The Double Standard Argument

[konradv]

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

Bullshit. She’s been under attack since she entered the national stage.

 

[rightwinger]

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

ummm…no
Official documents belong to the National Archives

 

[Lisa558]

The jury will decide Trumps guilt or innocence based on the evidence provided

That is the way things work in this country

It’s supposed to be a jury of one’s peers - not a brainwashed group of Trump-haters.

 

[rightwinger]

It’s supposed to be a jury of one’s peers - not a brainwashed group of Trump-haters.

They are members of the community where he committed his crimes….that makes them his peers

There is no expectation that the jury be made up of billionaires

 

[Coyote]

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.

Good lord…I heard she kicks puppies too.

 

[Godboy]

The jury will decide Trumps guilt or innocence based on the evidence provided

That is the way things work in this country

Maybe, but it might be the Supreme Court who decides.

 

[rightwinger]

Maybe, but it might be the Supreme Court who decides.

Those who are counting in the Supreme Court to save Trump will be disappointed

 

[Lisa558]

They are members of the community where he committed his crimes….that makes them his peers

There is no expectation that the jury be made up of billionaires

What do you mean….”where he committed his crimes”? No crimes have been proven.

Sounds like you have your mind made up already to convict. THAT is not what is intended by an impartial jury.

 

[Godboy]

Those who are counting in the Supreme Court to save Trump will be disappointed

Maybe, but those who assume it wont happen may be the ones who end up being disappointed.

 

[Lesh]

Sensible Republicans, are pointing out that Trump committed no crime.

Sensible Republicans have left the Cult

 

[elektra]

Sensible Republicans have left the Cult

the cult is the republican party, Trump took over the Republican party

 

[rightwinger]

What do you mean….”where he committed his crimes”? No crimes have been proven.

Sounds like you have your mind made up already to convict. THAT is not what is intended by an impartial jury.

Gee Lisa

Maybe that is why we are having a trial with a jury of your peers

 

[Lisa558]

Gee Lisa

Maybe that is why we are having a trial with a jury of your peers

You ignored my point: you already decided he has committed crimes.

 

[rightwinger]

You ignored my point: you already decided he has committed crimes.

You do understand the purpose of a trial don’t you?

 

[OldFlame]

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.

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.

His comments that the 'double standard will be put behind us' if Trump is prosecuted is utter bullshit and doesn't even pass the logic test of what he said prior to that. He admitted that there is a double standard but that if we keep prosecuting one party (R) for its wrong doings, that will somehow end the double standard and the other party (D) will also finally, miraculously be held accountable? Why would that happen? If the left can get away with prosecuting their political enemies while getting away with the same, or worse, crimes, why would anything ever change?

His comment that it would be applied to comparable cases going forward is also utter bullshit. Look at the leftie lemmings in here claiming how Clinton's case wasn't even comparable to Trump's in its lawlessness. They're right, hers was much worse, while his is questionable that it was even a crime, but they will never, ever admit that, and neither will the media. So nothing 'their side' has done will ever be 'as wrong' as anything anyone on the right does, and therefore will require prosecution and punishment, while others get off scott free, such as Clinton.

Total bunk.

 

[rightwinger]

how Clinton's case wasn't even comparable to Trump's in its lawlessness.

Hillary did not intentionally take secret documents and try to conceal them. She also did not intentionally release Secret information. Most of the Classified information found on her server was not marked as such.

Trump intentionally took Secret information, refused to turn it in when asked and ordered others to conceal it. He also showed it to others

 

[OldFlame]

Hillary did not intentionally take secret documents and try to conceal them. She also did not intentionally release Secret information. Most of the Classified information found on her server was not marked as such.

Trump intentionally took Secret information, refused to turn it in when asked and ordered others to conceal it. He also showed it to others

Intention, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with whether or not the law was broken.

And that's your opinion, you have no idea what her 'intentions' were.

 

[rightwinger]

Intention, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with whether or not the law was broken.

And that's your opinion, you have no idea what her 'intentions' were.

Afraid it does
Historically, those who inadvertantly possess Classified information are treated differently than those who intentionally take it and show it to others

 

[OldFlame]

Afraid it does
Historically, those who inadvertantly possess Classified information are treated differently than those who intentionally take it and show it to others

Right, try inadvertently not paying your taxes, see how that works out for you. Unless you're a Biden, then you might get off for any charge, forever, in perpetuity.

She broke the law, she paid no price, because she's a wealthy, powerful, corrupt, connected, insider politician who likely has dirt on everyone.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

What Barr believes is bullshit and always has been. Never forget that Barr is the guy who talked Bush 41 into pardoning the Iran Contra criminals, and that he believes in the absolute power of Presidents.

Barr flat out lied when he said that the Mueller Report "completed exonerated" Donald Trump. He also said that Trump was "spied on" by the Obama Administration, and there was absolutely no evidence of that either.

Barr called Roger Stone's conviction a "righteous prosecution" and said he was guilty, and then intervened in the prosecution to get Stone a reduced sentence, a release from prison and a pardon.

And then he complains about a "double standard" for Republicans, saying Republicans pursue other Republicans with more "gusto" in their investigations. Not one word about Republicans investigating the lies and rumours they make up about Democrats.

Then he compares Hillary's email scandal - an investigation predicated on the "illegal server" lie, and Trey Gowdy sudden discovery that Hillary Clinton used a private server - something he knew as a freshman congressman, when he voted in favour of the law making private servers illegal - in 2013 when the law was passed AFTER Clinton left office.

Barr is now saying that the Trump is a criminal and should be prosecuted, yet when Barr resigned, he said NOTHING to the American people. Not one word about of warning about the criminal he worked for.

Too little, too late asshole. You lost all credibility with your mischaracterization of the Mueller Report, and your years of aiding and abetting a criminal President in his abuses of power, and his failed attempts to prosecute his ''enemies. And pardoning the Republican criminals from two corrupt administrations.