In other words, i wasn’t wrong. I was right. You were quick on the trigger finger so you have transitioned from “you are wrong” to “you are omitting context” which is really just in the form of whataboutism because Rubio’s contact with Fusion GPS has no bearing on Clinton’s team’s contact with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele.
Hey, I’m not the one drawing arbitrary analogies out of my ass. My argument was simple. They all violated the statute and only Trump was indicted. You’re arguing some nonsense about a drunk guy doing 90 in a school zone. Like where did that come from? Now, if you want to believe it’s the specific documents that lead to the indictment and Trump’s handling of the whole situation that prompted it in the first place, all I have to do is point to the other controversial indictments he’s facing, their timing, and the fact that the federal government seems to insist in rushing all of these trials before the election. Now what could possibly be the reason for all of that? Another mystery the snow globe just can’t solve.
We had some deep dives into these laws when HRC had her problems, and the laws are mostly qualified with language like "willfully", "intentionally", and "negligently" mishandling of classified documents. So that leave it open for investigators to let people off the hook when they cooperate fully, can plausibly explain they didn't realize they had them, return everything missing when asked ... Trump did the opposite. Hell, his own lawyer stated that Trump wanted to ignore the requests because "it would be better for him", and for the documents he did hand over, told his lawyer to "pluck out" any document that made him look bad. Hell, there are still docs missing, and nobody knows where they are. Stop acting like it's the same thing, it's obviously not ... the laws were written that way so that the prosecutors had discretion to let honest mistakes off the hook and only prosecute people who obviously acted with intentions.
Prosecutors have discretion to choose who to charge and who not to. The language of the statute has nothing to do with that. They could’ve charged Hillary. If Joe weren’t the current President, they could charge Joe. They could’ve charged Bill. They chose not to and they chose to prosecute Trump. You can retroactively look for differences all you want. The intent is pretty damned transparent.
LOL at "The language of the statute has nothing to do with that." Yeah ... the language of the statute actually is important when deciding if someone broke that law or not.
And if Trump had returned the documents when requested, had not lied about their disposition and had not attempted to conceal them, the prosecutors almost certainly would have used their discretion and would have elected not to charge him. Biden also invited the FBI/DOJ to search his residence and other locations where the documents were discovered. The FBI had to obtain a search warrant to search Mar-a-Lago when it was discovered that Trump failed to return the documents when requested and although Trump was notified in advance of the search he referred to the search as a "raid" and claimed that he was a victim of the Biden DOJ.
If the question is simply “breaking the law,” There’s more than enough indicating Biden, Hillary, and Bill violated the espionage act. I was saying the statute has nothing to do with prosecutorial discretion which is what you were apparently bringing up.
Cooperation with law enforcement is not an element of the crime. Though I am finding it interesting that the same people who scoff at conservatives who highlight when people killed by police are violent with police, are justifying Trump’s indictment through his lack of cooperation. In essence, Democrats hate the Espionage Act and this standard where your treatment by law enforcement is based on your cooperation with law enforcement… until the Espionage Act could be used against Trump and until that lack of cooperation could be used against Trump.
It's literally written into these statutes that the violations have to be "willful", "intentional", and/or "negligent", so of course the prosecutor has to decide if that standard is met, AND if they can prove it in court. Trump left no doubt, there. And his actions of not cooperating, moving things around to hide them, lying about it, makes his charges a no-brainer.
It's supposed to be or at least it was. I think it somehow got sidetracked when a certain defender of the defeated former president suggested her RICO against Trump and his codefendants was form of selective prosecution.
Although cooperation with law enforcement is not an element of the crime it is a factor in determining whether the government elects to prosecute. I actually agree that Biden was treated better than other similarly situated persons found to be in unlawful possession of classified documents (see Gen. David Petraeus and Sandy Berger) and so was Trump. Most persons charged with unlawful possession of classified documents who knowingly tried to conceal the documents and illegally shared them with others would be held in custody pending trial unlike Trump who was released on his own recognizance and is permitted to travel around the country at will. If Trump was anyone else he would have been treated like this guy. Pentagon leak suspect Jack Teixeira denied bail by judge: 'This defendant was disloyal to the U.S.'
I know you were essentially quoting someone that got it backwards, but I think the "thought" was supposed to be LACK of cooperation with law enforcement is not an element of the crime. Worded in that fashion, I don't disagree as to this type offense. The issue is, however, intent is not always subject to direct proof..."I intend to murder you, Sir" just before I shoot you. (I don't, by the way, just making up an example.) That statement would negate any suggestion of an accidental discharge or that I only intended to frighten you. Rather, intent frequently has to be proven circumstantially and that's much more difficult. If I shoot you, and even if I did so intentionally, immediately called 911 to get an ambulance and the police, remained until they arrived, turned the weapon over and cooperated completely with law enforcement while claiming it was an accidental discharge, my criminal intent and scienter will be MUCH harder to prove. Which scenario would you rather prosecute? These MAGA people have already read the Truth Social "tweets," listened to the MTGs and James Comers, have permanently equated the two situations and that's all there is to it. They will not listen to logic, they will not consider the law...they are baked in. It's too late for them. All you can do at this point is hope Trump goes away and reason kicks back in.
Another MAGA loss. More wasted resources trying to pamper the worlds biggest loser's ego. Fani Willis Beats Disqualification Efforts in Trump RICO Case (msn.com) The defense's efforts to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis from prosecuting the case have proven unsuccessful. Under Georgia law, a prosecutor can only be disqualified for a conflict of interest that prejudices the defendant or for "forensic misconduct." As legal experts Norman L. Eisen, Joyce Vance, and Richard Painter note, "A conflict of interest requires more than a theoretical or speculative conflict. An actual conflict of interest must be involved. "Given this standard, Willis's romantic relationship with political consultant Richard Wade does not constitute grounds for disqualification. The key question was whether any financial conflicts arose from Wade's consulting work for the District Attorney's office. The court found that Willis and Wade's financial dealings, including shared travel costs that Willis repaid, did not create a conflict of interest warranting disqualification. Judge Dismisses Attempts to Disqualify Fani Willis in High-Stakes Trump RICO Case (msn.com)
Nathan Wade visited DA Fani Willis' Georgia neighborhood 36 times Nathan Wade visited DA Fani Willis' Georgia neighborhood at least 35 times and stayed overnight BEFORE she hired him as special prosecutor, cellphone data shows | Daily Mail Online Wade and Willis each testified that the romantic relationship began in 2022, after she had brought him on
How does any of this change what Trump did? it doesn't. can you bring yourself to a moment of honesty and at least admit that what either one of them did has no bearing on what Trump did?
