there is intelligent people who still believe mueller exonerated trump? possible. unlikely. mueller's report were extreme damning for trump on multiple levels.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-fact-check-trump-falsely-claims-mueller-exonerated-him
Bipartisan Senate Report Offers Strongest Evidence Yet that Trump Lied to Mueller
Judge sharply rebukes Barr’s handling of Mueller report
the trump campaign met with russians expecting to get dirt on hillary but there weren't enough evidence for a conspiracy charge in part 'cause trump and his campaign lied or witheld information necessary for mueller and with trump as President it were not possible to compel compliance or to prosecute the lies. were also a whole lotta evidence o' trump obstruction but again, with trump being President, meuller literal could not charge or accuse him o' a crime.
barr (successful) gaslit before the mueller report and multiple federal judges admonished him for lying to the public and the Courts regarding the report. worse, Congressional democrats, instead o' focusing on how damning were the report to trump even w/o a recommendation o' criminal prosecution, a prosecution which were never on the table btw, kept trying to get mueller to say trump had done illegal. wasted effort. mueller's report painted trump as bumbling and mendacious actor. mueller cautioned that if Congress did not pay attention and take serious the very real efforts o' a US political campaign to solicit and foreign interference in a US election, future elections would be endangered. and so it goes.
jack smith's indictment is arguable less damning than were the mueller report. is actual less evidence o' obstruction in the current indictment than were memorialized in the mueller report and again, the corruption o' trump as it relates to the "russia hoax" *snort* established a terrible precedent which makes it possible for future US Presidential candidates to utilize foreign influence to interfere with national elections.
and am sick to death o' hearing 'bout "hillary's emails." takes more willful stoopid to invoke the hillary email situation when speaking o' trump's current problems.
after considerable investigation, there were never any evidence o' willful obstruction by hillary. is the reason why @Wrath of Dagon and others were trying to convince themselves that hillary shoulda' been prosecuted under the gross negligence aspect o' the relevant statutes. however, comey, for all his faults, did a fair job o' illustrating the law regarding mishandling and retention o' government intelligence.
"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice."
a subsequent ig report during the trump admin found comey screwed the pooch in his public handling o' the hillary emails but that he were correct about the law and that hillary should not have been prosecuted.
ironic, saw this on cnn a few days past:
for those who likely do not recall, gonzalez were the bush administration's version o' hillary's emails.
from the aforementioned ig report:
c. Previous Section 793(f)(1) Declinations
The Midyear prosecutors also reviewed at least two previous investigations
where prosecution was declined under the gross negligence provision in Section
793(f)(1). The Midyear prosecutors told us that these declinations informed their
understanding of the Department’s historical approach to Section 793(f)(1). We
discuss these previous declinations below.
Gonzales Declination Decision
One of these previous cases involved an OIG investigation into the
mishandling of documents containing highly classified, compartmented information
about a National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program by former White
House Counsel and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In 2004, while Gonzales
was the White House Counsel, he took handwritten notes memorializing a meeting
about the legality of the NSA program. The notes included operational details
about the program, including its compartmented codeword. Although Gonzales did
not mark the notes as classified, he said that he used two envelopes to doublewrap the notes and may have written an abbreviation for the codeword on the inner
envelope. On the outer envelope, Gonzales said that he wrote “AG – EYES ONLY –
TOP SECRET.” He stored these notes in a safe in the West Wing of the White House
and said that he took them with him when he became the Attorney General in
February 2005. Gonzales said that he did not recall where he stored the notes after
removing them from the White House, but that he may have taken them home.
Gonzales also stored the notes and several other documents containing TS//SCI
classification markings in a safe in the Attorney General’s office that was not
approved to hold such materials.
The OIG referred investigative findings to NSD for a prosecutive decision.
According to information reviewed by the OIG, on August 19, 2008, NSD analyzed
Gonzales’ handling of the notes under the gross negligence provision in section
793(f)(1). NSD concluded that prosecutors likely could show that the documents
were removed from their proper place of custody, but that the question was
whether that removal constituted “gross negligence.” After discussing the
legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), NSD stated that the government likely
would have to prove that Gonzales’ conduct was “criminally reckless” to establish
that he acted with gross negligence under Section 793(f)(1). NSD concluded that
Gonzales’ inability to recall precisely where he stored the notes detracted from
prosecutors’ ability to “show a state of mind approaching ‘deliberate intention’ to
remove classified documents from a secure location.”
there were no prosecution o' gonzales and that earlier declination decision were one o' a couple similar declination conclusions which guided the doj in their ultimate conclusion to not pursue criminal charges against clinton. nobody mentions gonzalez, bush's attorney general and a widely recognized republican, serious undermines the suggestion hillary were treated different, special or in some way benefited from a partisan doj process.
witch hunt? trump were given more than a year to return documents which regardless o' the classification red herring were documents which did not belong to trump. when the national archives finally lost patience with trump and referred the matter o' document retrieval to the fbi, not only did trump lie, but he attempted to have his attorney lie on his behalf. is audio recordings o' trump discussing the mishandling o' documents and is video o' him physical going through boxes with national secrets. refer back to the earlier comey comments in this post for the kinda documents cases which result in fed prosecutions. in the trump case there is considerable evidence o' both obstruction as well as intentional mishandling.
oh, and...
etc.
am not knowing what the affirmative defenses o' trump may be, but nothing mentioned public by trump as yet would constitute a meaningful defense or an excuse for his actions. the clinton AND gonzales situations were fundamental different, lacking the brazen willfulness and p00p storm o' evidence provided in the jack smith indictment, so those invoking hillary's emails is either ignorant o' truth or intentional mischaracterizing the facts regarding the former secretary of state's admitted Colossal and mind boggling stoopid handling of state secrets on her private server. tell us hillary's brobdinagian stoopid and cavalier handling o' sensitive US info should have excluded her from consideration as a legit candidate for the Presidency o' the US and we would have a difficult time coming up with a decent rebuttal. even so, hillary emails so ≠ trump mar-a-lago documents.
oh, and do we need mention how not a defense is the Presidential records act for trump? the act says that trump, as a former President, had a duty to return documents to the US. am not sure how such helps trump.
the so-called sock drawer case is also a red herring. the state secrets trump were hoarding in his public accessibly resort were not personal recordings or the result o' trump's individual work product. is not possible to legitimate argue that somehow an unholy alchemy o' the Presidential records act and the sock drawer case result in state secrets being transformed into trump's personal property when he left office. sorry, but that argument is utter nonsense although am having seen it made a few times by republican figures who know better.
did we miss anything?
all o' which ignores the very real possibility trump will be found not guilty. we keep reminding folks all trump needs is one florida juror who believes the feds were indeed involved in a witch hunt, manufacturing evidence... oh and what about hillary's emails? am warning in advance a not guilty verdict is more than just possible.
aside am thinking @Agiel deserves credit as before trump were elected he voiced concerns 'bout trump handling nuclear secrets.
HA! Good Fun!