Clinton, Biden, and Trump should all be facing consequences for bad handling of classified info. But Clinton especially was the most egregious and she wasn't even President or VP.

Really tired of FBI and other intelligence agencies just acting as another arm of the Democrats. Those agencies are now political ideological agencies. Shameful.

First, we are in complete agreement this is a political protection.

I asked above specifically about 1 charge: hiding documents responsive to a subpoena. The mishandling documents stuff all seems extremely overblown to me.

Like it or not, it's not a legal defense for Trump to say Hillary wasn't charged for mishandling documents, so you can't charge me for hiding documents responsive to a subpoena.

Ag with kids said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Fido04 said:

---

I am not making claims to know what is in it. You are suggesting evidence was obtained illegally.

---

And you are saying you know it was all obtained legally. But you know that 13,000 items were taken from MAL, including attorney client communications, Execitive Privileged comms, and so forth.

DOJ swore they had "taint teams" but that indictment goes into detail of comminications between Trum and lawyers.

I know you only want Trump to go to jail because you are a partisan. I want Trump to go to jail, WHEN he actually does something worthy of a prison sentence.

In the meantime. Defend Biden getting 5 million to fire Shokin.

---

the problem here isn't the crimes alleged. It's the optics of the whole thing.

The leftists are here screaming about some ticky tack crime because they don't want to acknowledge the truth: their hatred for Trump outstrips even their sense of basic civics.

For all of the classified secrets in these documents, they never seem to acknowledge that information exists in a place they can't control: trump's brain. Is it a crime if he talks about what he knows?

---

Technically, yeah...

---

that leads to the more blunt question: Trump was POTUS. In that job you get a LOT of information that is incredibly secret and extremely sensitive. All of that data is in Trump's head. What's stopping him from selling (or just giving away out of pure spite) all of that information? Wouldn't basic logic suggest that the smart play would be to maintain an at least cordial relationship with a former President?

I see all the petty partisanship in this but it seems like no one has stopped to think about the big picture - for a lot of reasons.

fka ftc said:

---

Since our legal system is based on common law, then it most certainly is a valid legal argument.

---

Have fun trying to make any kind of a rational argument for that. Start with providing court decisions that excuse people from mishandling classified documents.

GeorgiAg said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

"Someone else did not get prosecuted for something similar" is not a legal defense. Also, it was Trump's DoJt hat didn't prosecute.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069585

It's been a while, did Hillary wipe the server after getting a subpoena?

---

Here's where we disagree.

Your argument makes sense in common practice, such as a speeding ticket, but this is a massively different scenario.

This is a political prosecution relying on a novel legal theory that has never been applied to one of the top three or four government officials in the country.

There is precedent even before Hillary of not criminalizing handling of classified documents in what is not a true Espionage situation. Trump has been singled out, and any argument otherwise is an attempt to split hairs.

---

News flash. If you fail to appear for a speeding ticket you will go to jail. Thumbing your nose at law enforcement is usually worse than the underlying crime. Trump is not above the law.

---

Nor is Hillary, nor is Biden. Yet DOJ looks the other way in other cases of very similar behavior.

So apparently some are above the law. DOJ is killing it's own credibility by engaging in selective prosecutions.

Couple that with the fact that this is the result of a targeted investigation rather than true law enforcement, we're doing irreparable damage to the rule of law and to our world standing, all to win a political spat.

If you still don't see this, then God help us all.

jrdaustin said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Hillary should be in jail. I think any honest person here wouid admit that.

Unfortunately, saying "Hillary did it too" isn't a legal basis for Trump to escape the charges.

---

But she isn't. And not because she was acquitted. It's because DOJ declined to prosecute.

I would argue that treatment - or non-treatment - of Hillary's situation by the same DOJ could have set legal precedent for high ranking public officials.

---

I don't think that the court would find such an argument from Trump to be at all persuasive. It would basically be an argument that Trump, as a former President is above the law.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Jokes aside, what's the defense for the allegation Trump instructed his valet to hide documents that were subpoenaed?

If that's true, don't see what Trump can claim to make that not a crime.

---

What can Joe and Hunter claim in regards to the allegations against them?

---

We will likely have to wait until Biden's term is over before seeing Hunter prosecuted. Hopefully, no statute of limitations will have expired and that there will be no pardon.

Eric, Gipper, et al.

Yes, this is a discussion of legality. That's relevant.

It's also a discussion of politics. Exec branch is a political branch. Including DOJ, FBI. These are political institutions run by political actors. Making political decisions as well as legal.

Talking about both is relevant. Arguing the legal merits certainly makes sense. And I agree, "whataboutism" isn't a defense unless it's actual legal case.

But that still doesn't make the political discussion irrelevant.

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Jokes aside, what's the defense for the allegation Trump instructed his valet to hide documents that were subpoenaed?

If that's true, don't see what Trump can claim to make that not a crime.

---

And yet, Hillary instructed her aides to wipe hard drives, delete emails, and hammer cell phones to bits to hide - nay, DESTROY, documents that were under subpoena.

And she was given a complete pass.

Not condoning what Trump may have done, but the defense is that a president has been set with respect to high ranking public officials.

If you're going to give that kind of pass to a former Secretary of State, I'll expect the same deference to a former POTUS. Equal protections and the like - especially when PRA supercedes Espionage Act in Trump's case, but not Hillary's.

---

What about? What about? What about?

It's no precedent. While it is wrong that Hillary was not held accountable for her actions with the e-mail server issue, that does not give anyone else the right to do something similar. If it did, then you could probably find a so-called "precedent" not to prosecute someone for just about any crime out there.

The law applies to everyone, former Presidents and ordinary citizens alike.

---

So be clear, Eric. Admit you condone a set of rules for everyone, but you're completely fine with those rules actually being enforced on a select few based upon political motivations. Do you not see how dangerous that is? You apparently are fine with weaponizing "the law" to go after political enemies. Why?

This isn't a fking traffic ticket. We're in uncharted territory here. And your comment about "the law" is an incredible reach.

"The law" in question should have been the PRA. As such, there never should have been a raid on Mar-a-lago, and a further attempt to criminalize what should have been an administrative dispute using a 1917 law that doesn't apply to trigger other "crimes". Fruit of the poison tree and such.

This case is no different than the mental gymnastics that have been performed in impeachment #1, Impeachment #2, or the Manhattan indictment - ALL THAT CHARTED NEW TERRITORY IN AN ATTEMPT TO SINGLE OUT ONE MAN.

Your failure to see this, much less have any sort of problem with it, should make you question what principles are truly important to you. But then again, TDS is blinding, isn't it?

You have to understand, Eric and like minded libs/dems consider trump and conservatives as the "enemy" and don't mind inequality as far as justice goes.

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Jokes aside, what's the defense for the allegation Trump instructed his valet to hide documents that were subpoenaed?

If that's true, don't see what Trump can claim to make that not a crime.

---

And yet, Hillary instructed her aides to wipe hard drives, delete emails, and hammer cell phones to bits to hide - nay, DESTROY, documents that were under subpoena.

And she was given a complete pass.

Not condoning what Trump may have done, but the defense is that a president has been set with respect to high ranking public officials.

If you're going to give that kind of pass to a former Secretary of State, I'll expect the same deference to a former POTUS. Equal protections and the like - especially when PRA supercedes Espionage Act in Trump's case, but not Hillary's.

---

What about? What about? What about?

It's no precedent. While it is wrong that Hillary was not held accountable for her actions with the e-mail server issue, that does not give anyone else the right to do something similar. If it did, then you could probably find a so-called "precedent" not to prosecute someone for just about any crime out there.

The law applies to everyone, former Presidents and ordinary citizens alike.

---

Pretty obvious the law does not apply to some people, as you just proved above.

eric76 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

I see all the petty partisanship in this but it seems like no one has stopped to think about the big picture - for a lot of reasons.

---

If I was partisan, I'd be on Trump's side, but I have never considered Trump to be anything but an untrustworthy, unprincipled, opportunist twit is in this strictly for his own glorification. He is not, and never has been, the President that this country needs. Trump is not and has never been in it for the benefit of the country.

---

Fine. I don't disagree. But for this country to survive, you need to beat him at the ballot box, not rely on unprecedented tactics to attempt to jail the guy.

eric76 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

I see all the petty partisanship in this but it seems like no one has stopped to think about the big picture - for a lot of reasons.

---

If I was partisan, I'd be on Trump's side, but I have never considered Trump to be anything but an untrustworthy, unprincipled, opportunist twit is in this strictly for his own glorification. He is not, and never has been, the President that this country needs. Trump is not and has never been in it for the benefit of the country.

---

you and all the leftists here still missing the basic premise. It's the old Jeff Goldblum line from Jurassic Park:

You and so many others are so preoccupied with whether or not you could but you never stopped to think if you should.

jjtrcka22 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Jokes aside, what's the defense for the allegation Trump instructed his valet to hide documents that were subpoenaed?

If that's true, don't see what Trump can claim to make that not a crime.

---

And yet, Hillary instructed her aides to wipe hard drives, delete emails, and hammer cell phones to bits to hide - nay, DESTROY, documents that were under subpoena.

And she was given a complete pass.

Not condoning what Trump may have done, but the defense is that a president has been set with respect to high ranking public officials.

If you're going to give that kind of pass to a former Secretary of State, I'll expect the same deference to a former POTUS. Equal protections and the like - especially when PRA supercedes Espionage Act in Trump's case, but not Hillary's.

---

What about? What about? What about?

It's no precedent. While it is wrong that Hillary was not held accountable for her actions with the e-mail server issue, that does not give anyone else the right to do something similar. If it did, then you could probably find a so-called "precedent" not to prosecute someone for just about any crime out there.

The law applies to everyone, former Presidents and ordinary citizens alike.

---

Pretty obvious the law does not apply to some people, as you just proved above.

---

Who does the law not apply to?

I am the complete opposite of saying that it does not apply to some people. Trump should be held accountable. Biden should be held accountable. Hillary should be held accountable.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

eric76 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

I see all the petty partisanship in this but it seems like no one has stopped to think about the big picture - for a lot of reasons.

---

If I was partisan, I'd be on Trump's side, but I have never considered Trump to be anything but an untrustworthy, unprincipled, opportunist twit is in this strictly for his own glorification. He is not, and never has been, the President that this country needs. Trump is not and has never been in it for the benefit of the country.

---

you and all the leftists here still missing the basic premise. It's the old Jeff Goldblum line from Jurassic Park:

You and so many others are so preoccupied with whether or not you could but you never stopped to think if you should.

---

Actually, the Republicans who voted for Trump in 2016 should have asked that. It was clear then that Trump was a real scumbag acting only for his own, personal glorification.

eric76 said:

---

jjtrcka22 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Jokes aside, what's the defense for the allegation Trump instructed his valet to hide documents that were subpoenaed?

If that's true, don't see what Trump can claim to make that not a crime.

---

And yet, Hillary instructed her aides to wipe hard drives, delete emails, and hammer cell phones to bits to hide - nay, DESTROY, documents that were under subpoena.

And she was given a complete pass.

Not condoning what Trump may have done, but the defense is that a president has been set with respect to high ranking public officials.

If you're going to give that kind of pass to a former Secretary of State, I'll expect the same deference to a former POTUS. Equal protections and the like - especially when PRA supercedes Espionage Act in Trump's case, but not Hillary's.

---

What about? What about? What about?

It's no precedent. While it is wrong that Hillary was not held accountable for her actions with the e-mail server issue, that does not give anyone else the right to do something similar. If it did, then you could probably find a so-called "precedent" not to prosecute someone for just about any crime out there.

The law applies to everyone, former Presidents and ordinary citizens alike.

---

Pretty obvious the law does not apply to some people, as you just proved above.

---

Who does the law not apply to?

I am the complete opposite of saying that it does not apply to some people. Trump should be held accountable. Biden should be held accountable. Hillary should be held accountable.

---

BUT THEY'RE NOT. That's the whole damn point. Then the law doesn't mean anything, and the ones tasked with enforcing the law lose their authority given by the People to do so.

This is precisely what speaks to Policywonk's post above. In this case, "the law" and politics are wholly intertwined. DOJ is endangering it's ability to enforce the law by weaponizing it for it's own political purposes. Blatantly, I might add.

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

I see all the petty partisanship in this but it seems like no one has stopped to think about the big picture - for a lot of reasons.

---

If I was partisan, I'd be on Trump's side, but I have never considered Trump to be anything but an untrustworthy, unprincipled, opportunist twit is in this strictly for his own glorification. He is not, and never has been, the President that this country needs. Trump is not and has never been in it for the benefit of the country.

---

Fine. I don't disagree. But for this country to survive, you need to beat him at the ballot box, not rely on unprecedented tactics to attempt to jail the guy.

---

People are prosecuted for mishandling classified information quite often. Trump is being treated with kid gloves because of his position -- nearly anyone else would have already be regretting their actions. He is hardly being treated at all unfairly.

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jjtrcka22 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Jokes aside, what's the defense for the allegation Trump instructed his valet to hide documents that were subpoenaed?

If that's true, don't see what Trump can claim to make that not a crime.

---

And yet, Hillary instructed her aides to wipe hard drives, delete emails, and hammer cell phones to bits to hide - nay, DESTROY, documents that were under subpoena.

And she was given a complete pass.

Not condoning what Trump may have done, but the defense is that a president has been set with respect to high ranking public officials.

If you're going to give that kind of pass to a former Secretary of State, I'll expect the same deference to a former POTUS. Equal protections and the like - especially when PRA supercedes Espionage Act in Trump's case, but not Hillary's.

---

What about? What about? What about?

It's no precedent. While it is wrong that Hillary was not held accountable for her actions with the e-mail server issue, that does not give anyone else the right to do something similar. If it did, then you could probably find a so-called "precedent" not to prosecute someone for just about any crime out there.

The law applies to everyone, former Presidents and ordinary citizens alike.

---

Pretty obvious the law does not apply to some people, as you just proved above.

---

Who does the law not apply to?

I am the complete opposite of saying that it does not apply to some people. Trump should be held accountable. Biden should be held accountable. Hillary should be held accountable.

---

BUT THEY'RE NOT. That's the whole damn point. Then the law doesn't mean anything, and the ones tasked with enforcing the law lose their authority given by the People to do so.

---

And why aren't they? Why hasn't Hillary already been prosecuted? Trump's DOJ certainly had the opportunity.

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jjtrcka22 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Jokes aside, what's the defense for the allegation Trump instructed his valet to hide documents that were subpoenaed?

If that's true, don't see what Trump can claim to make that not a crime.

---

And yet, Hillary instructed her aides to wipe hard drives, delete emails, and hammer cell phones to bits to hide - nay, DESTROY, documents that were under subpoena.

And she was given a complete pass.

Not condoning what Trump may have done, but the defense is that a president has been set with respect to high ranking public officials.

If you're going to give that kind of pass to a former Secretary of State, I'll expect the same deference to a former POTUS. Equal protections and the like - especially when PRA supercedes Espionage Act in Trump's case, but not Hillary's.

---

What about? What about? What about?

It's no precedent. While it is wrong that Hillary was not held accountable for her actions with the e-mail server issue, that does not give anyone else the right to do something similar. If it did, then you could probably find a so-called "precedent" not to prosecute someone for just about any crime out there.

The law applies to everyone, former Presidents and ordinary citizens alike.

---

Pretty obvious the law does not apply to some people, as you just proved above.

---

Who does the law not apply to?

I am the complete opposite of saying that it does not apply to some people. Trump should be held accountable. Biden should be held accountable. Hillary should be held accountable.

---

BUT THEY'RE NOT. That's the whole damn point. Then the law doesn't mean anything, and the ones tasked with enforcing the law lose their authority given by the People to do so.

---

And why aren't they? Why hasn't Hillary already been prosecuted? Trump's DOJ certainly had the opportunity.

---

We've covered this before. Comey's "No reasonable prosecutor would pursue" tied Trump's hands. If Trump's DOJ would have prosecuted after that, it would have been seen as completely political, rather than enforcement of the law.

Trump made the decision to let Hillary's actions remain in the political arena. Biden's DOJ has no such qualms - but for Trump only - not anyone else. How do you not see this?

eric76 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

eric76 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

I see all the petty partisanship in this but it seems like no one has stopped to think about the big picture - for a lot of reasons.

---

If I was partisan, I'd be on Trump's side, but I have never considered Trump to be anything but an untrustworthy, unprincipled, opportunist twit is in this strictly for his own glorification. He is not, and never has been, the President that this country needs. Trump is not and has never been in it for the benefit of the country.

---

you and all the leftists here still missing the basic premise. It's the old Jeff Goldblum line from Jurassic Park:

You and so many others are so preoccupied with whether or not you could but you never stopped to think if you should.

---

Actually, the Republicans who voted for Trump in 2016 should have asked that. It was clear then that Trump was a real scumbag acting only for his own, personal glorification.

---

You lie so much Eric, y'all just present ignorant opinions as fact because it's what CNN told you to say. Just complete bull***** Trump lost money being president, family trashed, friends harassed, cabinet member lied to by the FBI to try and entrap him. What personal glorification did Trump get? The middle class was glorified during his presidency. It was awesome, but I'm sure you think what's going on now is better.

Like I said. Parrot.

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jjtrcka22 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Jokes aside, what's the defense for the allegation Trump instructed his valet to hide documents that were subpoenaed?

If that's true, don't see what Trump can claim to make that not a crime.

---

And yet, Hillary instructed her aides to wipe hard drives, delete emails, and hammer cell phones to bits to hide - nay, DESTROY, documents that were under subpoena.

And she was given a complete pass.

Not condoning what Trump may have done, but the defense is that a president has been set with respect to high ranking public officials.

If you're going to give that kind of pass to a former Secretary of State, I'll expect the same deference to a former POTUS. Equal protections and the like - especially when PRA supercedes Espionage Act in Trump's case, but not Hillary's.

---

What about? What about? What about?

It's no precedent. While it is wrong that Hillary was not held accountable for her actions with the e-mail server issue, that does not give anyone else the right to do something similar. If it did, then you could probably find a so-called "precedent" not to prosecute someone for just about any crime out there.

The law applies to everyone, former Presidents and ordinary citizens alike.

---

Pretty obvious the law does not apply to some people, as you just proved above.

---

Who does the law not apply to?

I am the complete opposite of saying that it does not apply to some people. Trump should be held accountable. Biden should be held accountable. Hillary should be held accountable.

---

BUT THEY'RE NOT. That's the whole damn point. Then the law doesn't mean anything, and the ones tasked with enforcing the law lose their authority given by the People to do so.

---

And why aren't they? Why hasn't Hillary already been prosecuted? Trump's DOJ certainly had the opportunity.

---

Oh come on Eric. You know why. Lynch was AG and Comey was FBI director. They investigated and "put it to rest" for the express purpose of making it a dead issue in advance of the election outcome of 2016 just in case Clinton didn't get elected. The issue was not going to get picked up by Trump after having just defeated the very subject of the investigation.

Again, it wasn't a decision based on legal merits. It was a political decision. Which is why the politics of this matters.

eric76 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

You have to understand, Eric and like minded libs/dems consider trump and conservatives as the "enemy" and don't mind inequality as far as justice goes.

---

That is a lie.

Trump is the enemy of Conservatism. He is nothing but an opportunist trying to milk the US for his own glorification and power. There is nothing Conservative about Trump at all. The sooner he bows out, the better for Conservatism and this country.

---

This is an absolutely hilarious post. Read it again, Eric. You call him a liar, and then immediately prove his point by trashing Trump in the following paragraph rather than logically refuting his statement.

Classic! I needed that laugh this morning.

eric76 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

eric76 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

I see all the petty partisanship in this but it seems like no one has stopped to think about the big picture - for a lot of reasons.

---

If I was partisan, I'd be on Trump's side, but I have never considered Trump to be anything but an untrustworthy, unprincipled, opportunist twit is in this strictly for his own glorification. He is not, and never has been, the President that this country needs. Trump is not and has never been in it for the benefit of the country.

---

you and all the leftists here still missing the basic premise. It's the old Jeff Goldblum line from Jurassic Park:

You and so many others are so preoccupied with whether or not you could but you never stopped to think if you should.

---

Actually, the Republicans who voted for Trump in 2016 should have asked that. It was clear then that Trump was a real scumbag acting only for his own, personal glorification.

---

again, still completely missing the point.

Take a deep breath and let go of trump for a minute.

This is a former President. You're missing the bigger picture because you can't get past Trump.

Does it not resonate with you that you now have an individual who has an exceptionally vast knowledge of countless sensitive and secretive information about the very government that is antagonizing him?

Their own actions make trump significantly more of a threat than he ever could have been if they could have just let it be. They've taken away his need/desire to be loyal.

eric76 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Since our legal system is based on common law, then it most certainly is a valid legal argument.

---

Have fun trying to make any kind of a rational argument for that. Start with providing court decisions that excuse people from mishandling classified documents.

---

The dude who stuffed docs in his sock and destroyed them - misdemeanor and no prison.

Next?

Quote:

---

Does it not resonate with you that you now have an individual who has an exceptionally vast knowledge of countless sensitive and secretive information about the very government that is antagonizing him?

Their own actions make trump significantly more of a threat than he ever could have been if they could have just let it be. They've taken away his need/desire to be loyal.

---

From a trial standpoint, they may have to use the procedures under CIPA, meaning closed courtrooms and everything under seal. It is federal so of course it won't be televised.

And if it is conducted under CIPA, that would be an even worse look to the public.

ShaggySLC said:

---

eric76 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

eric76 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

I see all the petty partisanship in this but it seems like no one has stopped to think about the big picture - for a lot of reasons.

---

If I was partisan, I'd be on Trump's side, but I have never considered Trump to be anything but an untrustworthy, unprincipled, opportunist twit is in this strictly for his own glorification. He is not, and never has been, the President that this country needs. Trump is not and has never been in it for the benefit of the country.

---

you and all the leftists here still missing the basic premise. It's the old Jeff Goldblum line from Jurassic Park:

You and so many others are so preoccupied with whether or not you could but you never stopped to think if you should.

---

Actually, the Republicans who voted for Trump in 2016 should have asked that. It was clear then that Trump was a real scumbag acting only for his own, personal glorification.

---

You lie so much Eric, y'all just present ignorant opinions as fact because it's what CNN told you to say. Just complete bull***** Trump lost money being president, family trashed, friends harassed, cabinet member lied to by the FBI to try and entrap him. What personal glorification did Trump get? The middle class was glorified during his presidency. It was awesome, but I'm sure you think what's going on now is better.

---

What a bunch of horse*****

First of all, CNN doesn't tell me to do a damned thing. If they tried, I would ignore them. It's been years since the last time I watched CNN. For that matter, I seldom watch any tv at all. I can easily go two or three months without ever turning the tv on.

Second, Trump losing money has always been a problem for Trump. He sure tried to milk the system for everything he could. But then, lots of things Trump does is lose money. He's like the kiss of death for businesses. Look at his casinos. Look at what he did to the USFL. Try to buy a ticket on Trump Shuttle. Try to sign up for a course with Trump University. Go place an order for Trump steaks. Go make reservations at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC. How well is his Truth Social doing?

Third, Trump was definitely in it for his own glorification. He has never had any interest in actually doing the job of the President. He was probably the least hard working President in a long time. Well, at least before Biden. The President's daily schedules are generally available, but I haven't bothered to look. I just assume that his schedule is as light as Trump's schedule.

eric76 said:

---

What a bunch of horse*****

First of all, CNN doesn't tell me to do a damned thing. If they tried, I would ignore them. It's been years since the last time I watched CNN. For that matter, I seldom watch any tv at all. I can easily go two or three months without ever turning the tv on.

Second, Trump losing money has always been a problem for Trump. He sure tried to milk the system for everything he could. But then, lots of things Trump does is lose money. He's like the kiss of death for businesses. Look at his casinos. Look at what he did to the USFL. Try to buy a ticket on Trump Shuttle. Try to sign up for a course with Trump University. Go place an order for Trump steaks. Go make reservations at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC. How well is his Truth Social doing?

Third, Trump was definitely in it for his own glorification. He has never had any interest in actually doing the job of the President. He was probably the least hard working President in a long time. Well, at least before Biden. The President's daily schedules are generally available, but I haven't bothered to look. I just assume that his schedule is as light as Trump's schedule.

---

One would have to be utterly naive or completely delusional to think anyone striving for that high of an office is doing it for any other reason than their own glorification.

You would have to go all the way back to George W... as in Washington to find a truly reluctant POTUS.

Glad to be able to clear that up for you.

policywonk98 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jjtrcka22 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Jokes aside, what's the defense for the allegation Trump instructed his valet to hide documents that were subpoenaed?

If that's true, don't see what Trump can claim to make that not a crime.

---

And yet, Hillary instructed her aides to wipe hard drives, delete emails, and hammer cell phones to bits to hide - nay, DESTROY, documents that were under subpoena.

And she was given a complete pass.

Not condoning what Trump may have done, but the defense is that a president has been set with respect to high ranking public officials.

If you're going to give that kind of pass to a former Secretary of State, I'll expect the same deference to a former POTUS. Equal protections and the like - especially when PRA supercedes Espionage Act in Trump's case, but not Hillary's.

---

What about? What about? What about?

It's no precedent. While it is wrong that Hillary was not held accountable for her actions with the e-mail server issue, that does not give anyone else the right to do something similar. If it did, then you could probably find a so-called "precedent" not to prosecute someone for just about any crime out there.

The law applies to everyone, former Presidents and ordinary citizens alike.

---

Pretty obvious the law does not apply to some people, as you just proved above.

---

Who does the law not apply to?

I am the complete opposite of saying that it does not apply to some people. Trump should be held accountable. Biden should be held accountable. Hillary should be held accountable.

---

BUT THEY'RE NOT. That's the whole damn point. Then the law doesn't mean anything, and the ones tasked with enforcing the law lose their authority given by the People to do so.

---

And why aren't they? Why hasn't Hillary already been prosecuted? Trump's DOJ certainly had the opportunity.

---

Oh come on Eric. You know why. Lynch was AG and Comey was FBI director. They investigated and "put it to rest" for the express purpose of making it a dead issue in advance of the election outcome of 2016 just in case Clinton didn't get elected. The issue was not going to get picked up by Trump after having just defeated the very subject of the investigation.

Again, it wasn't a decision based on legal merits. It was a political decision. Which is why the politics of this matters.

---

Rewriting history? I believe that Lynch was replaced pretty much as soon as Trump was sworn in. So I looked it up. Yep. Lynch's term as AG ended on January 20, 2017.

As for the FBI, since when does the FBI make prosecutorial decisions?

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

You have to understand, Eric and like minded libs/dems consider trump and conservatives as the "enemy" and don't mind inequality as far as justice goes.

---

That is a lie.

Trump is the enemy of Conservatism. He is nothing but an opportunist trying to milk the US for his own glorification and power. There is nothing Conservative about Trump at all. The sooner he bows out, the better for Conservatism and this country.

---

This is an absolutely hilarious post. Read it again, Eric. You call him a liar, and then immediately prove his point by trashing Trump in the following paragraph rather than logically refuting his statement.

Classic! I needed that laugh this morning.

---

No reading comprehension this morning?

I do not consider Conservatism to be the enemy. I do, however, consider Trump to be unfit for office.

Quote:

---

As for the FBI, since when does the FBI make prosecutorial decisions?

---

Comey did that very thing with Hillary.