When presented facts, you always turn to a factless response. Like guilt by insinuation. Ick. If you have evidence that Hillary directed those actions, present it.
I don't have evidence that Michael directed those actions either. I don't think anyone should bother taking a look for that reason.
It's fiction. If I present a movie clip of three unrelated things occurring, do we tie? Good grief. Do you have any evidence that Hillary orchestrated these events? If not, any assertion to the contrary is willing misinformation.
Even then, the scenarios wouldn't be equivalent. That was a subpoena to produce any work related emails for anything related to Benghazi. It wasn't an attempt to hide or prevent turning over known Top Secret documents. So maybe an obstruction charge if intent could be proven, which the FBI couldn't find any evidence of? That's miles apart from the Trump situation.
Again, like Michael, I don't have evidence that she specifically directed her emails to be deleted. Also, on a completely unrelated note, I don't know what all the fuss over these mobsters is. They're always talking about "taking care of people."
Then why do make garbage claims like the one below without evidence? Do you think that's proper conduct when debating?
Needless to say ... PolitiFact - Fact-checking Donald Trump’s Bedminster speech following documents indictment
Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time. If Trump would stop breaking laws constantly, he wouldn't have to deal with countless civil lawsuits and criminal indictments. But noooooo . . . . he's compulsively corrupt.
Alright: Trump can't get it right on Clinton's email deletion "First, she gave the instruction to erase those messages in late 2014, before she was subpoenaed. Second, she has maintained that the messages she ordered erased were supposed to be entirely personal in nature." That's two apologies you owe me.
I can't see Trump doing any time. The fix is in as far as jail time goes. He has his judge for the trial, just like he had his African American at one of his rallies. How he swung this I don't know, it couldn't have been just the luck of the draw. If the DOJ chose her, that's a head scratcher for sure. But his judge is not going to say, "I hereby sentence you to" ever how many years. That would be, oh, "election interference" or whatever. We can't have that.
I think even Trump realizes what you’re saying, and if all things being equal, I’m sure even he would agree with you. His argument is likely going to be “all things were not equal.” Trump is not stupid. It looks like to me he willfully defied the DOJ.
Based on my understanding, they had the choice of prosecuting him in southern Florida or in DC. They chose southern Florida, which leads me to agree with you. The fix is in. The Dems will blame the judge and will be able to say they “tried.” And the former President doesn’t go to prison, which would be an international embarrassment for decades to come.
I really don't think that's the case. There's a real world cost for not holding him accountable - intelligence sharing with our allies. Will they start to hold back what they share with us if Trump isn't held accountable and even potentially wins the presidency again? I think that has to be part of the calculus here.
