Al Mohler: “Make no mistake, America is now on trial”

T Howard wrote: If you knowingly have classified documents in your possession, don’t lie about it, don’t tell others to lie about it, don’t obstruct federal agencies in their efforts to retrieve the documents, don’t claim you’re a victim when you’re caught red handed, don’t incite your followers to protect you, etc. etc.

If there are two murder cases, and one tries everything possible to hide it, and the other calls 911, gets the police to come, and confesses to it, does that mean that murder is less egregious than the other one? Guilt-wise, all it means is that there will be additional charges for the former. The murder is the same, and it could even be that the one that turned themselves in has other factors that actually make that murder worse.

If you “knowingly have classified documents in your possession,” and you were not permitted to have them, or you transmit or store them insecurely, that’s where the law was broken. The additional charges for obstruction (while bad on their own) are simply incidental to the main charge.

WallyMorris wrote: Fast Forward: Trump convicted, Clinton and Biden never indicted. Conclusion?

It’s entirely possible for all the following to be true:

1. Trump is, after evidence presented, relevant defenses considered, etc. eventually judged guilty in a court of law.
2. The prosecution of Trump is found to be a selective prosecution which is not likely to be brought against other offenders, particularly those of the other party, and, if not for not going away quietly, but rather protesting (sometimes exceedingly inappropriately) the outcome and irregularities of the election he thought he should have won, would possibly not have been brought against Trump either.
3. The narrative being presented by the media is completely overwrought, and it may turn out that it’s not nearly as egregious as what we were being told, even by congressmen and officials (similar to there being “irrefutable evidence” that Trump is guilty of collusion with Russia).

Personally, I will hold my judgment until all the above plays out. Right now, I will only say that it looks bad for Trump, and that I do think there are better candidates to run against Biden, so I will vote accordingly.

“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is a folly and shame unto him.

…

He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.” Proverbs 18:13, 17.

dcbii wrote: If you “knowingly have classified documents in your possession,” and you were not permitted to have them, or you transmit or store them insecurely, that’s where the law was broken. The additional charges for obstruction (while bad on their own) are simply incidental to the main charge.

You must not have read the 37-count indictment.

He isn't be indicted for just having classified documents in his possession. He is being indicted for "willful retention of national defense information." He not only had these documents, but he WILLFULLY FAILED to turn them over to government agencies and law enforcement. 31 counts for willful retention of national defense information

Trump also willfully concealed boxes of classified documents from law enforcement officials and the grand jury. 3 counts for withholding or concealing documents in a federal investigation

Trump also lied or made false statements about classified documents being turned over to law enforcement and continued to scheme how to hide the documents. 2 counts for false statements

Trump and one of his aides conspired to keep his classified documents from law enforcement. 1 count for conspiracy to obstruct justice

So, please, this is more than just he had some documents in an unsecured location like Hillary or Biden. He had them, he denied he had them, he hid them from law enforcement, he lied that he hid them, he involved others in hiding them, and he lied about involving others in hiding them.

But, nice try, Dave.

Tu quoque isn't a fallacy. It's a response. It means "you also." And it's often a very reasonable response.

Darrell put up a cartoon depicting Biden and Trump's responses to records. Neither, I think accurately reflects reality.

HRC's response to the subpoena was to destroy hard drives and phones.

Aaron wrote: The situation has lots of parallels. As a school teacher, I often ran in to situations where I realized I’d neglected enforcing a particular class rule. (It was a bigger problem the first year before I learned to not have so many class rules!). A common scenario would be when Frank broke the rule in a particularly egregious way. I dealt with it, he pointed out “but Wendy did it an you didn’t punish her!”

There's nearly a century of non-enforcement of the Espionage Act and over 40 years on the Presidential Records Act. To make your classroom parallel more parallel, you should have kids punching each other literally every day, while you observe it and do nothing all year. And at the end of the year you "enforce" the no-punching rule for ONE kid that YOU as a teacher hate. And you expel him.

It’s telling that the FBI/etc., gave Trump the whole nine yards, but for Biden and Hilliary, no subpoenas for evidence were issued. Why is that?

This is not a hard question. One word: cooperation. What will bring Trump down in this case—if he goes down—is lack of cooperation: actively avoiding turning over what was repeatedly requested, intentional unauthorized possession and use of information.

Assuming it gets to trial, we’ll have a better idea of what reports are true. But for the attitude/state of mind/motivational stuff, all anyone needs is public record of Trump commenting on the topic.

A major concern

Things may have to get worse before they can get better. That is, if Trump is accurately convicted and jailed, there will certainly be a lot of rage and conflict. There may be some violence. But it’s still the best thing that could happen because it can be the beginning of the right being led once again by grown ups.

The tu quoque and secundium quid fallacies continue to distract. All that matters is did he break the law in the alleged ways? Zero of our laws are written with the clause “unless other people have done it and gotten away with it.” That’s not how law works. All the Hillary and Biden (and Pence, by the way) stuff is just variations of “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

T Howard wrote: 31 counts for willful retention of national defense information

That’s fair. I didn’t actually read the indictment itself, and I only found out today the distinction between charging for classified documents and for national defense information. However, this is still the lion’s share of the indictment. The other 6 counts are, as I said, mostly incidental if he is guilty on the 31 counts.

But to also be fair, we don’t have any idea if the documents found by Biden and Pence have national defense information on them, and in the case of Clinton, much of the evidence was destroyed, so we don’t know that about her case either, but it could easily also include false statements, withholding information, and obstructing justice. I still intend to keep an open mind until the court case (and hopefully, cases) come[s] to completion.

Aaron Blumer wrote: The tu quoque and secundium quid fallacies continue to distract. All that matters is did he break the law in the alleged ways?

That's all that matters to you because you hate him.

The apology for Trump that goes, "But Biden, but Hilary" may be premature, at least in the case of Biden.

Investigation is ongoing into some of his alleged scandals. Maybe it will get him yet.

The thing is, the failure to deal with Biden's or Hillary's alleged misdeeds has little to do with whether or not to indict Trump.

1. The investigations of others aren't over yet
2. Culpability in some cases may not be provable in a court of law, even if it looks like there is a lot of smoke there. (May be a lot of smoke, but hard to prove exactly where it is coming from.) In a high-profile trial, you had better be sure you are right before making charges.

Dan Miller wrote: That's all that matters to you because you hate him.

I'm curious, do you hate Biden and Hillary? Is it possible to be "never Trump" or "never Biden" without hating them?

Don, one thing that needs to be noted, regarding the alleged investigation into Biden's apparent selling of White House access for profit, is that if there were an investigation ongoing, we would expect to see subpoenas served, warrants issued, and the like. It's becoming more and more apparent that in this case, like the Hilliary Clinton files case before it, that this is not being done.

So my response to "we're working on this" is about the same as if I sent my son out to mow the lawn, and found him leaning over the lawnmower. Um, no, that's not how it's done.

Bert Perry wrote: one thing that needs to be noted, regarding the alleged investigation into Biden's apparent selling of White House access for profit, is that if there were an investigation ongoing, we would expect to see subpoenas served, warrants issued, and the like

But they are pushing it in Congress. I don't think it can be ignored forever, and I don't think law enforcement usually announces publicly what they are doing.

Bert Perry wrote: one thing that needs to be noted, regarding the alleged investigation into Biden's apparent selling of White House access for profit, is that if there were an investigation ongoing, we would expect to see subpoenas served, warrants issued, and the like

But they are pushing it in Congress. I don't think it can be ignored forever, and I don't think law enforcement usually announces publicly what they are doing.

Yes, law enforcement tends to be quiet, and justifiably so, but leakers make sure that people know, and the targets start talking as they're searched. Plus, what do you make of things like Hunter Biden's obvious lie (no drug use) to buy a pistol back a few years ago? That's an open and shut case, the kind that often leads to bigger things as evidence is revealed and defendants plea bargain to get less time in the Big House.

Those I read with legal history are saying "hey, why is it that these easy cases that have so much promise are being dropped?" There is a reason, most likely involving the political motivations of the DOJ.

Ken S wrote:

Dan Miller wrote: That's all that matters to you because you hate him.

I'm curious, do you hate Biden and Hillary? Is it possible to be "never Trump" or "never Biden" without hating them?

So, you are saying, "You, too." Just so you know, Aaron thinks that's a fallacy.

“The conduct of Trump and Clinton is not equivalent.”

Worth the price of admission just for that succinct observation, but there’s a good bit more worth reading.

If Trump’s alleged conduct were equivalent to Clinton’s, that wouldn’t necessarily mean Trump’s indictment was wrong. The answer to partisan double standards isn’t to abandon standards altogether; it’s to insist on the nonpartisan application of them. This is especially true when the standard under discussion is the rule of law.

But this is beside the point. The conduct of Trump and Clinton is not equivalent. Trump is charged not only with mishandling highly classified materials, but with executing a shockingly clumsy scheme to avoid handing them back to the government (and lying to cover his tracks). Trump’s intent to deceive shines out from the indictment like a fog light. And the fact that he has insisted—before the indictment and after—he is allowed to have the materials he took is effectively an admission of guilt.

The law is clear that anyone with unauthorized possession of documents related to national defense who “willfully retains” and “fails to deliver” them to the proper authorities is in violation. Looking the other way at Trump’s alleged actions would have corrosive effects, not the least of which would be declawing any future effort by the U.S. government to prosecute those who mishandled classified documents.

The piece also highlights the courage of the “sanity caucus.” May their tribe increase! As they say, read the whole thing. (It’s a free article, but you’ll have to create an account.)

Dan Miller wrote: That’s all that matters to you because you hate him.

This is a weak argument on multiple levels.

First, I’ve used premises and reasoning on this topic, not my personal feelings. Second, my feelings aren’t relevant, if they exist. This is textbook ad hominem fallacy—a claim is not proven false just because the one saying it has feelings or a bias. (I have a strong bias against hot, humid days and live at a northern latitude. But if I say, “It’s hot and humid today,” and both the thermometer and the hygrometer are at 98, am I proven wrong if someone points out that I’m a northerner who likes it cool? My feelings about heat and humidity are not relevant.)

So, I’ll restate my reasoning, and as usual, not my feelings. You can’t fix a ‘failure to prosecute’ problem by failing to prosecute yet again. If someone thinks they can prove otherwise, let’s hear it.

This Dispatch editors said it perfectly…

The answer to partisan double standards isn’t to abandon standards altogether; it’s to insist on the nonpartisan application of them.

Right now the best hope for that happening is this:

1. The GOP rejects its most unelectable candidate for 2024, which is Trump.
2. Trump’s campaign ends.
3. GOP nominates someone who can win, someone who has a mature respect for the nonpartisan rule of law.
4. That candidate wins.

That gets to “nonpartisan application of the law” for four years. It’s not a permanent fix, but the only step in the right direction that is even on the table.

So, you are saying, “You, too.” Just so you know, Aaron thinks that’s a fallacy.

What I think is again, not relevant. It’s just a fact that tu quoque fallacy is a real thing.

But for the fallacy to exist, you have to reason that claim X is false because the person making the claim doesn’t behave consistently with the claim. A common variation is a moral argument: X is OK because those criticizing it are also guilty of it. These are species of ad hominem fallacy. I don’t think that’s what was going on in Ken’s reasoning.