Independents and Never Trumpers don’t like Biden but they hate Trump. I don’t want to see Joe for 6 more years - if he makes it that long - but I’d love to see Trumps face when he loses for the 2nd time.
Material that you yourself have posted before including in the WSJ editorial states that the Presidential Records Act allows for former presidents to have access to material but not keep them. It also allows for good faith efforts regarding the return of documents that they may have in their possession. The argument that Biden, or Pence, should be as liable as Trump doesn’t fit the facts or the law.
The key point is Petraus was found guilty. Yes if Trump is willing to cooperate with the prosecutors and work out a plea deal He too will likely get a lighter charge and sentence. That is how plea deals work.
Also in terms of adding in charges it is common practice when dealing with a suspect to add multiple and severe charges. That goes for everything from speeding tickets on up. If a suspect is willing to cooperate in most cases the severe charges are dropped. There are arguments about how fair or wise use of prosecution time it is doing that but it’s not some two tier justice system Specifically crafted to go after Trump.
The pee pee tape was never considered by Mueller or prosecutors to be of significance. It made great fodder for late night comedians but didn’t go anywhere. Durham himself never said the DoJ investigated Trump because of It. Destruction of classified material is another matter and as stated there are multiple sources confirming it.
I feel like you are making a separate argument. If I understand you are saying either the DOJ should always instantly prosecute for violations whether intentional or not, or they should abandon all prosecutions. Let me know if I misunderstand. That seems different than the DOJ following different procedures for different people.
The independent counsel has explained to the public why he chose to indict, and the justification is already detailed. However, what you, Pence, and others are questioning is why Clinton/Pence/Biden have not been indicted. The reality is not simply "no one is above the law"; it is that no one is above the law with prosecutor discretion. It's a (omitting relevant info) fallacy to keep insisting a simple 'no one is above the law' and leaving out the prosecutor discretion. Naturally, the next question is why not Clinton/Pence/Biden but Trump? If someone claims it's due to politics, they need to present arguments to support that claim. So far, in this thread (caveat: I haven't read this whole thread), no one has stepped up to make those arguments or provide an explanation. On the other hand, there have been plenty of arguments made as to why only Trump should be indicted. I'll add a few more points regarding politics: Clinton vs. Trump: The Clinton case was handled directly by the FBI, independent of the Attorney General. Comey, a lifelong Republican, made the statement that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against her. Whether one agrees or not, that was Comey's conclusion, not Garland's. However, that statement set a bar for prosecutor discretion that others are expected to follow. You can compare and contrast the two cases and assess whether Trump was below or above that bar. No one has made a factual argument demonstrating that Trump was at or below that bar. I invite someone here to delve into the details in a factual and accurate manner, and explain why Trump shouldn't be indicted because he met or fell below that bar. Pence vs. Trump: Both cases are being handled by the current Attorney General. The DOJ has already informed Pence that there will be no charges. Again, similar to the previous point, make the case for Trump to be at or below the same bar as the Pence case. Biden vs. Trump: Both cases are being handled by the current Attorney General. The Biden case is still ongoing, so it's too early to draw conclusions. However, one can compare and contrast the publicly known information and attempt to make an argument based on that. P.S. Pence's statement and his use of words 'hoax' regarding the investigation into the Trump 2016 campaign and Russia, while simultaneously requesting Garland to justify Trump's indictment when Garland has no involvement in the Trump/Russia investigation, invalidate his argument that Garland is playing politics, while demonstrating that Pence himself is engaging in political maneuvering.
What would the GOP be okay with Trump being prosecuted for? Making snuff films with prostitutes? Having Barron's dick cut off and putting him on hormone treatments? Seriously. This mother****er shared classified information with people not authorized to see it and even said he knew it was classified information. Would video of him giving Putin a hand job and the nuclear codes be enough for the GOP to want him prosecuted? Seriously, can we get a list of crimes his defenders would be okay with him being charged for?
I think it likely we are both making separate arguments. there are several competing considerations at play: (1) investigation procedures: I believe you are arguing that Biden and Trump have both been subjected to procedurally equal processes, during the investigative stage. I completely agree with you. (2) a decision to indict on charges of Espionage Act violations: here the matter is confused by (2.a) questions of intention. I believe you are arguing that Biden had no intention of possessing classified documents, whereas Trump was fully aware he was in possession of such documents. But . . . BUT . . . that leads to (2.a.1) does intention in this sense matter? My understanding is that it does not matter in terms of law. Possession of classified material, intentional or not, is illegal. Conclusion: (2.a.2) if one violates the law, one should be prosecuted. "No one is above the law." This conclusion is based on: (3) assumptions: Assumption # (3.1) is fairness: justice should be meted out fairly and impartially. Assumption # (3.2) is consistency: agencies such as the DOJ should be consistent in their applications of the law and decisions to prosecute. no, not instantly. But if the decision to indict Trump has already been made, I would expect if not hope that a similar decision to indict Biden would follow. Again because of Assumptions # 3.1 and 3.2. I don't believe all prosecutions should be abandoned. I simply think there should be consistency in decision-making. We would howl (and lots of people do howl) if for example there is evidence (intentional, statistical, anecdotal, "eye test") of racial disparities, say, in the prosecution of legally-identical crimes that vary only in the race of the criminal being accused and prosecuted. "Justice is blind." At least that is the ideal. again, I agree with you 100% that the Biden investigation (so far as we know) and the Trump investigations have been conducted according to the highest principles of legal process and with the utmost integrity. That to me is not in question.
I get a lot of what you are saying. It just seems like they are consistent in the decision making. They consistently don't prosecute those that cooperate and returned the classified material, and apparently consistently do prosecute those that don't.
Yes that's the statue of the law. You're arguing against the text of the law. Simple possession of classified material without intent is not illegal. If you do not have intent to harm or retain the documents it is not a crime. The Espionage Act makes it illegal for anyone who has information related to national defense to use it “to the injury of the United States” or “to the advantage of any foreign nation.” Under the Espionage Act, it is also illegal for anyone who lawfully has possession of information related to national security to provide it or attempt to provide it to those not permitted to obtain it. These individuals also cannot “willfully” retain and fail to deliver documents or other materials on demand to an officer of the United States who is allowed to receive them. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3601538-what-is-the-espionage-act/
I understand the text of the act. Many commenters have observed there is ZERO evidence of any intention by Trump to use the 31 classified documents “to the injury of the United States” or “to the advantage of any foreign nation.” So if THAT is the standard of the law, and that is the BASIS of the decision to prosecute, then it will be very very interesting to see what the DOJ has as evidence to the state of Trump's mind and the extent of his intentions to injure the United States or give advantage to any foreign nation. And I take it that a failed lie detector test by Trump will not suffice.
If you are just speeding, the police may just give you a warning and not charge you. If you speed, hit and kill someone, leave the scene and the try and cover up your involvement, then you will most definitely get charged with not only speeding, but a host of other charges. I believe the former is what happened here.
willfully [retain] and national defense information and “[fail] to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 The minute the federal government requested the documents and he refused to do so by lying on the affidavit he broke the law by refusing to hand over documents that weren't his. The government does not need to prove bad intent. It just needs to prove intent that he kept the documents.
If you speed and get caught it's a crime either way. This isn't like that as biden was not committing any crime by having the docs accidentally. Biden nor Trump were committing a crime by accidently holding the documents. The minute it turned into a crime was when the government (who has authority over all security docs) requested their documents and they lied and willfully held onto the documents.
