What if I support Trump to an extent - am I a domesticated terrorist to an extent ? Can we still hangout and grab a burger ?
What you (and others) have been and are being told is that there’s a difference in ending up with these documents after service in political office and then cooperating in their return…as opposed to ending up with these documents after service in political office but refusing to return them, seeking to hide them, recruiting others to help you keep them, and lying about your possession of them. That’s the difference here. You need only to read the indictment to see the difference. Continuing to assert that what Trump is being indicted for is exactly what Pence and Biden did is either being willfully ignorant or willfully obtuse at this point. It’s been said over and over again here…and it’s very clear from the indictment
you misunderstand me. there are two issues: (1) the narrow legal question of Trump's violation of the law. That doesn't seem like much of a question and is probably pretty clear-cut. I say probably because there is the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. The second issue is (2) the political issue of whether this is a good move, for Democrats, for Biden, and for the country. I am old enough to remember Watergate. That was an extremely volatile event in U.S. history and the ramifications were felt immediately/in the short term throughout the Reagan years, but are also probably still be felt in the long-term today. This is another potential Watergate-level event. With enough ambiguous motivation behind it to make it even MORE jarring and damaging than Watergate. Just not sure this will be worth it.
I would argue that the allegations here are far worse than those of Watergate. For as volatile as Watergate was, Nixon absolutely had to go. Fortunately he had enough dignity to go on his own.
Yet, it isn't Democrats or Biden doing this. It's an independent special counsel who has evidence to show, the search warrant, investigation, and indictment were all warranted based on evidence. It isn't anyone's fault but Trump's that we are where we are. It isn't anyone that is potentially following the rule of law damaging the nation other than Trump should he be convicted after a trial. The damage done to the nation after seeing the evidence but not holding Trump accountable is possibly a much bigger traumatic event for the nation and invites future elected officials to do the same and worse. It would be a whole chain of events. That is in addition to eroding the faith in the application of the law and our justice system.
"peaceful"... And, correct me if I am wrong, but there was a grand jury, comprised of citizens from his local area, which I'd guess meant its likely republicans and even trump voters were on the jury.
And is it worth it to just allow a former and possibly future president to flaunt the law and compromise national security? Your appeal to history overlooks that Trump was a uniquely ahistorical president. Norms have already been broken and Trump is proud of that. Saying thst we shouldn’t prosecute becaue of historical norms is particularly ironic when it comes to Trump. All it will do is establish the precedent that future candidates running for office can commit crimes and then say they are untouchable because they are running for office.
Didn't take long for turley to get reminded what side he is on... all that "law breaking aside", people are picking on trump...
I don’t think you’re a bad guy and would be happy to grab a burger and beer with you. I believe we can have political differences and still not consider each other evil. It’s your right to support who you want for President and for whatever reason you want. I will ask you this though is Trump really the one who you think best represents your ideals? Is a man hawking NFT’s, settling for millions over a fake university and foundation that defrauded veterans, who used to donate to Planned Parenthood and said we should take guns away without due process really a person that believes what you believes? Ask yourself why do your support Trump? Is it becaue he pisses off the libs or because you actually believe he is for the good of the country? Is pissing off the libs really that important to you?
I’m just going to keep on repeating too that all of those who are upset about “election interference” and “weaponized DOJ” from Congress to the pages of Clutchfans didn’t have any qualms about that when it was Hillary Clinton being openly investigated by the DOJ up to days before the 2016 election.
Also, this has zero to do with weponization of the DOJ. 1. Three people (2 Republicans and 1 Democrat) had classified documents. 2. All three were asked to return the documents by the DOJ. At this point they were all treated equally. 3. Only 2 of them returned all of the documents and cooperated. One of them returned a portion of the documents and not the others. 4. The one who didn't cooperate was given additional requests and eventually issued a subpoena. He still didn't cooperate. 5. A warrant was issued. The DOJ didn't leak or publicize the execution of the warrant. The person who had the classified documents did. 6. The one Democrat who did cooperate, returned the documents, and didn't have a search warrant needed in his case was appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the situation. 7. A special prosecutor was also appointed to the uncooperative Republican. Evidence was gathered showing that he knew the documents he had was classified. He asked his lawyers to lie about it, hide them and destroy some of them. Evidence showed that he had the documents to prove his side of arguments with members of the United States military. Evidence showed that he invited others to look at the classified material. Evidence showed that he conspired with others to hide the classified documents to avoid returning them. 8. That person was indicted. Perhaps the Democrat received the least preferential treatment since it took much less to have a special prosecutor assigned to his case. At no point was there any evidence that political bias or weponization of the DOJ played a part.
Why does this keep getting misconstrued? The DOJ did NOT ask 2 of them to return documents. 2 of them informed the DOJ they had documents and told the DOJ to come get them. They also told the DOJ to perform searches to ensure all documents were no longer in the 2 people's possession. The DOJ did not ask for anything. 2 people self reported. One fought tooth and nail, lied ,obstructed, asked his attorneys to lie, showed classified documents to to individuals who had no clearance to see them. All of your other points at absolutely correct.
Wait. Are you saying it was a mistake to pursue the Watergate investigation and for Nixon to receive even the less than full consequences that he did?
No. But writing well is. That was a real question. And I'm obviously not the only one wondering, based on what you wrote. If that's not the message you meant to convey, I would recommend some revision.
