Binger wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 4:26 am
No Veritas.
That is not what I insisted.
Why do you need to lie and why do you need to confirm your narrative with garbage assumptions and nonsense?
I'm not lying, I'm quoting you. But I understand your need to distance yourself from your own idiotic, premature commentary that has been disproven by newer revelations you weren't willing to wait for before launching into your "credibility of institutions" schtick.
"DOJ must immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6 investigations."
There is no evidence of partisan political motives here. Trump broke the law, period. The DOJ is doing what it is supposed to do. You're desperately trying to poo poo on the "institutions" because you're just upset your boy Trump is actually guilty of all the dumb crap that HC was supposedly guilty of.
FOX news points out that the judge who signed off on the warrant once represented employees of Jeffrey Epstein. Binger immediately quotes, without attribution, a piece from the NY Post saying the same thing just to poison the well.
"Oh look. Remember how the FBI did not have any concerns about crime when ya know, the criminals were their clients and stuff? Looks like those conditions were accepted."
Pushing the FOX narrative that the FBI has no credibility... Binger continues:
"The credibility of the FBI was already in the crapper, and it looks like the FBI decided to make it a Woodstock '99 crapper. The credibility of the courts and judges who have protected the CIA and FBI is in question or also in the crapper. And some explaining is needed and it is needed quickly and promptly."
So even though the FBI is doing its job and following the protocols to a T, we're supposed to be idiots and follow FOX News' narrative that explanations are in order otherwise their previous attacks on the FBI are justified. This is circular reasoning and neither Binger nor the idiots at FOX seem to know what the DOJ is legally obligated to disclose. They don't have to provide detailed explanations for anything, and it doesn't matter how many idiots are upset that their orange savior had his home searched.
Shortly after FOX news pushes the HC comparison, Binger goes in lock step:
"The FBI did not raid Hillary or Hunter's private residence and there was a hell of a lot more known evidence in those cases and a hell of a lot more of a cover up."
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. At this early juncture we knew nearly nothing, but in Binger's mind, there is no evidence because Merrick Garland hasn't provided him a detailed list. What Hillary did having a private server (as did George W Bush when he lost millions of emails) doesn't even begin to compare with what Trump did and it is idiotic to keep bringing it up. Hillary didn't take hundreds of hard copies of classified materials and then refuse to return them claiming "they're mine."
The fact is
Clinton suffered more mistreatment from violations of Justice Department protocols and politicization of her case than Trump has.
Despite the conclusions, the process Clinton underwent transgressed Justice Department guidelines, resulting in its wielding substantial political influence. As such, the Clinton investigation harmed the former secretary of state even though it ultimately exonerated her.
During the Clinton investigation, then-FBI Director James Comey provided updates on the progress of the investigation in contravention of Justice Department policy. Moreover, Comey went so far as to hold a press conference in which he both exonerated Clinton and criticized her professionalism in an arena that did not permit her to respond. He said that the investigation had failed to prove any criminal violations, as Clinton had not acted with the necessary criminal intent to convict her of a crime, but he accused her of being “extremely careless” in handling the emails. Furthermore, Comey inserted himself into the 2016 election when he then announced within two weeks of the 2016 presidential vote that the FBI was reviewing more of her emails — an announcement that may have played a major role in determining the outcome of that election.
By contrast, there are no such signs of Justice Department aberrations or politicization concerning Trump. The investigation appears to have been scrupulous in its adherence to Justice Department regulations and protocols to this point. The media has reported that officials from the National Archives initially contacted the former president regarding documents believed to be in his possession. When noninvestigative contact from the National Archives failed to result in the production of the materials belonging to the United States, the agency referred that matter to the Justice Department.
The department itself initially attempted to obtain the material through informal contact with representatives of the former president. When this failed, the department served a subpoena for the items, presumably on Trump or on the custodian of records at Mar-a-Lago. This apparently resulted in protracted discussions but not the production of documents for the National Archives. Ultimately, the FBI executed a search warrant to seize the items.
In stark contrast to Comey, who opined about the his investigation, its results and the actions of the former secretary of state, Attorney General Merrick Garland breached no such conventions during his brief appearance before the media on Thursday to discuss the search at Mar-a-Lago. Garland merely announced that the department would seek to unseal the search warrant and inventory left at the search location but did not reveal any information about the investigation.
There are of course limitations in what can be compared between a completed investigation and one that is still ongoing. But we can already observe one major difference between these two: the response of the principals involved. According to what’s publicly known, Clinton and her representatives cooperated with the investigation and investigators. Therefore, there was no need for the issuance of a subpoena or for executing a search warrant.
In contrast, the response by Trump and his representatives appears to have been to delay: First they apparently stiffed the National Archives. Then they seemed to initially do the same to the Justice Department. Lastly, they failed to respond to a Justice Department subpoena.
And there could be more revelations to come. The public does not know the full range of the investigation, specifically whether it is limited to the documents withheld from the National Archives or if it involves other issues. This naturally means the full extent of Trump’s response has yet to be appreciated as well.
But we do know that investigators executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago because the Trump camp failed to respond to less-intrusive investigative efforts. This was a more aggressive legal action than Clinton faced, because she more fully cooperated than he did. Any further comparisons of their cases must keep this crucial context in mind.
"So, great, send in the FBI and get some boxes for the national archives. I accept those terms. Trump seems to accept those terms. Republicans are saying, great, we accept those terms. Andrew Cuomo accepts those terms."
No, Trump didn't accept those terms.
Your assumption here is that Trump is a credible, good faith actor here who is telling the truth. Trump didn't say anything about his attorney lying to the National Archives about having already given over all docs. Trump said nothing about a previous subpoena that failed, and he said nothing about refusing to give the requested docs because, as he was quoted as saying, "
they're mine." Hell, Trump didn't even mention the fact that the FBI actually got what they were looking for because that in and of itself would undermine his narrative about being a victim of some miscarriage of justice.
But thinking critically and being on the side of team normal isn't your thing.
