You’d have to prove he did so corruptly. Any quote or admission would suffice, given proper context. Inference by projection or conspiracy theory just doesn’t cut it. — NOS4A2

A blatant example of corruption was Trump's asking Rosen (the acting AG) to lie, and "say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congress". (This came AFTER Trump went through a litany of fraud allegations that deputy AG Donaghue refuted one by one). After the AG refused, Trump pursued replacing him with Jeffrey Clark, who had drafted a letter to be sent to State Legislatures falsely stating exactly that.

I don’t care if God himself told him the election was legit. You, like Smith, are trying to read Trump’s mind. You in fact do not know that he knowingly made false claims. You know you don’t know because you in fact cannot read minds. You’re guessing, making it up, or being told what to believe, and I’m not sure which is worse — NOS4A2

Prosecution doesn't require the certainty of mind-reading, it merely requires establishing corrupt intent based on evidence. I presented some of the evidence, and you ignored it - labeling all of it "political speech". Perpetrating a fraud is not protected political speech. Asking the acting AG (who clearly knew the election wasn't stolen) to lie entails fraud. If Trump truly believed the election was stolen, it reflects a truly reckless disregard for the truth. The 2 counts of conspiracy to disrupt an official proceeding do not depend on Trump's knowing there was no fraud. By Jan 6, there was no legal recourse even if there actually had been fraud.

They knowingly made false accusations that Trump knowingly made false claims. — NOS4A2

There's no basis for claiming Smith "knowingly made a false allegation. You obviously didn't read the indictment. Here's a bit of the evidence Smith presents:

A number of sources told Trump there had been no outcome determinative fraud:

-His campaign hired the Berkely Group Simpatico Software Systems to investigate, and both concluded there was no widespread fraud.
-Bill Barr told him there was no fraud (subsequently, Barr resigned)
-Chris Krebs, head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) told him there was no fraud. Trump fired him.
-White House Counsel advised him there was no fraud.
-Various State Officials told him there was no fraud in their states (e.g. Rusty Bowers in Arizona, Raffensberger in Georgia, Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey).
-Mark Meadows told Trump he’d observed the efforts of Georgia officials were “conducting themselves in an exemplary fashion”…who would find fraud if it existed. Within hours, Trump tweeted that the election officials were “terrible people” who were trying to cover-up evidence of fraud. Another lie to support his false narrative. (As Jack Smith says, lying is not a crime, per se. But perpetuating a fraud by lying IS a crime).

-Deputy AG Richard Donoghue and acting AG Jeffrey Rosen refuted every allegation Trump asked them about. Despite their clearly stated position, Trump asked them to to lie (weaponizing the DOJ): “say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congress”. Trump tried to replace Rosen with a co-conspirator who WOULD support his false claim, but backed down over threats of widespread resignations.

In his famously recorded call to Georgia officials on Jan 2, Trump brought up a variety of fraud allegations (e.g. the State Farm Arena claim about suitcases of ballots appearing from nowhere, out of state voters, dead voters, destruction of ballots). The Georgia Secretary of State explained that each of them had been thoroughly investigated and the claims were false. Regarding the State Farm Arena allegation, the Secretary offered to send Trump a full video showing the alleged suitcases of ballots were innocent. Trump declined, and the very next day, he issued a statement falsely stating the Georgia Secretary of State had not addressed his allegations, and that the Secretary of State had been unwilling or unable to answer questions such as “the ‘ballots under the table’, ballot destruction, out of state voters, dead voters and more”. Trump lied about what had been said, and clearly was not interested in examining the refutation of the “ballots under the table” claim.

In a meeting on Jan 5, Pence told Trump he did not have the power to obstruct the election certification. That evening, Trump released the false statement “The Vice President and I are in total agreement that the Vice President has the power to act.

So the evidence shows Trump told multiple self-serving lies, disregarded evidence, attempted to weaponize the DOJ by trying to get the AG and Deputy AG to lie. This demonstrates a corrupt state of mind and a blatant disregard for the truth. There’s also 2 bits of direct evidence Trump knew he lost:

1. In a Jan 3 meeting with General Milley, Trump said, "it's too late for us" and "we're going to give that to the next guy."
2. While watching Biden on TV in mid-November, Trump said to White House Aide Alyssa Farah, “can you believe I lost to this effing guy”?

All this adds up to evidence Trump knew he lost, so you’re absolutely wrong to claim the Special Counsel lied about this. Of course, you could deny this evidence proves his knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. But what’s the explanation for dismissing the analyses of so many, in favor of people like Sydney Powell (who Trump referred to as “sounding crazy”)? Any defense he might use cannot reflect positively on him.
.

More fake word crimes levied from a political DOJ towards the regime’s biggest opponent. What’s new? — NOS4A2

What's the basis of your judgement that the DOJ indictments are "fake"?

On a related note, have you read the indictments?

Back to Trump - I think it's pretty clear there are going to be both Jan 6th (Federal) and Georgia (State) indictments issued in the next month, by which time Trump will be under an enormous number of indictments many of which carry long jail terms. I'm hoping that it will simply become obvious by end this year/early 2024 that it is completely impractical, apart from anything else, for him to actually be the Republican presidential candidate. Heck, one of the Republican speakers at Iowa said that Trump is only running to keep himself out of prison - he was booed for it, but he still said it! — Quixodian

Most Republican voters are in denial about Trump's crimes - there's no other explanation for his current polling. More indictments won't change that. I think Will Hurd is right that Trump is running to stay out of prison, so the number of indictments won't matter.

Although he'd have no formal power to call off the State indictments, he'd have an excuse to get the trial postponed while he's in office - and meanwhile, pressure the state to drop the charges.

This is exactly why we need a wealth tax for those who are able to use this scheme, and why we should retain estate taxes.

No evidence, except it's his son and his son is getting preferential treatment from the justice department. It looks bad. — RogueAI

Is it truly a sweatheart deal? It's hard to find objective analysis. GOP still claims Hillary should have been indicted, although the evidence shows she was treated the same as others.

You referenced the whistleblowers:

And there are two whistleblowers who stated under oath that there was. — RogueAI

And yet, David Weiss disputes their claims. They could be giving their honest perceptions, but may not have an accurate understanding.

The alleged quote from Hunter claiming to be sitting next to his dad may, or may not, be accurate (Hunter's lawyers have denied it). But assuming Hunter actually said it, it only implicates Joe if Hunter was telling the truth (which is questionable). Finally, it has nothing to do with the plea deal, but it is something that needs to be investigated.

I don't agree. The plea deal that fell apart was a sweetheart deal. It looks bad. — RogueAI

What's the evidence Joe Biden had anything to do with it?

Do you think the DOJ is an independent agency of the US government — NOS4A2

No. But as I said, there's no evidence the DOJ is being influenced by Biden as Republicans allege.

The argument is that Biden’s DOJ is benefitting Biden while trying to ruin his political opponent. — NOS4A2

That "argument" is a political allegation unsupported by evidence. The irony is that there was abundant evidence of Trump's efforts to influence the DOJ. It's as if Trumpists think that was normal, and thus assume Biden is following suit.

Only you can answer that question,since only you exist.

I'm convinced the majority of Congressional GOP know the allegation is nonsense (idiots like MTG notwithstanding). But they know the fiction appeals to their base, so they milk it.

they are spreading a conspiracy theory and misinformation before an election. — NOS4A2

That wasn't an irrational conspiracy theory- the Russians did such things in 2016- and they merely noted this seemed consistent, while not denying it possibly being real. They were telling the truth as they saw it, so they did nothing morally or legally wrong. I already noted it was politically motivated, but you're going to have to explain what's wrong with that. I gather you don't like the fact it was an (unintentional) untruth. Shall I tally up the intentional untruths spread by Trump & his supporters in all 3 of the elections he's been
involved with?

I’m surprised you weren’t there telling everyone “it needs to be investigated, rather than jump to conclusions in any either direction.” — NOS4A2

When I read the letter in 2020, I focused on the sentences I quoted, and accepted that the laptop info might be true. I read the NY Post articles, deciphered the real info from the hyperbole and speculation, and concluded Hunter Biden is an asshole drug-addict, but also saw nothing implicating Joe. It was reported the FBI had the info and were investigating, and yes- I thought that appropriate.

You seem upset that a misleading letter was sent for political purposes. Why does it matter, given that the laptop doesn't implicate Joe?

why are you being a running dog for the CIA? The entire purpose of the letter was to frame it as disinfo, to sew the seeds of doubt in the public, and to provide Biden with a talking point should Trump bring up the laptop in the debate. — NOS4A2

You're treating a distorted partisan narrative as established fact. No signatories of the letter were in the CIA at the time of signing. They could only be guilty of disinformation if they knew the laptop was legitimate, but I've seen no evidence that any of them (or Blinkin) actually knew the laptop data was legitimate. It does makes perfect sense for the campaign to want to minimize attention to the distraction - that's the nature of political campaigns.But your partisan outrage leads you to jump to the conclusion they lied, and that this constitutes cheating, and then criticize me for failing to do the same.

You also exaggerate what the letter said - I quoted it in my last post. They wrote that THEY DIDN'T KNOW if it was genuine, and given the context (which I described- and you are free to rebut), how COULD they know? And what exactly was the impact? It didn't stop Trump from making exaggerated claims about it. Trump lost because people voted against him. Do you seriously believe they wouldn't have voted against Trump if they knew the laptop was legit? Now that we know it's legit, and we know what's on it, why should it affect anyone's vote? It doesn't implicate Joe as anything but a concerned father (notwithstanding additional partisan distortion).

I try to form opinions by evaluating allegations and evidence similarly to the criminal justice system. An accusation is, at best, a good reason to investigate further (as I said about the whistleblower); it is not proof positive of guilt. I apply the same standard regardless of the person or party. You can't say the same.

Hunter linked daddy to Chinese deal in threat to business partner.
Joe Biden showed up at business meetings with Hunter and his Chinese partners.
The FBI authenticated Hunter Biden's laptop almost a year before we knew it existed and found no evidence of misinformation. Former intel officials come out and say it’s misinformation before the election. — NOS4A2

Mischaracterization. The former intel officials did not say it was misinformation. Here's a quote from the letter:

We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by
President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have
evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the
Russian government played a significant role in this case.

Considering the circumstances, it was a reasonable comment. Rudy G. (a man of questionable veracity, who also brought forward the false allegation from Viktor Shokin that Joe got him fired to halt the Burisma investigation) brought the laptop image to the NY Post (an ultra-partisan newspaper), and it wasn't shared with any other sources. Plus, it's firmly established that Russia had planted misinformation in the 2016 election - so it wasn't a wild leap to think it MIGHT be misinformation, given what we knew.

Hunter deducted hooker and sex club payments from his taxes
The investigation into Hunter Biden had started due to a foreign porn website back in the 2018, and of course all of this was hidden from the public, unlike anti-Trump leaks.

"Hidden"? It's policy to keep investigations private, unless and until an indictment is made. You complain of "anti-Trump" leaks, and yet everything we know about the Hunter investigation is a product of leaks.

Prosecutors wanted to charge Hunter with felonies, but all he got was misdemeanors.
Biden’s Department of Justice worked to block the investigation.
Agents wanted to search Biden family homes but were told the optics would be too bad.
IRS wanted search warrant for Hunter’s storage locker but a Biden-appointed prosecutor tipped off his lawyers.

As you know, a Trump appointed prosecutor (Weiss) was given free rein to handle Hunter's investigation and worked the plea deal with Hunter's attorneys. Plea deals are common. I have read the IRS Whistleblower's testimony, and it means one of three things: 1) Weiss and Garland have both lied; 2) the whistleblower lied; 3) the whistleblower misunderstood something that was said.

I absolutely want the whistleblower's allegation investigated to find the truth. But you've obviously already made up your mind. I'll note that there's been no evidence of Joe Biden's involvement. Joe promised to keep the DOJ independent, and there's no evidence he's interfered (contrast this with Trump's frequent pressure on Jeff Sessions & Bill Barr.).

Agents wanted to search Biden family homes but were told the optics would be too bad.
IRS wanted search warrant for Hunter’s storage locker but a Biden-appointed prosecutor tipped off his lawyers. — NOS4A2

This is according to the whistleblowers, and it absolutely should be investigated. But bear in mind, this occurred when Trump was President in June 2020. The DOJ has a policy of standing down on matters that are relevant during an election during the 3 months prior to the election. The controversy seems to surround the fact that this was a couple months prior to the official "freeze". Were they, perhaps, exercising extra caution to avoid an appearance of partisanship - as when Obama failed to make a fuss in 2016 about Russia's campaign assistance for Trump? (see: this). Given Trump's public interference with DOJ, a bit of extra caution might have been in his best interests. But again- it needs to be investigated, rather than jump to conclusions in any either direction. An allegation isn't proof; at worst, it points to a need to investigate.

The double standards are between those who oppose the deep state and those who do not. — NOS4A2

So you're a conspiracy theorist. That says it all. It provides context for your obvious confirmation bias.

The real problem is the preferential treatment, the justice system and intelligence community protecting one of its own. — NOS4A2

The problem with your claim is that it seem to merely be parrotting a GOP talking point, that is rooted in applying confirmation bias to anecdotal evidence, applying false equivalences, and an unwillingness to consider their guy uniquely culpable. We're all partisan, but that doesn't excuse poor reasoning.

A lot of people in the Trump sphere w8llfully did bad things, and there may very well be enough evidence to prosecute. That fact doesn't entail bias. AFAIK, there's nothing close on the left. The comparisons seem rooted in:

1) Dissatisfaction with the failure to indict Hillary in 2016 (ignoring the reason she wasn't indicted).
2) Treating weak evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden as proof of crimes, and then leaping to the conclusion DOJ is treating him differently.
3) Failing to consider the possibility Trump (et al) willfully broke multiple laws, and there's sufficient evidence to prosecute.

You're a smart guy, so I'd love to hear your perspective- in particular, describing your basis for believing the DOJ applies a double standard between Dems & GOP (cognizant of the issues I described).

You cannot name a single person whose life is at risk — NOS4A2

I note that you had nothing to say with regard to my debunking your claim about these documents being his personal records, as opposed to Presidential Records under the PRA. Instead, you've moved the goalpost - making it unreachable, since I cannot possibly know what's in the documents. Neither do you, and yet you assume it's a false claim. No national security expert would agree with you.

“The purpose of an Espionage Act prosecution, however, is not to punish a person for spying for the enemy, selling secrets for personal gain, or trying to undermine our way of life. It is to ruin the whistleblower personally, professionally and financially. It is meant to send a message to anybody else considering speaking truth to power: challenge us and we will destroy you.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/obama-abuse-espionage-act-mccarthyism

This is a new sort of McCarthyism and I’m glad I’m not on your side. Morally speaking, I put all activities of this sort in the morally depraved category, and any defense of it under the category of deep-state boot licking. — NOS4A2

Trump is a hypocrite, not a whistleblower exposing some bad acts by the government (btw, actual whistleblowers, like Snowden, understand the legal risk they're taking), and he's only being prosecuted because he hid documents he should not have had from Evan Corcoran, who was conducting a search to satisfy the demands of the Grand Jury subpoena, and because Trump's words and actions led to a false statement in the affidavit confirming the search was thorough and all docs with classified markings had been found and returned. Had he made a good faith effort to comply with the search warrant, there would be no charges. This is unequivocal obstruction of justice (remember Nixon? Obstruction was the final nail in HIS coffiin), and this is what establishes his corrupt intent.

What's your excuse for putting him above prosecution for obstruction of justice?

This short video featuring Bill Barr makes the same case I made.

This idea of 'inaction against Biden (and Clinton and whoever)' is a blatant falsehood, comparing spurious allegations of wrongdoing with mountains of documentary evidence and witness testimony in the cases concerning Trump. So too all the complaints about the 'politicization' and 'weaponization' of the DoJ and FBI - all the politicization is coming from Trump and his stooges in an effort to discredit the very well-founded allegations against him. — Wayfarer

100% agree. It seems to me this originates in the fact that Trump has been investigated so much, and GOP is loath to think any investigation of him can possibly have merit. Whereas others notice how many of the investigations into Trump and his associates have borne fruit and exposed actual crimes.

I'll add this to your solid info: Hunter was added to the Burisma board AFTER the illegal activities occurred, and his specific role isn't implicated in any crimes. Still, it could be that his undeserved high salary was a quasi-bribe, but I don't see that Burisma got anything out of it. Hunter has a history of making money off his name. It's a questionable practice, but it's not unique to the Bidens.

High Five! Welcome aboard!

It's surreal, but it works up their audience (=Trump's base). I'm also amazed at how much mileage the GOP is getting out of the FBI 1023 form, and how it's been misrepresented. (see this thread).

Trump could roll a blunt with those documents for all I care. Neither the DOJ nor NARA have the power to designate documents presidential or personal records. That discretion lies solely with the executive. — NOS4A2

This overlooks the very reason the Presidential Records Act was passed: it was in response to Nixon's treating Presidential Records (including recordings) as his private property. Your interpretation would render the act meaningless.

Andrew McCarthy (a conservative contributor to the Conservative "National Review", who's also a former federal prosecutor) lays it all out in this article: Frivolous Trump Argument No. 1: Classified Intelligence Reports Compiled by Government Agencies Are ‘Personal Records’ under the Presidential Records Act

Of course, Trump's attorney's may challenge the Constitutionality of the PRA, but that seems to me quite a longshot.

Welcome! I'll keep an eye out for Wonderer. Would be great if Johan, Harvey and Sanoy were to join - then it would be like old times.

↪NOS4A2
So if I'm following you correctly, Trump (if he so choose to do so) could have

1) Rquested the blueprints for building an H-Bomb (or the nuclear codes or a list of all foreign secret assets or etc),
2) Declared them to be his personal property,
3) Taken them with him when he left office (since they're now his personal property)
4) And then sell them to the highest bidder (or put them on Truth Social)

And all this would be perfectly legal. Am I getting this correct? — EricH

I asked him the same question in the other thread, although I much prefer the way you asked it. Looking forward to his answer.

Are you the same GRWelsh from the Reasonable Faith Forum? If so, you may remember me as Fred.

Frivolous Trump Argument No. 1: Classified Intelligence Reports Compiled by Government Agencies Are ‘Personal Records’ under the Presidential Records Act — Michael

Incredible article, written by Andrew McCarthy - a former DOJ prosecutor, who's a staunch Conservative with a history of defending Trump's behavior. I hope NOS4A2 reads it.

Whose lives did he put at risk? — NOS4A2

Directly: The people involved with collection of the information, including informants in other countries and the agents who collected it.
Indirectly: the entire US and some allies, by risking exposure of military capabilities of the US and allies, and identifying what we know and don't know about our adversaries.

Text of the indictment:
"The disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military and human sources, and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods."

It appears he did file them separately, took them with him, and disputed with NARA over them. If you find that he took something designated as presidential records with him, be sure to let me know. — NOS4A2

The Presidential Records Act defines what are Presidential Records. Follow the link and read it.

Also remember that, after months of demands from NARA, Trump returned 15 boxes of documents that included some with classification markings, some of which are related to National Security and would be covered by the Espionage Act. In the court filing for the motion for a Special Master, Trump's attorneys referred to all of these as "Presidential Records".

Regarding "filed separately", review the picture that Nauta took of the documents spilled on the floor. The contents include newspapers, photos, and a classified document.

Hillary wasn’t elected by the people as the authority of the US government. She was afforded no such right by the people of the United States. Trump was. — NOS4A2

How does being elected confer the moral right to expose national security and put lives at risk?

Why did you ignore everything else I said?

I do agree with Trump. — NOS4A2

So you're agreeing with his statement, "I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."

You’ll remember that he was the commander in chief of the armed forces. He is the only one above those rules.

Setting aside the contradiction, you are conflating past tense with present tense. The crimes he is charged with all occurred after his term as President was over.

He can declassify what he wants. It doesn’t matter whether it’s classified documents or national defense information, which is a distinction without a difference. None of that is true in any other case.

When he was President, he COULD HAVE declassified what he wanted, but it would be reckless to do so without vetting the information with the organizations that classified it in the first place. It's reckless because it puts people at risk and risks our intelligence apparatus.The formal declassification process was put into place to ensure there were no adverse ramifications. It was established by executive order, so it arguably doesn't apply to him. Hypothetically, he could have declassified everything he took, and thus exposed no documents that were technically classified when he stacked them in the ballroom at Mar-a-lago - but it's still reckless. Is this not deserving of at least some criticism from you?

Even if a President isn't subject to executive order, private citizen Trump IS subject to law, including the Espionage Act. It's the law that makes such reckless behavior a crime. He's also required by law to comply with a Grand Jury Subpoena. Not only did he fail to return all the documents demanded in the subpoena, he lied and claimed he had. What's your excuse for private citizen Trump's illegal acts with respect to the subpoena?

Your standard of judgement seems incoherent. In terms of legal judgement: you implied the letter of the law should be applied to Clinton (and everyone else who carelessly, but unintentionally, mishandled even low level classified docs), but you choose to dismiss the relevance of the laws that Trump broke. Why letter-of-the-law enforcement in one set of cases, but not in Trump's?

You said you didn't care if Trump broke the law, so set laws aside and focus on morality. What moral standard puts Hilllary's behavior on the bad side, and Trump's on the good side?

Your lengthy post is suspiciously missing one key fact, that Trump was president and has unilateral powers of declassification that neither Hillary nor Biden had — NOS4A2

Your "key fact" (taken from Trump's talking points) is a red herring, and it's moot because:

1. Trump's own words clearly indicate that the "war plan" document that he showed to an unauthorized person had not been declassified. He had the document, knew he had it, acknowledged he couldn't show it to him, and did not return this document when requested by NARA, nor even in response to the Grand Jury Subpoena for all documents "with classification markings" (note the careful wording). This also calls into question the claim that he had a standing order to declassify any documents he took.
2. Trump is not charged with mishandling classified documents. Instead, he was charged with 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information under the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act provision does not depend on official classification level.*

Who else has willfully retained national defense documents (or even classified documents) that hasn't been prosecuted? The willfullness of the acts is a big deal. The associated obstruction is also a big deal. You seem to ignore this and focus solely on the aspects of the case that are similar to other cases.

Second, that Trump was elected by the people, that means you and me. So for some strange reason, which I can only assume is propaganda driven, you’ve opted to attack those who are elected to represent the will of the people, while running defense for those who weren’t, the career politicians and bureaucrats who made a living seeking power and telling people how they should live their lives. — NOS4A2

Your assumption of "propaganda" is incorrect, because I'm merely stating facts - facts that you haven't actually disputed (you've simply ignored them). Still, I guess bringing up facts does constitute an attack, but a reasonable one. By contrast, you stated Trumpian talking points that are irrelevant (like his erstwhile declassification power), false (e.g. the Russian investigation was a "hoax"), and questionable (e.g. there was a "witch hunt"). Your practice of presenting falsehoods and half truths better fits the term "propoganda" than my catalog of facts you haven't even disputed. Reminder: I even criticized Hillary, whereas I've noticed nothing from you that's critical of Trump.

I wager that you’ve never made a stink about Patreaus or Panetta,]I didn't have to raise a stink about Patreus - he was appropriately prosecuted. It is noteworthy that he admitted he was wrong, and had regrets. Think we'll every hear that from Trump? — NOS4A2

Re: Panetta, I assume you're referring to his discussing Top Secret information at an awards ceremony. I agree he did wrong, but did it meet a prosecutorial standard? His excuse was that he thought all attendees had clearance. Is that plausible? I don't know, but to meet a prosecutorial standard, you have to establish (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he was consciously aware. Like with Hillary, he should be slammed for his mistake. But if you think this should have been prosecuted, you'll need to make the case.

now Trump are subject to the espionage act as determined by the very same people.

As I said previously, intent matters (in legalese: mens rea). Can you not grasp that? Trump's technical violation began on Jan 20, 2021 when he ceased being President. No one has proposed he should have been prosecuted for that, and yet it's the closest analogy to Biden, Clinton, and (AFAIK) Panetta.

The penalty for that is to rot in prison, but you run defense for those who get off with a light verbal scolding. So you’ve demonstrated that your sense of justice is perverted and backwards.

I referred to prosecutorial standards, as identified by Comey. Was Comey mistaken? I'm open to hearing evidence that shows he was. But perhaps you'd prefer to prosecute everyone with a technical violation. You'd be consistent with Trump in 2016, when he said:

"I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."
"One of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information."

Did you agree with him? If so, I hope you realize that this couldn't work retroactively, so you shouldn't complain when applying it to events AFTER 2016. Personally I think that's too harsh (although I do think there need to be process improvements that reduce the incidence). But as I said, the standards described by Comey seem to be what's been done historically and currently, and your guy is unfortunately on the wrong side of those standards.

-------------------------------------
* On the off chance you think charging under the Espionage Act entails an irrelevant technicality, consider the risks associated with both declassification (without vetting, as you and Trump claim was done) + careless handling of national defense documents. It's absurd on its face to suggest this ought to be OK. You said you didn't care if Trump broke the law. Criminality aside, do you care that he risked national security? Has he done nothing deserving of, at least, NOS4A2's criticism?

How many diseases ought we medically challenge? And how many are covert beneficiaries to our future, which ones are merely adaptations that are becoming more advantageous with time? — Benj96

Some great people have risen out of harsh conditions of oppression and poverty. By combating these ills of society, we rob society of the great people these conditions would have developed. Seems similar, and in both cases - I think we should do what we can to help eliminate or reduce suffering. I could draw the line with disorders like autism, as you mention.

If only these guys could persuade elected politicians to confront the evidence. The majority are ignoring the evidence and reciting the false mantra of "witch hunt" and "two-tier justice system". (on this latter point, you might take a gander at the above lengthy post I directed at NO4A2.. I don't expect him to read it).

The thing about the hypocrisy is that it goes both ways. Trump was president. Clinton wasn’t. Trump had unilateral declassification power. Hillary didn’t. The only reason to bring up Hillary is to point at the preferential treatment she got — NOS4A2

Case in point: you bought the false narrative: Declassification Power Absolution/Hillary/Witch Hunt/Russia Hoax.

Hillary didn't get preferential treatment. She was treated the same as anyone who unintentionally mishandled classified documents. During the investigation, Comey asked the DOJ to review every past case of mishandling of classified materials that had been prosecuted. They all fit into one of more of 4 categories; 1) clearly intentional mishandling; 2) very large quantities; 3) behavior indicating disloyalty to the US; 4) active obstruction of justice. Comey discussed this when he gave his televised speech in 2016, in which he chastised her carelessness, a speech that's been characterized as election interference. No way to know if this cost her votes, but it clearly wasn't helpful).

Less severe cases (which happen often) are treated as administrative infractions - discipline by a superior, and a mark on their employment record. All such cases, including Hillary's, entail a technical violation of the Records Act, so it's true Hillary violated the law. But GOP wanted to treat her worse than everyone else: a clear example of "two tier justice" against her.

The documents that she mishandled were the lowest classification level (confidential), Trump had documents at the highest level. There's no evidence that Hillary knew she'd mishandled anything classified. Trump knew he had classified documents. Hillary didn't hide any classified documents*, ,Trump hid some, including in defiance of a Grand Jury Subpoena for "all documents with classificaton markings" -which made his claim of having declassified them, or even "owning them" irrelevant (per the Presidential Records Act, the government owns everything except personal materials - and classified documents clearly wouldn't apply). Trump also lied and accused the FBI of planting documents. Finally, Trump is being prosecuted for crimes related to the Espionage Act, which entails risking exposure of national security secrets and isn't contingent upon the official classification level. And yet, you're reciting Trump's irrelevant assertion that as President, he declassified everything he took (which the recording referenced in the indictment proves to be another lie).

Even though Trump knowingly had possession of top secret materials, even though his actions fit 3 of the 4 categories Comey discussed, and even though he failed to send everything back when requested by National Archives - all of which puts him in a different category than Hillary, if he had fully complied with the Grand Jury Subpoena, he would not have been prosecuted. So the claim that he's been treated worse is 100% nonsense, and this should be clear to anyone who is aware of all the facts. I'll assume you weren't aware before now, but now you are (and I encourage you to research my claims to verify or dispute them).

* Deleting personal emails is not a a crime. The records act only requires the retention of government emails.

**using a personal server was stupid, but not illegal. It DID create an environment that resulted in some classified emails being inappropriately sent through it. 38 individuals were involved for a total of 497 violations (this is based on an intensive analysis conducted by the state department - see this.)

I don't know if you will have read this entire, lengthy post. It's so much easier, and satisfying, for GOP to embrace the much simpler false narrative that Trump so adeptly drummed into all you guys, particularly because it involves the hated Hillary Clinton.

P. S. For completeness, and to demonstrate my desire for objectivity: Hillary has consistently denied that she even had a technical violation of the law. This lie is the 2nd worst thing she did in the matter, behind using the private server in the first place. But it's not a crime (if lies were crimes, think about where this would leave Trump!)


Finally, regarding your parroting Trump's "witch hunt" claim (again confirming my point) the classified documents case ain't that. It began with a crime - a minor one of violating the Presidential Records act, and obstinate refusal to return documents, and in the process, Trump committed even worse crimes. It wasn't necessary to seek something to pin on him. The crimes were right in front of the government entities that were involved.

I will say that Alvin Bragg's case seems a bit shakier, but even here - it was well known that Trump was involved in a crime - this came out when Michael Cohen was prosecuted. I personally think it shouldn't have been prosecuted, but then again, should we really have a 2-tier system that prosecutes only one of the 2 co-conspirators?

I don’t think Trump has the manipulative abilities you pretend he does — NOS4A2

You've demonstrated that you buy the false narratives. Then you add:

I don’t think he broke the law nor do I care if he did. — NOS4A2

My guess is that Trump made you care that Hillary broke the law, but perhaps you can point me to some old post of yours where you said the same thing about her. You obviously care that Biden MIGHT have broken the law, since you were able to point to the accusations. I trust you understand the epistemic weakness of an unsubstantiated, vague accusation vs the epistemic strength of the evidence that's referenced in the indictment, which you haven't read, at least not with understanding, since you recited Trump's talking points and said you don't care.

Appealing to law is a fallacy for a reason, and following the law is no sign of morality. — NOS4A2

There is nothing morally wrong with what Trump did. — NOS4A2

I asked what you thought his most egregious crime was — NOS4A2

I'll address this.

His most egregious moral failure is to manipulate his followers into believing his false narrative (e.g. he did nothing wrong, he committed no crime, it's a witch hunt, DOJ is weaponized...). One effect of this is that it undermines rule of law, and only an anarchist would think that a good thing. 2nd worse (but related to his false narrative) is his hypocrisy - compare what he said in 2016 about Hillary's misdemeanor mishandling of lowest classification emails to his handling of highest security documents).

Moral failures are not crimes, and so he won't be held accountable (partly because of his power over his supporters).

His most serious crime was the concealment of highly classified documents he wasn't legally entitled to, in response to a Grand Jury Subpoena to surrender them. This is also morally wrong (lying, theft).

Contrast Trump's crime with Edward Snowden. Snowden seems to have had noble intentions. There's no evidence of noble intentions by Trump. The recorded conversation he had regarding Milley's war plan with Iran was entirely self-serving (yet another moral issue).

Those are the biggest things, IMO, but others are close behind.

I notice that the bribe allegation is tied to the firing of Shokin, the prosecutor general that Biden got fired at the behest of the EU and Ukranian anti-corruption groups, because he wasn't investigating Burisma and other companies. Shokin's replacement actually did bring charges against Burisma.

Shokin himself had previously accused Biden of getting rid of him to supposedly stop the Burisma investigation, as has some of his cronies. I realize the GOP is going to milk this for all its worth, but it's highly unlikely to go anywhere.

On the other hand, the CBS News article sounds more interesting - warranting investigation. I'm sure the House will get right on it. It seems to only implicate Hunter, unless they find some evidence Joe intervened.

I'm not trying to change your mind about materialism. I was just pointing out that it didn't stop with Nrwton.

Materialism - the view that all that exists is matter - hasn't had a place since Newton. — Banno

Are you unfamiliar with the late David M. Armstrong? He was a materialist metaphysician, and who's metaphysics is still widely discussed in the literature.

A 1. The universe began to exist a finite time ago.

A 2. Only an act originating from God could have caused the universe to begin. — spirit-salamander

You seem to assume that a finite past entails the universe having been caused. Actually, a finite past entails an initial state of affairs, and this implies it is logically impossible for it to have been caused (there's no time prior to an initial point of time).

Well if one is to discuss whether god "exists" or not, it would be good to start with a discussion of what one means by "God". The source of much talking past each other. — prothero

I propose defining "God" in a minimalist way as the entity that is ostensibly entailed by one or more deistic arguments. E.g. The Kalam Cosmological Argument allegedly proves there to have been an intentional agent who somehow caused the natural world to exist.

It is funny when people say: there is no evidence that God exists, what do they really mean? — Raef Kandil

This is a pet peeve of mine: when people claim there is (or isn't) "evidence" that God exists. It leads to unproductive discusions. Most generally, evidence = a body of facts that are used to support a position. Arguments for God's existence typically depend on metaphysical assumptions that they treat as the "facts" and proceed to show how it entails a deity. So they can claim there is "evidence" for God. Atheists deny the metaphysical assumption(s) and thus deny there is evidence.

The need for a higher supreme power is real if everything else is created. — Raef Kandil

Sounds circular- if we treate "create" as an intentional act. IF everything else is created, then there's a creator. But why think anything is created?

OTOH, if we equate "created" with "caused" - we could consider a causal chain that has a beginning (a "first cause") but it's perfectly coherent to see this as a perfectly natural state of affairs.