If this is your way of claiming you are knowledgable and I'm not so you being condescending is warranted I'll simply disagree. I'll point out that I don't think I flee to fallacious arguments whenever I can't defend my position nearly as much as you if ever.
Sure, you can of course prove that claim, right?
Easily:
A 2012 court case denying access to White House audiotapes kept in former President Bill Clinton’s sock drawer after he left office could help the Trump legal team in its battle to retrieve records that the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago this month.
www.washingtontimes.com
About 33,000 pages of documents are involved.
www.politico.com
There's something about the White House electronic mail that seems to bring out the worst tendencies among government officials, whoever's in the White House:
- Oliver North and national security adviser John Poindexter electronically shredded thousands of their E-mail messages on their way out of the NSC in November 1986 (but the system's back-up tapes allowed investigators to recover these messages and use them as legal evidence).
- The Reagan Administration, with the acquiescence of the National Archives, planned to blip out all the E-mail memory and backup tapes on its way out of office in January 1989, only to be stopped by our lawsuit.
- After we won court rulings establishing that the records laws apply to e-mail, the Bush Administration staged a midnight ride on Inauguration Eve 1993 to round up the computer tapes and put them beyond the law, under a secret agreement which purported to give Mr. Bush control of the tapes, contrary to the post-Watergate Presidential Records Act.
Former presidents should forfeit any right to confidentiality of their papers on the day they sign a (very lucrative) contract to write a memoir.
www.usatoday.com
Yeah, so plenty of guys should be in line for prosecution before Trump. Unless there is some reason to prioritize Trump?
The FBI asked for it and one of the NINE Benghazi committees..
https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download
Page. Page 67,68,69 give you the background.
She did give it. Again page 67,68.
Maybe you misread the page numbers, or maybe you just made up random numbers to waste my time. I read through them three times. There is nothing on pages 67, 68, nor 69, about the FBI, the Benghazi committees, or any request for the server and Hillary complying with that request. Nothing that we could disagree on how to interpret statements about about those organizations and requests, just nothing at all about them.
If that was a prank, kudos. You reveal why I'm condescending to you.
FWIW, the random numbers you pulled out of your backside led to pages about how the DOJ was trying to clean up the mess after then-President Obama publicly stated that Hillary was innocent, in order to obstruct justice. Pick a random page on a document about a Democrat leader and you're very likely to land on some description of their corruption.
The ONLY reason the FBI went in there is because they had reason to believe, and facts bore them out that Trump didn't turn them all over. With Clinton that simply wasn't the case. Yes 33000 were deleted and by the way some of them were recovered. But the reason for it could be explained and the explanation was accepted.
There is a vast difference between someone under investigation cooperating and someone actively obstructing an investigation
Yes, and Trump was cooperating while Hillary did not.
Again and I will say this again, just like you will ignore it again. Trump was under subpoena to deliver the documents and he did not provide them. There is nothing that Hillary did that was comparable.
Which FBI or DOJ official described the subpoenas and what was the description? When did they say that Trump did not provide what was under subpoena? To answer for you, no FBI or DOJ official gave that information. The TDS media gets their information from "sources," not DOJ or FBI officials. If DOJ or FBI officials are the sources, they are violating their claimed policy of not talking about an ongoing investigation.
Therefore, they do not have the integrity to be trusted as a source.
And another point I made before. The FBI was responsible for derailing her bid for the presidency. Something by the way I supported at the time. Since I do not change my tune when something like this happens to someone I support. And this despite Obama being president. So claiming that Trump somehow is targeted for political reasons flies in the face of that.
No, it doesn't. The FBI was being run by establishment Republican James Comey. He would have been just as biased against Trump as he was against Hillary. That he did what he did and you still have this white knight pure image of the FBI is silly.
Trump would have been charged if not for his office.
No, he would not have. That is what the anti-Trump activists and Obama/Clinton donors that were the entire Mueller team wanted you to believe.
If they had chargeable crimes but had to hold off because he was president, they could have filed the charges right after Biden was sworn in.
It seems to me I'm more knowledgeable than you are. I can for instance remember what was said 4 days ago.
This OP is 4 pages long and the only thing you have to do is push the arrow on the post to go to the relevant ones. But I'll help.
This was the first part of my reply.
To which you replied this.
Yeah, I remember the "dress change" that you thought was the smoking gun. Did you understand my explaining that to you, or did you even read it?
