1. Trump will be arraigned on criminal charges at a federal courthouse in Miami today
The indictment is devastating and detailed
But all day you'll hear from pundits and politicians making outrageous claims on Trump's behalf
This thread is YOUR GUIDE TO ALL THE NONSENSE
🧵
2. The most common argument is that HILLARY CLINTON did the same thing as Secretary of State when she discussed classified information on a private email server.
Clinton should not have used a private email server, but the situation was VERY different
3. Trump defenders like the WSJ editorial board note that former FBI Director James Comey said that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” against Clinton.
But they leave out WHY Comey said prosectors wouldn't bring a case
4. In order to secure a conviction under the Espionage Act prosecutors need to prove the mishandling of national defense info was WILLFUL
So the cases brought involved "clearly intentional and willful mishandling" OR "efforts to obstruct justice," Comey said
5. In Trump's case there is literally an audio tape where he admits he knows a document is classified national defense information and shows it to people with no security clearances anyway
That's willful and intentional
6. Further, the indictment is full of evidence Trump purposely obstructed efforts to recover the documents, including:
1. Suggesting his attorney lie to the FBI
2. Directing his assistant to move boxes of classified info
3. Suggesting his attorney hide or destroy documents
7. In contrast, when the FBI requested work-related emails from Clinton's personal server, Clinton, through her attorneys, produced them.
Trump's defenders frequently cite the 30,000 emails Clinton's attorneys determined were not work-related and later deleted.
8. But the FBI checked to see if relevant materials were intentionally withheld by reviewing the email accounts of the gov't officials Clinton corresponded with.
The FBI found no evidence that any "work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."
9. The Wall Street Journal editorial board also complained that "Biden had old classified files stored in his Delaware garage next to his sports car."
This complaint ignores the fact that Biden is also under investigation for this behavior by a separate special counsel
10. But, like Clinton, Biden is unlikely to be charged because he has been cooperative. The investigation began not because of any request but because Biden voluntarily reported that classified documents were found at Biden's UPenn office.
11. The case was dismissed
The line frequently cited by right-wing media is: "The Presidential Records Act does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President"
12. But the case against Trump does not involve determining whether the documents at issue are personal records that Trump can retain or a presidential record that should be in possession of the Archivist.
13. Under the Espionage Act, the issue is Trump shared NATIONAL DEFENSE INFORMATION with unauthorized persons and failed to return the documents containing the information to government officials.
14. Trump's defenders sometimes acknowledge that Trump probably broke the law by indicting him would set a DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.
BIDEN AND HIS FAMILY WILL BE NEXT, they warn
15. Either decision made by special counsel Jack Smith would set a precedent. Declining to prosecute, even after uncovering substantial evidence that Trump committed crimes, would set the precedent that a former president is exempt from federal criminal laws after leaving office.
16. That exemption would extend to the laws in place to protect national defense information.
Prosecuting Trump sets the precedent that former presidents can be prosecuted.
Which is more dangerous?
17. PLEASE do not rely on this website for accurate information.
The guy who owns this site is infatuated with right-wing propaganda
Instead, subscribe to Popular Information and get accurate info in your inbox
It's FREE to sign up
@juddlegum Hillary's private email server was private because there were no public, secure options at the time (early 2000s) and it was set up by the secret service. It's always been a red herring.
@illyana @juddlegum it was 2009–2013, but I think that doesn't really matter. What she was doing was incredibly clowny. (The server wasn't even configured and maintained competently!) Judd's points remain, of course – I don't think there's any reason to believe she had nefarious intent, and she cooperated with investigators. And she isn't the only Secretary of State to have a sketchy email set-up.
"no public, secure options at the time" She shouldn't have used public options, of course. I know this kind of thing has happened, but I don't think we want high level officials using hotmail.
