Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
In Trump's case, criminal intent to retain the documents is pretty damn clear, as are his sharing of classified info and obstruction efforts. Please get a clue.
Do you truly believe that what Trump and Pence did are the equivalent in the eyes of the law? If you have skepticism about Trump's case, how can you believe in a viable prosecution of Pence?
|
1) Do you truly believe that what Trump and Pence did are the equivalent (sic) in the eyes of the law?
A) Not at all. I'm not a lawyer and neither are you. That said, I don't see where Pence nor Biden had any legal protection for being in possession of classified gov't documents. Mere possession is a cause for the pursuit of an indictment, as you pointed out earlier (which likely isn't true, but you said it so we'll roll with it for now). Yet, none is pending against Pence, and I suspect the same will be the result for Biden.
Why? As I stated here after the Mar a Lago raid, document control in gov't sucks, as it does in many businesses, The gov't would be issuing indictments until it ran out of cash, because the reality is that classified documents could be anywhere and everywhere.
2) In Trump's case, criminal intent to retain the documents is pretty damn clear, as are his sharing of classified info and obstruction efforts. Please get a clue.
A) He's being charged under the Espionage Act. The two most relevant recent cases are Sandy Berger, and David Petraeus. Each pleaded guilty to misdemeanors under the threat of Espionage Act prosecution. Neither of these cases triggered the level of Justice Dept response that we're seeing now. Both of these cases featured similar "criminal intent" that you're concerned about in your post above.
3) Your equivalencies and whataboutisms are truly a sight to behold. You're either brainwashed or simply insist on bad faith debating.
Sorry, but we're in the legal realm now. The legal term for "whataboutism" is precedent. Berger and Patraeus cases are both examples of precedent.