When Hillary's e-mails were found to have 5 inadvertently passed on classified e-mails,... there were calls to "lock her up, lock her up, lock her up",... and some even said execute her for treason.
This went on for years.
Now Trump is caught with dozens of boxes of intentionally stolen documents including up to 1,000 classified and top secret including nuclear secrets... the cry is "Let him go" "for the good of the country".

I'm amazed the Trumpers don't choke on their hypocrisy.
Trump even led the Hillary "lock her up" charge.
He also pled the fifth 450 times after saying "only criminals plead the fifth" and "only guilty people plead the fifth" (which is true by the way).

Florida just chose accused and indicted child sex trafficker, Matt Gaetz to run again for congress.
Remember "Pizzagate"?  The nonexistent child trafficking ring led by Hillary?
This one is real.
Somehow it's okay now though.

It would be funny if it weren't true.
No one would believe it in a movie plot.
As ridiculous as waking up and finding out a narcissistic, racist, pervert, reality TV show host is President.

No... "Lock him up, lock him up"?....

Crickets................

Maybe she's keeping hard copies in the storage room of a resort.  

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/biden-white-house-facil
itated-dojs-criminal-probe-against-trump


The most complete summary was contained in a lengthy letter dated May 10 that acting National Archivist Debra Steidel Wall sent Trump's lawyers summarizing the White House's involvement.

"On April 11, 2022, the White House Counsel's Office — affirming a request from the Department of Justice supported by an FBI letterhead memorandum — formally transmitted a request that NARA provide the FBI access to the 15 boxes for its review within seven days, with the possibility that the FBI might request copies of specific documents following its review of the boxes," Wall wrote Trump defense attorney Evan Corcoran.

That letter revealed Biden empowered the National Archives and Records Administration to waive any claims to executive privilege that Trump might assert to block DOJ from gaining access to the documents.

"The Counsel to the President has informed me that, in light of the particular circumstances presented here, President Biden defers to my determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not I should uphold the former President's purported 'protective assertion of executive privilege,'" Wall wrote. "... I have therefore decided not to honor the former President's 'protective' claim of privilege."

Best regards,

Serowbot wrote on 08/24/22 at 16:49:28:



The idea that a sitting president can somehow waive the executive privilege of a previous president really wrecks the executive privilege — which is implicit in Article 2 of the U.S. constitution.

The “get Trump movement” has abandoned sacrosanct constitutional principles like executive privilege to “get Trump” at any cost.

Best regards,

 So what am I missing regarding executive privilege?

 A POTUS that is no longer in office has none as far as I know.

 Anything, documents, a lamp, anything that was under Executive privilege when in office is terminated when out of office as far as I know, and those items are to be returned right?  If the National Archives requests documents be returned, you return them because you are no longer the POTUS.

 It doesn't read to me that Biden is retroactively revoking Executive privilege.  Trump was allowed to have those documents, but is no longer allowed to since he is no longer POTUS.  Certain documents don't get to be in his museum or whatever he was saying they are for.

Of course you, CONVENIENTLY, FORGOT,
 Obama, STEELING from the WH.

(Oh that is right, no one TOLD YOU what to say)

From WSJ

When Jim Comey held his July 2016 press briefing on Hillary Clinton’s emails, his conclusion was this: “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

In other words, Mrs. Clinton could have been indicted but wasn’t. That ended the Clinton email saga as a legal matter—with a lecture but without a prosecution. As we wrote at the time, this was an outrageous usurpation by the FBI director, whose role was to investigate and turn the evidence over to a U.S. Attorney or the Attorney General to decide on prosecution.

He was letting the Democratic Justice Department off the hook from having to make its own judgment. Attorney General Loretta Lynch let Mr. Comey’s judgment stand. After his press statement, Mrs. Clinton was free to continue her run for the White House, and the press declared the issue put to rest.

We criticized that decision at the time, but for better or worse Mr. Comey and the Obama Justice Department had set the Clinton Standard for treating a prominent politician who mishandles classified documents. Lesser public officials might have been prosecuted, or at least sanctioned, and some were. But from then on any such prosecution for comparable alleged offenses has to be made in light of the Comey-Lynch-Clinton precedent.

All of this bears on the current furor over Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents at his home in Mar-a-Lago. If Mrs. Clinton wasn’t prosecuted, is there a different standard for Mr. Trump?

Mrs. Clinton was obliged to follow all the typical classification rules that apply to government officials. As Mr. Comey said in his 2016 press statement, Mrs. Clinton falsely claimed that she had turned over all work-related emails to State, but the FBI found “several thousand” work-related emails that weren’t turned over.

He also said Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers hadn’t even read her emails when deciding what to turn in. They relied on “header information” and search terms, and then “cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” Recall that she also deliberately used private personal servers on which she conducted government business.

All of this sounds similar to the behavior the FBI says in its affidavit that it suspects of Mr. Trump, who may not have turned over all the documents the National Archives and FBI wanted. One complicating legal difference is that Mr. Trump operates under the Presidential Records Act (PRA), whose language assumes there will be some give and take between the Archives and a former President over documents.

We don’t know everything about the documents Mr. Trump retained, how he handled them, what he told the FBI and other facts that are still hidden by the redactions in the affidavit. New details may emerge that differ in significant ways from Mrs. Clinton’s behavior.

But that isn’t evident so far, and Mr. Trump’s lawyers will surely argue that under the PRA he has some right to hold documents, even many that are classified, for some period of time or some personal purpose.

All of this has to weigh on Merrick Garland as the Attorney General considers whether to indict Mr. Trump for his handling of classified documents. We didn’t like the Clinton Standard but we didn’t establish it. A Democratic Justice Department did, and in a case with enormous political consequences.

If Mr. Garland can’t make a compelling case that Mr. Trump’s transgressions are greater than Mrs. Clinton’s, with enough clear and convincing evidence to warrant a criminal charge, the better judgment is not to prosecute and put the country through the trauma of a political trial that half of America will suspect is a case of unequal justice.

Sometimes a long time.