"Comparing apples to bowling balls and chainsaws"

You are asking the wrong question. What we should be asking of you, is why you think that any of us, including yourself, are in a better position to evaluate the Clinton case, than the numerous regimes that have been in power at both the DOJ and the FBI, since the Comey decision-- most of which, were during the Trump Administration?

 

The lack of markings shows a lact of intent because if they put markings on a document and sent it over that server, it would have been immediately recognized as not belonging there.

 

You are assuming they were marked in the first place. And you are assuming that CLINTON HERSELF knew they were classified. Comey couldn't show this. You can't show this. Trump DID knowingly withhold and hide such info. There is no evidence Clinton ever did so. I'm not sure where I'm losing you.

 

Because Peter Strzok was intimately involved in the final preparation of that document and he was very anti Trump.

 

Then the FBI should have expanded that investigation. The only people they identified as being responsible was Hillary..

 

That's not even remotely true. Please. Homework. Please. I'm not sure if a single thing you've said so far has been true. And, still, Trump is STILL leaps and bounds worse. Something you can't discuss.

 

Hilary had a server. It was her server and Her's alone. That server contained over 2000 classified documents. That server was not certified for classified information. That server was not protected. She is totally and completely responsible for that server. She created it and it is hers and that makes her responsible for everything which took place on that server. You can sugar coat it all you want and it does not change those fact. You can repeatedly bring up Trump and it does not change those facts.

The only way you can claim lack of intent is to claim that she knew nothing about the classified information on that server. Considering that there were over 2000 classified documents on that server, it is not reasonable that she was not aware of them. To claim that she knew nothing about any of them would mean that you believe that she is incredibly stupid.

 

As weak of an allegation as that is, even if it were accepted, that does not answer for why other heads of the FBI or, more importantly, other Attorney Generals-- read Jeff Sessions or Bill Barr, who were under no obligation to listen to anyone else's recommendations-- did not indict Clinton. The obvious reason, you refuse to accept, is that there were insufficient grounds, for a winnable case, against the former Secretary of State.

Conversely, the case against Trump seems to be iron clad. If you are against the turning of our courts into a weapon of political Parties, then you should support the standard, that high government officials only be brought to trial when the evidence against them is sufficiently substantive and definitive, to all but assure proving the offense, beyond any jury's threshold of reasonable doubt.

 

Ivanka and the Trump admin used 3rd party email and the whatsapp app.... no one knows where their servers were located or if they were even in the USA, not to mention who administered them, was it even Americans?

 

Perfectly legal.

 

Peter Strzok was head of the counter intelligence unit and had considerable authority. I cannot explain why he was not over ridden, but he was later fired because of his bias.

Hillary in the course of her undoubtably reviewed numerous classified documents and received numerous classified briefings. It is not believable that she did not recognize that at least some of those 2000 documents were classified based on that experience. She had a responsibility to protect classified information and she failed miserably in that duty.

I have mixed feelings about charging high officials. I believe that no one is above the law. However, I also believe that it is all too easy to use that authority to eliminate political rivals. Those same feelings may have existed in Barr and other officials. They might have decided that no further harm would result by not indicting and to just let it go.

I say either indict and charge them all or none at all.

 

Prove it.... show us a credible source that does not use unnamed anonymous "current and former officials said" garbage...

 

so was Hillary using personal email....

 

let's investigate it

 

You will not be able to change cultist behavior. It's.... sad.

 

The case is more than iron-clad. Surely Jack Smith has not mentioned even 33% of the evidence against Trump in the now famous speaking indictment. Surely the most damning evidence will be presented first to the defense in discovery and then at the trial. It's a well-used tactic to wear-down a mafia boss type of criminal defendant, either causing him to trip up and crime some more before the trial starts or to fold and beg for a plea-deal, which criminal defendant Trump, now boxed-in by his own rhetoric, would never do and since he was stupid enough to threaten the Smith family, Jack Smith would never accept.

This thing is going to trial. Criminal defendant Trump has decided to put the entire country once again through trauma, just like he did between election night 2020 and Joe Biden's Inauguration. So, **** that piece of ****.

 

Then so is Hillary's.

 

here we agree. all should receive equal treatment, and that is the job of the judicial branch.

1.immediate closure of security clearance. this requires no judicial or legislative "work, " and should kick in amendment 25, as a president needs some, (not all, and certainly not unitary plenary power to blurt it out to strangers) classified information.

2. president harris then finds an old ships schedule or something and must resign in disgrace leaving

3 president mccarthy to send special advisor trump jr to impose peace using the trump 24 hour peace plan .

wishful thinking, guys. you know pres haris will never resign.

 

woke is everything us real 'murkins don't like. our anti woke utopia would be all white and feature an overtly heterosexual mouse greeting about to be deportees at our ports of entry.

 

Btw document 19 is guaranteed to put that *********ker behind bars for 20 years.

It is a nuclear document that no President can declassify.

He is dead to rights concerning document 19.

And there is surely far more to come.

 

Show us the document and we can decide ourselves...
only gullible people believe when a two time loser (John Edwards, Bob McDonnell) special counsel prosecutor Smith interprets what a document is and present his one sided case to a grand jury who themselves don't have clearances to see that document.. and without representation and cross examining from the other side...