So the reason Trump would be prosecuted and Biden not...
by El Kabong (2024-02-08 17:14:58)
Edited on 2024-02-08 17:16:54

In reply to: The Biden Classified Materials Report is Out.  posted by EricCartman


...pretty much boils down to "Trump's an asshole and we can convict him".

I realize we have the untruthfulness aspect of Trump's case, but I still feel that shouldn't be the reason something is or isn't done, particularly if Biden disclosed classified materials to a ghost writer.


Most certainly not.
by IAND75  (2024-02-08 17:45:45)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Trump’s main offense is obstruction of justice.

He refused to cooperate. He directly defied a subpoena. He actively hid the documents from federal agents.

Had he said, “Oops, my bad.” And turned over the documents when they were first requested there would never have been any issue.

They aren’t in any way comparable.


I wouldn't say they are uncomparable...
by Kbyrnes  (2024-02-08 17:53:44)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

...They aren't identical or substantially similar overall, because there are aspects of each case that are very materially distinguishable.

I'm not saying that Biden couldn't be prosecuted once out of office. Petraeus pled to a misdemeanor with a few years of probation and a nominal fine.

Mike Pence also might be in the ambit of Petraeus's "one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material," as it is fair, I think, to assume that the way classified documents got to Pence's house in Indiana was that Pence brought them there--whether by mistake or not, that would be "unauthorized removal"; and by keeping them there, "retention."

As far as I can tell, neither Biden nor Pence lied to the FBI about their use of the materials, as Petraeus apparently did, so the latter's case would merit a somewhat greater penalty.


I agree with you
by El Kabong  (2024-02-08 17:49:34)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

So charge him with obstruction and that's it, while making the reasons for that charge clear.

Regardless, the committee would have been better served without the "he's just a nice old man who loves old documents" part of it.


No kidding
by ndsapper  (2024-02-08 17:36:49)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

It’s the equivalent of not prosecuting a clean cut white guy while throwing the book at the impoverished black guy because you think the jury will find the black guy guilty.


Sort of but I think it has more to do with the efforts taken
by wpkirish  (2024-02-08 17:30:22)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

after the documents were discovered. The lengths Trump went to in order to hide the fact he had them is certainly different. The fact that he lied and said he had turned over everything when he hadnt is certainly different.

The AP article I linked below lays out the timeline pretty well.

Now if you want to compare Biden to David Petraeus you probably have a stonger case.


Then charge him with obstruction or something similar
by El Kabong  (2024-02-08 17:44:23)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Because other than likability, that's the difference here.


They did.
by IAND75  (2024-02-08 17:50:00)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Most of the charges are for hiding, lying, not complying with requests and subpoenas, etc.


I think the espionage charge is indicative of that.
by wpkirish  (2024-02-08 19:58:53)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I think Lindsey Graham was one person complaining that what happened was not espionage. The only problem is the statute actually defines the willful and continued possession of the classified documents as espionage. It may seem unfair in this context but certainly can understand why it might be written like that. Avoids the government being required to prove they were shared with anyone.

Of course Lindsey never thought to change the statute he finds so wrong during his almost 30 years in DC.