Maralago warrant and aftereffects --

Seems pretty different to me. One was trying to do her government job. The other was stealing government documents after he lost his job.
Um...she still had the server and all those documents after she was out of government.

Did that detail escape your attention?
 
Do you have a non-right wing source for that? I’m not going to believe it just because BreitBart says so.
Her tenure as Sec of State ended in 2013.

She still had the server after that. She hired someone to wipe it in 2015 in March of that year.

I didn't even have to look at a right wing source to find that readily available information.
 
T's excuse of the day is that he took the documents to provide material for writing his personal memoirs.

Those same documents that he previously claimed he never had, or had already been returned, or were secured properly in a basement storeroom, depending on which day it is.
Hillary claimed she didn't have any classified documents on her server...
Hold everyone to the same standards, seems simple.
 
T's excuse of the day is that he took the documents to provide material for writing his personal memoirs.

Those same documents that he previously claimed he never had, or had already been returned, or were secured properly in a basement storeroom, depending on which day it is.
I was under the impression his lawyers signed off on the documents...
 
I was under the impression his lawyers signed off on the documents...
Was that before or after they said there weren't any documents, before or after they said there weren't any MORE documents, before or after they assured DOJ that the documents they had were secured in a safe place, or before or after they said the documents must have been planted by the FBI?
 
Today's alternate story -- t took the documents so he could search for a smoking gun to prove that Deep State persecution led to his two impeachment trials.
 
Was that before or after they said there weren't any documents, before or after they said there weren't any MORE documents, before or after they assured DOJ that the documents they had were secured in a safe place, or before or after they said the documents must have been planted by the FBI?
You tell me Magoo...

Trump Lawyer Told Justice Dept. That Classified Material Had Been Returned
The lawyer signed a statement in June that all documents marked as classified and held in boxes in storage at Mar-a-Lago had been given back

At least one lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump signed a written statement in June asserting that all material marked as classified and held in boxes in a storage area at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and club had been returned to the government, four people with knowledge of the document said.

The written declaration was made after a visit on June 3 to Mar-a-Lago by Jay I. Bratt, the top counterintelligence official in the Justice Department’s national security division.

entire article:
 
Make your case for equivalency.

One person ran an improperly secured email server while serving as a government official.

The other took top secret records with him after he was no longer an official.

Seems pretty different to me. One was trying to do her government job. The other was stealing government documents after he lost his job.
She destroyed evidence and government documents that weren't hers to destroy.
 
Her tenure as Sec of State ended in 2013.

She still had the server after that. She hired someone to wipe it in 2015 in March of that year.

I didn't even have to look at a right wing source to find that readily available information.
The difference is, you care.

I don’t. Clintons have a long record of playing cute with the rules. One more example isn’t news to me. Should she have been prosecuted like Petraeus? Oh, probably.

On the other hand, Clintons also have a decent record of accepting electoral outcomes. I can vote against Hillary and be reasonably certain that she won’t summon a mob to try to seize power anyway.

That makes her an aging ex-politician who ignored the small and medium size rules but respected the big ones. There are a lot of those. I can ignore them.

Trump, on the other hand, is busy trying to pull a Hugo Chavez on America. (win an election after a failed coup, then gut the independent civil institutions.). That I can’t ignore.
 
The difference is, you care.

I don’t. Clintons have a long record of playing cute with the rules. One more example isn’t news to me. Should she have been prosecuted like Petraeus? Oh, probably.

On the other hand, Clintons also have a decent record of accepting electoral outcomes. I can vote against Hillary and be reasonably certain that she won’t summon a mob to try to seize power anyway.

That makes her an aging ex-politician who ignored the small and medium size rules but respected the big ones. There are a lot of those. I can ignore them.

Trump, on the other hand, is busy trying to pull a Hugo Chavez on America. (win an election after a failed coup, then gut the independent civil institutions.). That I can’t ignore.
Wow daddy-o, you don't care if Hillary breaks the law...
You only care if Trump breaks the law....
Hypocrite only begins to describe you.
 
On the other hand, Clintons also have a decent record of accepting electoral outcomes.
That's a joke, right?

The best you can say about it was that Hillary attempted to be more discrete about her post-election shenanigans and not as blatant as Trump.
 
You tell me Magoo...

Trump Lawyer Told Justice Dept. That Classified Material Had Been Returned
The lawyer signed a statement in June that all documents marked as classified and held in boxes in storage at Mar-a-Lago had been given back

At least one lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump signed a written statement in June asserting that all material marked as classified and held in boxes in a storage area at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and club had been returned to the government, four people with knowledge of the document said.

The written declaration was made after a visit on June 3 to Mar-a-Lago by Jay I. Bratt, the top counterintelligence official in the Justice Department’s national security division.

entire article:
That article just points out that t's lawyers lied to the DOJ at least once.
 
Wow daddy-o, you don't care if Hillary breaks the law...
You only care if Trump breaks the law....
Hypocrite only begins to describe you.
That's not even close to what he said. That statement only makes sense if we understand that you are trying to hide your secret support of everything Trumpy.
 
The difference is, you care.

I don’t. Clintons have a long record of playing cute with the rules. One more example isn’t news to me. Should she have been prosecuted like Petraeus? Oh, probably.

On the other hand, Clintons also have a decent record of accepting electoral outcomes. I can vote against Hillary and be reasonably certain that she won’t summon a mob to try to seize power anyway.

That makes her an aging ex-politician who ignored the small and medium size rules but respected the big ones. There are a lot of those. I can ignore them.

Trump, on the other hand, is busy trying to pull a Hugo Chavez on America. (win an election after a failed coup, then gut the independent civil institutions.). That I can’t ignore.
That is funny...and how you usually do things.

You made the claim that her situation was different because she was working in gov. When it was pointed out that she was not...you switch to the above...saying you dont care.

Then you state that the Clintons have a decent record of accepting election outcomes. Except that isnt the case.

HC is on record many times saying Trump was illegitimate.


"Hillary Clinton is sticking with her conviction that the 2016 presidential election was not conducted legitimately, saying the details surrounding her loss are still unclear.

“There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” Clinton said during an interview for the latest episode of The Atlantic’s politics podcast, The Ticket. “We still don’t know what really happened.”


"Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday."

“Don’t forget, Joe and Kamala can win by three million votes and still lose. Take it from me,” Clinton warned. “We need numbers so overwhelming Trump can’t sneak or steal his way to victory.”

And by the way despite many claiming there was an attempted coup...there was not. That is partisan talking points.
 
WSJ: The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis: A former president’s rights under the Presidential Records Act trump the statutes the FBI cited to justify the Mar-a-Lago raid.

The warrant authorized the FBI to seize “all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§793, 2071, or 1519” (emphasis added). These three criminal statutes all address the possession and handling of materials that contain national-security information, public records or material relevant to an investigation or other matters properly before a federal agency or the courts.
The materials to be seized included “any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021”—i.e., during Mr. Trump’s term of office. Virtually all the materials at Mar-a-Lago are likely to fall within this category. Federal law gives Mr. Trump a right of access to them. His possession of them is entirely consistent with that right, and therefore lawful, regardless of the statutes the FBI cites in its warrant.
Those statutes are general in their text and application. But Mr. Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that “where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.” The former president’s rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites. . . .
Nothing in the PRA suggests that the former president’s physical custody of his records can be considered unlawful under the statutes on which the Mar-a-Lago warrant is based. Yet the statute’s text makes clear that Congress considered how certain criminal-law provisions would interact with the PRA: It provides that the archivist is not to make materials available to the former president’s designated representative “if that individual has been convicted of a crime relating to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records of the Archives.”
Nothing is said about the former president himself, but applying these general criminal statutes to him based on his mere possession of records would vitiate the entire carefully balanced PRA statutory scheme. Thus if the Justice Department’s sole complaint is that Mr. Trump had in his possession presidential records he took with him from the White House, he should be in the clear, even if some of those records are classified.
In making a former president’s records available to him, the PRA doesn’t distinguish between materials that are and aren’t classified. That was a deliberate choice by Congress.
 
That is funny...and how you usually do things.

You made the claim that her situation was different because she was working in gov. When it was pointed out that she was not...you switch to the above...saying you dont care.

Then you state that the Clintons have a decent record of accepting election outcomes. Except that isnt the case.

HC is on record many times saying Trump was illegitimate.


"Hillary Clinton is sticking with her conviction that the 2016 presidential election was not conducted legitimately, saying the details surrounding her loss are still unclear.

“There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” Clinton said during an interview for the latest episode of The Atlantic’s politics podcast, The Ticket. “We still don’t know what really happened.”


"Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday."

“Don’t forget, Joe and Kamala can win by three million votes and still lose. Take it from me,” Clinton warned. “We need numbers so overwhelming Trump can’t sneak or steal his way to victory.”

And by the way despite many claiming there was an attempted coup...there was not. That is partisan talking points.
I must have missed the point where hrc summoned a mob to the capitol to stop certification of the 2016 results.
 
Back
Top