A Deeply Fractured US

[KevinB]

If we are going to compare Clinton and Trump, lets not ignore a few things. Clinton transmitted emails up to SCI on her home brew server and destroyed evidence during the investigation (smashed phones and wiped disk drives). Trump was storing allegedly classified hard copy documents at ML which is guarded by the Secret Service. During his term some spaces in ML were secured up to SCIF levels, it was referred to as the second White House. And does anyone think Trump packed all his own boxes?

ML is not guarded by the USSS.
He has a personal detail as do all former Presidents - but it is simply a personal protection detail - not like what was in place when he was President.

Again I don't think you fully understand the ramification of what FPres Trump had on site.
Nor do you seem to understand the Document handling protocols for information at those classification levels.
Hard copies of that sort of information are #'rd and signed for.
His CDO would have been beside themselves - because the process for that information to the President would have been to brief, retrieve, and with another Security Officer log to the burn bag.
One doesn't keep that sort of information sitting around outside a dedicated SCIF, and not with extraneous copies that do not need to be retained.

HRC, no shit she did a bunch of criminal things, but two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[QV]

Let's wait and see how this shakes out, what the nature of the docs were, whether they were declassified etc, how they were stored, who packed them and catalogued everything... do you really think Trump packed and catalogued the contents himself or is there a government department that handles that?

Two wrongs don't make a right, but the law needs to be applied consistently across the board. It's wildly one sided.

45 isn't protected by the USSS? I'll defer to you on that, but there is this.... Former Presidents Act - Wikipedia. (By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff, office expenses, medical care, health insurance, and Secret Service protection.)

Of course he wouldn't have active POTUS level detail, but he'd still have 24/hr personal and home protection.

 

[QV]

Not sure why anyone is even comparing the two. It’s apples and oranges. Pun intended.

I haven’t seen anyone here defending Clinton. Some seem to be defending Trump.

Let that sink in.

The difference is the relative silence on Clinton to the absolute salivating at the mouth on Trump by a few participants on this board. The reaction of the DOJ/FBI has been similar.

When folks who hate Trump on here can honestly discuss the malfeasance carried out by FBI/DOJ in handling both of these people, it will be a fun and interesting discussion. Until then, it's just one-sided screeching.

 

[KevinB]

Let's wait and see how this shakes out, what the nature of the docs were, whether they were declassified etc, how they were stored, who packed them and catalogued everything... do you really think Trump packed and catalogued the contents himself or is there a government department that handles that?

Two wrongs don't make a right, but the law needs to be applied consistently across the board. It's wildly one sided.

45 isn't protected by the USSS? I'll defer to you on that, but there is this.... Former Presidents Act - Wikipedia. (By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff, office expenses, medical care, health insurance, and Secret Service protection.)

Of course he wouldn't have active POTUS level detail, but he'd still have 24/hr personal and home protection.

I pointed out he has a personal detail - but that ML does not, so ML isn't guarded when he is not there...

SI stuff, he can't declassify as its a 5Aye issue, not just a US issue...
WRT Declassification of other things, there is a process for the President to do that - generally it is done so the public can be informed - and there is a matrix to working with higher than TS level declassifications.

 

[KevinB]

The difference is the relative silence on Clinton to the absolute salivating at the mouth on Trump by a few participants on this board. The reaction of the DOJ/FBI has been similar.

When folks who hate Trump on here can honestly discuss the malfeasance carried out by FBI/DOJ in handling both of these people, it will be a fun and interesting discussion. Until then, it's just one-sided screeching.

I think you have missed that most posters seem to agree that HRC should have been at least Indicted.

 

[QV]

I think you have missed that most posters seem to agree that HRC should have been at least Indicted.

No I did not. I pointed out the excitement about indicting Clinton was quite muted compared to the present cacophony of potentially indicting Trump.

 

[KevinB]

No I did not. I pointed out the excitement about indicting Clinton was quite muted compared to the present cacophony of potentially indicting Trump.

You must have missed my Hillary for Prison campaign from 2012-2016
I would have been happy to see her Husband get locked up too.

 

[Remius]

No I did not. I pointed out the excitement about indicting Clinton was quite muted compared to the present cacophony of potentially indicting Trump.

I’m not seeing any excitement here or any cacophony either. People seem to be pointing out some things as they are occurring, others are weighing on the seriousness of it all and some are explaining or trying to explain some of the legal maneuvering.

It’s news. People talk about news. It’s also unprecedented news which makes for interesting discussion.

 

[QV]

You must have missed my Hillary for Prison campaign from 2012-2016
I would have been happy to see her Husband get locked up too.

My statement doesn't apply to all.

 

[QV]

I’m not seeing any excitement here or any cacophony either. People seem to be pointing out some things as they are occurring, others are weighing on the seriousness of it all and some are explaining or trying to explain some of the legal maneuvering.

It’s news. People talk about news. It’s also unprecedented news which makes for interesting discussion.

I can almost see the salivating at the mouth by a handful. But yes, it is interesting and unprecedented.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think that's the long and the short of it. At bare minimum both should be barred from high level security clearances and holding high office.
One went reasonably quietly in the night (with a handshake to do so?)
One did not.

Had Trump returned everything when asked, taken his slap on the wrist and bowed out of politics, DOJ would likely have not followed the same COA, for better or worse.

Complete, 100% speculation on your part.
So your saying if he agreed to leave politics, the DOJ wouldn't have raided him? So you finally admit that the DOJ plays partisan politics and is really not in the habit of treating everyone equally under the law. Thanks for that.

 

[QV]

Top FBI Agent Resigns after Allegedly Thwarting Hunter Biden Investigation: Report | National Review

Chuck Grassley wrote to FBI director Wray in July informing him that Thibault orchestrated a ‘scheme’ to ‘undermine’ the Hunter Biden probe.

www.nationalreview.com

Everything is still fine in the FBI I see...

 

[QV]

Justice Department Bulldozes Court on Trump Privilege Claims | National Review

If I were the judge on the case, I’d be furious.

www.nationalreview.com

Andrew MCCarthy, who IMO has developed a touch of TDS over the years, comments on the DOJ's irregular methods handling the review of documents seized at ML.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Complete, 100% speculation on your part.
So your saying if he agreed to leave politics, the DOJ wouldn't have raided him? So you finally admit that the DOJ plays partisan politics and is really not in the habit of treating everyone equally under the law. Thanks for that.

No. I'm saying that if he promptly returned the material he was possessing illegally and was no longer in the political domain the DOJ would have had significantly less reason to stir up this shit show.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It’s news. People talk about news. It’s also unprecedented news which makes for interesting discussion.

Well keeping classified documents and storing them poorly is not unprecedented thanks to Hillary. The raid appears to be unprecedented though.

 

[Mills Bomb]

The difference is the relative silence on Clinton to the absolute salivating at the mouth on Trump by a few participants on this board. The reaction of the DOJ/FBI has been similar.

When folks who hate Trump on here can honestly discuss the malfeasance carried out by FBI/DOJ in handling both of these people, it will be a fun and interesting discussion. Until then, it's just one-sided screeching.

The Hillary e-mail debate happened in 2016. It was one of the reasons she lost the election. That's why people are "silent" on it.

Almost every time Trump is criticized for current relevant issues all we hear is "But Hillary's emails" or "Hunter Biden's laptop" from the obvious pro-Trump supporters (Often mimicking what they hear on FOX news). It's like a broken record. Hillary is nowhere near as relevant now as she was 6 years ago, who cares about her e-mails at this point, it's a non-issue and literally nobody here is trying to say what she did was acceptable, and she lost the election anyway. Many people who criticize Trump think Hillary, Biden, etc. are also questionable unless they are die-hard followers and believers in those people and parties. There are many people who don't have a binary view of politics, just because someone doesn't like Trump doesn't necessarily mean they are on the super-woke-hillary-supporting-left or whatever it is we're being accused of this time for not blindly following the Orange Man.

If you're a military person, you probably already know that just because some other shitpump did something wrong like stealing ammo, doesn't mean you can steal ammo and then say "But a guy on another course also did it" when caught and expect a free pass from the MP's. That would just be embarrassing if that's the best you could come up with.

 

[QV]

Some of you fail to draw the obvious correlation. Clinton's or Hunter's treatment is very relevant. The institutions with media help covered for them while manufacturing against Trump. You can hate Trump all day long and still acknowledge the corrupt behaviors that have been already demonstrated and likely infect everything else going on. When you completely ignore the malfeasance that was carried out, whether it was falsified FISC warrants or senior FBI people covering things up, you have no moral ground to stand on and criticize Trump for anything.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

However our/US legal system works around precedents and 6 years is nothing in that regards. In fact it's very pertinent to the discussion as likley many of the same people are involved in both cases.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Some of you fail to draw the obvious correlation. Clinton's or Hunter's treatment is very relevant. The institutions with media help covered for them while manufacturing against Trump. You can hate Trump all day long and still acknowledge the corrupt behaviors that have been already demonstrated and likely infect everything else going on. When you completely ignore the malfeasance that was carried out, whether it was falsified FISC warrants or senior FBI people covering things up, you have no moral ground to stand on and criticize Trump for anything.

Media has never been impartial, despite their claims. At least back in the old days, most papers proudly proclaimed their stance on the front page.

 

[Remius]

Media covered Clinton’s email fiasco quite extensively. She paid for that and her actions at the polls.