"Comparing apples to bowling balls and chainsaws"

This is attorney Michael Popok, who contributes to the Meidas Network:




Popok talks about the four miserable defense strategies being floated by criminal defendant Trump's team. If you are Trump supporter, you may want to actually watch this. Popok has been practicing criminal law for over 30 years, more than 20 of them in Miami, Florida.

The four defense strategies:

1.) The Presidential records act keeps Jack Smith from indicting Trump via the Espionage Act. LOL. There is a lot of interesting stuff here

2.) as of 3:28:The Espionage Act (and what it really means)

3.) as of 8:02: "Selective Prosecution" and whataboutism.
Trying to compare Trump to Clinton or Biden or Pence is like "comparing apples to bowling balls and chainsaws"

4.) as of 12:01: Evidence suppression

Popok argues that these things that Trump says may work at his rallies but are not likely to work in any way in court.

I encourage all of you to watch all 20+ minutes of this video.

-Stat

 

Saying they are not an exact comparison and using that as justification for bias in the justice system is absurd. Hilary very clearly broke the law. There is a difference in how Trump and Hilary broke the law, but that is not justification for unequal treatment under the law.

 

First, her name is Hillary, with TWO "l"s in the name, and you know, it's not too much to expect of an adult to be able to correctly spell the name of a public figure who has almost 100% name recognition across the globe.

Second, each of Trump's Attorneys General could have empaneled a secret grand jury and presented evidence to such a secret grand jury about Hillary Clinton and guess what ---- none of them did it. This says to me that if even the most rapid of dogs in Trump's regime were not willing to prosecute, this means that they could not find a crime.

Third, I see no one who is an actual thinking, breathing person with some understanding of law and its applications who is saying that attacking the whataboutism is somehow a justification for bias. I do, often, see four or five-year olds use whataboutism because, well by gosh by golly, they are not grown up yet.

Care to try again?

 

Comparing apples to bowling balls and chainsaws?
Hillary was a Sect. of State.... subject to the federal records act...
Trump was a president... subject to the the presidential records act...

 

Equal treatment under the law: If I feel someone got away with something then everyone should get away with it...

 

Ouch…

 

The crime was already found by the FBI IG. Peter Strzok was lead the FBI counter intelligence before and during the Trump administration. The president does not control the FBI and Strzok was fired only after there was ample evidence that he was biased. Peter Strzok changed the findings of the FBI investigation into Hillary from Gross Negligence, a felony, to Extremely Careless.
Peter Strzok - Wikipedia

In many ways, Hillary's violation was worse than Trump's. Anyone, thousands of miles away could hack the unprotected server and no one would be aware of it. At least to see the Trump documents, they would have to be in Mara Lago with at least some chance of seeing them. With Hillary, there was no way to see what documents might have been compromised making it impossible to take any mitigating actions.

 

That is my opinion. All or none.

 

Sooooo, Biden did not indict Trump, eh?

 

Well, sure, I agree with you on that. But it must be based on fact, not on bellyaching just because someone doesn't like one result or the other.

 

That does not mean corrupt FBI officials are not trying to please their boss either at his direction or without.

 

Fact. Hilary had over 2000 classified documents that had no protection against hacking in her unprotected closet and she lied about it.

 

Explain why you believe Hillary's actions were any less damaging to national security than Trump's.

 

Must be corrupt FBI. Can’t be that Trump broke the law at all. Nah…he’s totally innocent. Witch hunt. Witch hunt. Witch hunt. Witch hunt. Weeeeeeeeee

 

Who claimed that?

 

God, the denseness.

This is what both of your supposed "points," mean. If the judicial system had stopped prosecutors from bringing any case against Clinton, for some legal reason, then you might have an argument. But this did not happen. Your, and anyone else's, opinion about what crimes Clinton committed, is meaningless. Do you know what one criterion is considered legally valid, for supporting contentions of illegal activity? Give up? It is convictions! Therefore, in the eyes of the law, Clinton is as completely innocent of any wrongdoing, as is Trump, at the moment, of leading an attack on our Capitol. IOW, no argument, based on the fact that prosecutors never charged Hillary, has any value, whatsoever. Not that I expect you both won't continue raising this inane, senseless objection.

 

Maybe Trump is delusional in thinking that America will start a revolution for a spoiled billionaire. Not going to happen as people like their cushy lifestyles even if many freedoms are stolen from them and they have to be forced by fascist leaders into having the act a certain way due to wokism. Wokism sucks, but I think people will accept whatever they get from our leaders, well at least a very large majority.

 

No @DEFinning... it is actually that simple.

Hillary was a Sect. of State.... subject to the federal records act...
Trump was a president... subject to the the presidential records act...

 

No. You are wrong.

Or are you the one person, in charge of this legal determination, for the entire country? If that is the case-- when, in deference to your opinion's authority, will the Trump charges be dropped?

 

In spite of your convoluted defense, it is very simple. Hillary violated the law when she transmitted, received and stored classified information on a server not certified for that purpose or protected properly. The FBI IG report originally concluded that she was grossly negligent which is a felonly. Peter Strzok changed the conclusion to extremely careless. Peter Strzok was later discredited and fired from the FBI. It was that conclusion put in by a Trump hating FBI official which stopped the prosecution. Hillary is just as guilty of crime as Trump, but only Trump faces prosecution.

 

Mean while our cushy lifestyles and freedom are disappearing at an alarming rate. As the raging insanity that is the Biden administration and our runaway security state

 

By that logic all murderer's should be set free.

 

No, your interpretation remains inept, though I have already explained that criminal guilt, in America, is determined only by trial conviction. If FBI reports could be considered as sufficient proof, than no one indicted by the FBI would need go to trial. Is that logical conclusion, just above your mental pay grade? By law, Clinton is guilty of nothing, because she was not found guilty of anything in a court of law. In the U.S., all people are considered innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law. So every time you contradict the American idea of justice, by presenting your assumptions about Clinton, as though they were fact, you are merely showing your disdain for the value that our system places upon the presumption of innocence.

Without this presumption of innocence, btw, we could already say of Trump, that he attempted to overturn a valid election, that is, tried to perpetrate a coup.

 

Who said that there was no protection? All servers have protection built in

 

Yes indeed, the denseness. However, as we all see very often, when one has no real argument, then anger and frustration can take over and then some people start flinging malarkey on the walls to see if anything sticks. I call it Malarkey-Defcon 2