The Double Standard Argument

[martybegan]

Once again showing the difference in severity of the two offenses.
Hillary was inadvertent
Trumps was intentional

Hillary got cover, Trump didn't. That's the only difference.

 

[Rawley]

I think there is a Double Standard

The offenses Hillary committed pale in comparison compared to what Trump did along with intent and cooperation with the investigation.

It cost Hillary the Presidency

Yet, Trump, who complained the loudest and built his campaign on “Crooked Hillary” continues to campaign in spite of a criminal indictment for worse actions

Double Standard

Good German.

 

[rightwinger]

Hillary got cover, Trump didn't. That's the only difference.

Trump played the fool and admitted he intentionally took the documents and shared them with others

 

[martybegan]

Trump played the fool and admitted he intentionally took the documents and shared them with others

What he was caught saying was his understanding of declassification, or him mocking the declassification difference a day makes.

 

[rightwinger]

What he was caught saying was his understanding of declassification, or him mocking the declassification difference a day makes.

What he was doing is lying to cover his ass

There will be testimony about what Trump had been briefed on the declassification process and how he had declassified documents in the past

 

[martybegan]

What he was doing is lying to cover his ass

There will be testimony about what Trump had been briefed on the declassification process and how he had declassified documents in the past

Hillary Server.

Mike drop.

 

[rightwinger]

Hillary Server.

Mike drop.

Her agency was well aware she was using a private server as others (Colin Powell) had done before

 

[martybegan]

Her agency was well aware she was using a private server as others (Colin Powell) had done before

So people doing it before is now an excuse to break security rules.

 

[rightwinger]

So people doing it before is now an excuse to break security rules.

Yes

 

[konradv]

Hillary got cover, Trump didn't. That's the only difference.

Really? Who as covering for Hillary when Trump was president and the Republicans held both houses of Congress?

 

[martybegan]

Yes

Mokusatsu.

 

[konradv]

Hillary Server.

Mike drop.

Except that would not be admissible in court. What trumps a mike drop? A Trump going to prison?

 

[BackAgain]

Below is an excerpt from an article by Bill Barr regarding Trump's indictment. Mostly I do not trust anybody in gov't of either party, but Bill Barr is IMHO an exception. Maybe he has a certain animus towards Trump, as obviously many others do. As this situation wears on, we'll hear more from one side or the other about what the 'facts' are and who to believe and probably most of us will accept anything that supports our side and ridicule the other. One of the issues that many on the Right bring up is the 'Double Standard' argument, that Barr addresses:


The “Double Standard” Argument

Sensible Republicans don’t even try to defend Trump’s behavior. Instead, they point to the flagrant “double standard,” arguing that it’s unfair to charge Trump when Hillary Clinton got away scot-free during the Obama administration for comparable behavior.

I believe there is a double standard. And I have spoken out repeatedly about it when I was attorney general and since.

I think the DOJ sometimes pursues alleged wrongdoing by Republicans with far more gusto than it does when the allegations implicate Democrats. I also agree the differential treatment of Hillary Clinton is a good example of this. During the Obama administration, the DOJ conducted a grossly inadequate investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server and the intentional destruction of that server before the department had a sufficient chance to review it. This deficient investigation, coupled with sweeping grants of immunity to the key people involved, made it impossible later to impose appropriate accountability on those responsible.

But while the double standard is real, responding to Trump’s indictment by repetitively invoking this grievance is essentially a dodge. It sidesteps the real questions raised by Trump’s behavior.

The question is this: should Trump have been given a pass by the DOJ just because Hillary may have been? Some of my Republican friends think the answer is yes. I am unconvinced. It is not clear to me that giving Trump a pass would be the best way of restoring the rule of law and putting the double standard behind us.

This is not a case where the government has stretched the law or manufactured an offense, and is carrying out a hit job on someone who has really done nothing wrong. Rather, the argument advanced by Trump’s defenders is that, even though Trump’s conduct was indefensible and likely a serious crime, Hillary did the same thing. And it’s unfair that Hillary got away with it.

But if Trump engaged in the kind of brazen criminal conduct alleged, then applying the law in his case is not unfair to him. The injustice lies in not having applied it seven years ago to Hillary. You don’t rectify that omission by giving future violators a free pass. You rectify it by applying the right standard to the case at hand, and insisting it is applied to comparable cases going forward. Here, that means ensuring the same standard is applied in the pending investigations of Hunter Biden and President Biden’s handling of classified documents.

In short, giving a pass to Trump might cause more harm to the rule of law than honestly applying the law to him. The rule of law won’t be restored by further degrading the rule of law. As Andrew McCarthy pithily observed: “The fix for a two-tiered justice system is not equal injustice under the law.”

Bill Barr: The Truth About the Trump Indictment

This time the president is not a victim of a witch hunt. The situation is entirely of his own making.

www.thefp.com

He makes valid points against the double standard argument. I'm not saying that anything Barr says is 100% true nor false, but justice requires equal treatment and these days that ain't happening. Would a Trump conviction change the politicization and weaponization of our justice system? I don't think so. Who is going to "insist that the right standard is applied to comparable cases going forward" when it's somebody on your side that is accused? And don't try to tell me that's what they're doing with the Bidens, that's a crock that is going nowhere.

Cool screed, from Barr.

Yes. There is a clear double standard. But also, there is perfectly valid reason to defend Trump aside from that. The cases are based on fictional and strained interpretations of the “evidence” and the actual laws.

 

[Rigby5]

I think there is a Double Standard

The offenses Hillary committed pale in comparison compared to what Trump did along with intent and cooperation with the investigation.

It cost Hillary the Presidency

Yet, Trump, who complained the loudest and built his campaign on “Crooked Hillary” continues to campaign in spite of a criminal indictment for worse actions

Double Standard

Totally wrong.

Hillary has and had no security clearance to even look at classified docs, much less have them.
And she did not just have classified docs, but put them on an unsecured private email server that could have allowed hackers from all over the world to have access.

In contrast, since Trump was president, there is no way he could possibly have violated any classified doc law, because they all specifically exempt president, and that access right never runs out even after out of office.

 

[Rigby5]

She was also aggressively investigated for Benghazi, to what purpose?

Hillary was committing massive crimes in the Mideast.
She was behind murdering Qaddafi, bribing the Maidan coup in the Ukraine, the draconian crackdown in Egypt, the illegal attacks in Syria, etc.

The real questions about Benghazi had nothing to do with the fact Ambassador Stevens was killed.
The real questions were about why Stevens was in Benghazi with pallets of cash and weapons.
And that never came out in the investigation, because that was classified.
But I think Hillary was illegally arming and bribing ISIS to fight Assad.
And that would be horrendously criminal.
Assad is a very popular leader.

 

[Rogue AI]

What harm was done?

Liberal feelings were hurt.

 

[Rigby5]

Her agency was well aware she was using a private server as others (Colin Powell) had done before

Powell never put classified doc on his private email server, and he use the state dept email server for official business.

 

[Rigby5]

Really? Who as covering for Hillary when Trump was president and the Republicans held both houses of Congress?

When Hillary was not in office, no one was attacking her in any way.

 

[Rigby5]

What he was doing is lying to cover his ass

There will be testimony about what Trump had been briefed on the declassification process and how he had declassified documents in the past

Presidents have nothing to do with declassifying.
They can order something declassified, but it is a bureaucratic process since everyone with classified doc copies have to be notified they can release it.
But presidents traditionally just ignore declassifying because they can ignore the classification in the first place.
Classified docs mean absolutely NOTHING to presidents, because they are totally exempt from any classified doc law.

 

[Rigby5]

Trump played the fool and admitted he intentionally took the documents and shared them with others

Which is perfectly legal.
The copies he had were given to himself when president, so stay his forever.