The equal protection clause, or at the least the general principle underlying it, does give certain power to the tu quoque argument. The requirement is that you treat similarly situated people similarly, and it would be problematic to basic notions of fairness if it could be shown that a Democratic leaning DOJ was prosecuting only Republicans but allowing Democrats to do as they wish for similar conduct. One's political affiliation shouldn't dictate how they're treated. — Hanover
I asked him the same question in the other thread, although I much prefer the way you asked it. Looking forward to his answer.↪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
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.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
https://twitter.com/ReallyAmerican1/status/1669008051959889920[Trump's] scared shitless. This is the way he compensates for that. He gives people the appearance he doesn’t care by doing this...For the first time in his life, it looks like he’s being held accountable...Up until this point in his life, it’s like, ‘I’m not going to pay you. Take me to court.’ He’s never been held accountable before. — John Kelly, retired US Marine General and fmr WH Chief of Staff (R)
Trump time and again rejected the advice from lawyers and advisers who urged him to cooperate and instead took the advice of Tom Fitton, the head of the conservative group Judicial Watch, and a range of others who told him he could legally keep the documents and should fight the Justice Department, advisers said. Trump would often cite Fitton to others, and Fitton told some of Trump’s lawyers that Trump could keep the documents, even as they disagreed, the advisers said.
...
Trump’s chances to avoid charges began in early 2021, according to current and former advisers. After Gary Stern, counsel at the National Archives, asked Trump’s team for the return of documents, some of his lawyers and advisers began advising him to return them. National Archives officials were privately baffled at what they viewed as inexplicably recalcitrant behavior and kept asking for answers to no avail.
In the fall of 2021, Alex Cannon, then a Trump attorney, urged the former president to return documents to the National Archives, repeatedly telling him that he was required to give them back, according to people familiar with the matter.
After months of talking to Trump and his staff, Cannon — referred to in the indictment as a “Trump Representative” — told Trump that the National Archives was threatening to go to Congress or to the Department of Justice if he did not return the documents, the people said.
...
Meanwhile, Trump grew angry with his lawyers and chose new lawyers, bringing in Evan Corcoran to handle the matter at the recommendation of adviser Boris Epshteyn.
Shortly after the subpoena arrived, the indictment says, Corcoran and another lawyer met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago and told him he needed to comply.
Such a moron. — Michael
Why I am not hearing about the democrats trying to rush through legislation, to prevent anyone found guilty of a criminal act being barred from standing for president?
Why was this gaping hole in USA legislation not corrected, years ago? — universeness
Why I am not hearing about the democrats trying to rush through legislation, to prevent anyone found guilty of a criminal act being barred from standing for president?
Why was this gaping hole in USA legislation not corrected, years ago?
— universeness
Because that might be unconstitutional. — Michael
Especially when his year of birth is 46 and mine is 64. On a more positive note, that makes me 'the reverse' of Trump. But I don't know if that's as good or equivalent to 'the opposite' of Trump.I've always been completely sceptical of astrology – until now. — unenlightened
Is there something about the American constitution I don't understand? Is it unamendable by any sitting government? Is a national referendum required to alter the constitution? — universeness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.