be easily caught obstructing the investigation.
Boooo . . . . ya just can't admit the truth. The thing that's not been emphasized enough is how he not only violated U.S. security, but how did violated the security of American allies.
You're writing this to a lawyer, presumably with a UF cred. What's your master's in? Obviously not law. Seriously, what ya got? As for temperament, you were s'posed to quit about 40 pages ago.
Borrowed from elsewhere: Imagine being so shady that you can't find a criminal attorney to work with you. In Miami.
If the purposeful deletion and BleachBit of 33,000 emails over two years after she left office isn't obstruction of justice, I don't know what is. Getting away with it doesn't make her any less of a criminal. You are rationalizing sociopathic behavior on the premise that she was sociopathic enough to get everybody's story in line beforehand.
She’s smart enough, and surrounded herself with smart enough people, not to have a text message trail essentially saying “we need to hide these,” and to presumably not expressly tell her lawyers “why don’t we just lie about the documents.” It’s not unique to political figures that, when looking at prosecutions, smart people may be able to get away with things that dumb, sloppy people get nailed for.
Not necessarily fair, because there are some (IMO somewhat concerning) factors other than guilt or innocence that are absolutely influencing his ability to find lawyers willing to work with him. Because it’s so politicized, almost anyone other than sole practitioners or very, very political firms are turning him down. Which, in turn, is posing an issue for him, because white collar criminal defense lawyers aren’t really the same thing as your everyday Joe Blow defense lawyers, and they tend to be at big firms that don’t want the headache and/or blowback that comes along with a Trump representation.
So, our democracy is safe if we let her slide, because she is very smart and lied brilliantly and surrounded herself with brilliant liars? But our democracy is on the brink of extinction if Trump slides, because he and his people didn’t cover up the crime so well?
I suspect Hillary purposely impeded the investigation into her emails. I think that’s a reasonable inference to draw. But I don’t know that I could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I know Trump did because, like most things he does, it was a ham-fisted attempt at it that was so blatant as to basically be thumbing his nose at the DOJ. Ditto on the documents themselves. I suspect Hillary didn’t keep them secure. I know Trump didn’t because he’s brilliant enough to knowingly let himself be recorded saying “I’m probably not supposed to have this, and I’m definitely not supposed to show it to you, but check this out.” They both had what was probably a technical legal violation and didn’t get prosecuted over documents they cooperated on. I suspect Hillary probably also committed process crimes, but I’m not sure you could prove at least the intent aspects of them. I’m damn sure Trump did, and he left a humongous obvious trail showing it. That’s the difference that got him charged. I’m not one of the people saying he has to be prosecuted because it’s a fundamental threat to democracy, I’m one of the people saying you don’t leave DOJ any choice but to prosecute you when you march around in public with a flashing neon sign over your head that says “Look at me breaking the law! Whatcha gonna do about it?”
The crime-fraud exception to privilege is a thing, and asking your attorneys to please help you break the law is pretty much the definitional case for its application. But I would suspect the bigger concern, at least for lawyers that read the indictment, isn’t a concern about privilege getting penetrated - it’s the general apprehension lawyers have about representing a client who will lie to them and not take their advice, as well as a bit of a concern about those habits potentially roping them into an investigation too. But what I was actually referring to was the (IMO improper) blowback the public/left is giving to anyone who dares represent him. Being a lawyer is supposed to entail representing unpopular causes in need of representation, but in this case the public scorn is so extreme that you damn near have to be willing to torpedo your entire career to do it.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure if I was on trial after deleting 33,000 emails that belonged to a previous employer of 2+ years ago, that jury is going to convict every time.
I wouldn't go that far, but the issue here is as you put it. I want no part of a client who is going to lie to me, refuse to listen to my advice, run his mouth incessantly (ruining any strategy I have), put me at risk of getting in trouble with the courts/the law, and refuse to pay me. It's the worst of all worlds.
So Trump asking his lawyer: "I read about when Hillary Clinton got a subpoena and David Kendall deleted 33,000 emails. Are we allowed to do the same thing because they didn't get into trouble?" is asking his attorney to break the law? We have to strip a former POTUS of his attorney-client privilege for that? You don't see how nuts that is?
