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

“This is not a witch hunt. On the other hand, there are other dimensions we also must remember. Here are the optics…” - Mohler

Discussion

Aaron Blumer wrote: You can’t fix a ‘failure to prosecute’ problem by failing to prosecute yet again.

Yes, you can reform the laws that obviously nobody wants to prosecute. There is a reason that people care about the concept of equal treatment under the law.

Aaron Blumer wrote:

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.

You might have missed https://sharperiron.org/comment/131580#comment-131580

I think we cross-posted at that point.

Dan Miller wrote:

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.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I don't assume that Aaron (or myself) hates Trump just because of being anti-Trump, nor do I think it's a charitable accusation. I also don't assume that because you are anti-Biden/Hillary that you hate them, though you can correct me if I'm wrong.

I said "hate" because there is a focus by many here on solely on Trump. If you feel your conscience is free of hate, then I'm sorry.

There are a lot of good motives for wanting to keep records, ESPECIALLY when members of the press and military regularly lie to cast him in a bad light. Does [Trump-hater-disliker] consider that? no.

Many many presidents (I would not be surprised to find it's all) have retained similar records. Does the idea of equal treatment under the law make [Trump-hater-disliker] ask why Trump is being singled out? no.

The court actually ruled in Clinton's case (2012) that the choice of whether to retain such records was up to the president. Does [Trump-hater-disliker] consider those? no.

Biden's family was paid HUGE amounts of from entities in Ukraine and then when he became president, Biden sent Ukraine HUGE amounts of money. Just this last week documents were finally released that Biden was allegedly paid 5million from Ukraine. I do not see any threads about Biden corruption. Maybe I missed them.

Some of them are good and some are bad. But from reading the reports of the indictment, I don't think anyone can say he is unjustly charged. The charges have to be proved in court, but he wasn't just holding on to records to "set the record straight" ... he was holding onto secret documents he was not entitled to.

That's the charge, anyway, yet to be proved.

Personally I think he is guilty and should suffer the full penalty of the law.

However, there is a long way between here and conviction, much less sentencing.

I sincerely hope that Trump is not the nominee. If he is, I would say you will be saying goodbye to the Republican party as we know it. You will also be saying "hello" to president Joe Manchin (or similar) if it is Biden vs. Trump on the main party tickets.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Yes, Trump's handling of the matter was strange, but on the flip side, the documents Trump had weren't available to any hacker who wanted them on the Internet. Hilliary's were.

The Clinton fiasco is massively more problematic than Trump's because to get to Trump's bathroom (and ballroom apparently), you had to get past the Secret Service. That wasn't the case with Clinton's server.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Dan Miller wrote: The court actually ruled in Clinton's case (2012) that the choice of whether to retain such records was up to the president. Does [Trump-hater-disliker] consider those? no.

I actually have considered the Clinton case from 2012. It involved personal journal type material created directly by Clinton. It didn't involve classified material created by other government agencies, so it doesn't really apply to what Trump is charged with.

I read a piece by Dan McLaughlin at National Review. I think it's behind their paywall, but he does point out ways that the case against Trump could fall apart.

If the government can prove the allegations, I think Trump is toast.

If they can't, he could survive even this.

My personal opinion is that he is guilty and should not be the Republican nominee. But that and a few bucks will buy you a cup of coffee, so who knows?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3