Whoa . . . A lot of back and forth since I posted. Sorry for delay in response; busy yesterday. Rgio is correct that the point of my entire post is that claims of a double standard, a rigged justice system, or a weaponized DOJ are not defenses of Trump on the merits.
...
I was wondering where you were.... it was tough to watch this morning while sitting on my hands.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Oct 30, 2025 - 9:38am
kurtster wrote:
you wrote :
The problem I have is that you often appear to be focused to the point of obsession with what you see as double standards. In doing so, you often are not defending alleged misconduct in and of itself, on the merits, but instead asserting your belief that someone else had done the same or worse without consequence. ... This smacks of two wrongs do make a right. A prime example of this is Trump seeking vindication by demanding the prosecution of his political enemies by the DOJ, claiming he is justified in doing so because Biden âweaponizedâ the DOJ against him and his supporters ... The same specious reasoning was applied to the prosecution of Trump for possession of classified documents. Trump supporters did not purport to defend him on the merits. Instead, they claimed a double standard because Biden was not being prosecuted for his possession of classified documents (neither was Pence).
I am having a hard time following your logic.
In the last paragraph, you cite the claim of a double standard because Biden was not prosecuted, along with Pence, for possession of classified documents and Trump was. With that are you saying that Trump should not have been prosecuted at all or are you saying that Biden should have been prosecuted along with Trump ? They all had classified documents, yet only one was prosecuted. Should no one have been prosecuted or all of them ? Help me out here.
Whoa . . . A lot of back and forth since I posted. Sorry for delay in response; busy yesterday. Rgio is correct that the point of my entire post is that claims of a double standard, a rigged justice system, or a weaponized DOJ are not defenses of Trump on the merits.
The point of that part of my post that you have questioned is that it is not a defense of Trump on the merits to allege that he was subject to a double standard when he was prosecuted for violations of laws relating to the possession of classified documents when Biden was not. At most, that could only surface in court as a motion to dismiss based on selective prosecution and, as explained by the Supreme Court: âA selective prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought charges for reasons forbidden by the Constitution.â In sum, even if Trumpâs case had been dismissed because of selective prosecution, that would not mean that Trump was innocent. (Nor does the dismissal of the case because Judge Cannon found special counsel Jack Smith to be unlawfully appointed).
Prosecutions for unlawfully obtaining and retaining classified documents must prove elements of intentionality. Possession alone is not sufficient. The obtaining and retention of the classified documents must be knowing and willful. Trump willfully retained the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. That was not the case with Biden (or Pence). Therefore, it is not at all true, as you suggest, that both Trump and Biden should have been prosecuted or neither should have been. Determinations of whether to prosecute are made on a case-by-case basis by prosecutors based on an assessment of the facts, evidence, and law. As rgio has noted, Biden and Pence immediately returned the documents. Trump did not. That and other factors distinguished their cases from his.
As I explained in a post here at the time:
There is no question that Trump chose to retain the classified documents in defiance of a grand jury subpoena. We know this because his attorney, Evan Corcoran, subsequently testified to the grand jury that when he had attested to DOJ in June 2022 that the documents being turned over at that time were all of the documents responsive to the subpoena he had located after conducting a required due diligence search, he had only searched the documents in the storage room because he was unaware that other possibly responsive documents had been moved out of that storage room by aides at Trumpâs direction.
Corcoran only testified before the grand jury after the presiding judge ruled that the attorney-client privilege that normally would have barred such testimony by him had been pierced. Corcoran also had taken contemporaneous notes at the time that also were produced before the grand jury. Contemporaneous notes adds exponentially to the credibility of a witness. . If this goes to trial, Corcoran will be a virtually unassailable witness against Trump. The Trump defense will move to suppress Corcoranâs testimony by arguing that the prior judge had erred in ruling that the attorney-client privilege had been pierced. If that motion fails, Trump will be convicted based on Corcoranâs testimony and the surveillance tapes showing Walt Nauta moved boxes of documents from the storage room to Trumpâs office and residence.
In sum, this is not a witch hunt, and anyone making that claim is either totally ignorant of the facts/evidence or lying through their teeth.
And a follow-up conclusion of mine at the time that is still applicable today and dovetails with my post from the other day that started this discussion:
The only point of the claim (mantra) that this is a two-tiered system of justice especially rigged against Trump is to absolve he and his supporters from having to offer any defense of him on the merits.
Lastly, but perhaps most significantly and ominously, this has expanded into a deeply and widely held belief that retribution is not only justified, but imperative.
However, I do understand the need to get yourself through the night ...
Not dead yet. There are many news cycles left to fill with feckless activities that appease the bootlickers while he continues to grift for his family.
Rump is the worst president in our Nation's history.
He is Miller the ventriliquist's dummy who spouts his half-assed lines then has to let his committed followers believe that vile garbage.
Stupid racist morons are enjoying their performance.
Location: At the dude ranch / above the sea Gender:
Posted:
Oct 30, 2025 - 7:03am
kurtster wrote:
Really ?
MAGA bad. Trump bad.
That is all that is said in here.
That does sum it up pretty well.
The president posting his video of him dropping shit on Americans while heâs tearing up the White House and encouraging violence and ruining the safety/economy/education/retirement of its citizens while he profits off his personal deals - it just takes too long to type out.
I think there is a pretty easy litmus test to tell if someone is truly interested in getting to the truth of a matter or not. A truly objective person understands the value of opposing arguments and uses them to test their own beliefs and has no problem in deferring to the better argument. A dogmatist sees opposing arguments as an attack, no matter their merits, and will try to dispute or discredit opposing arguments with any means at their disposal. The same is true for democratic vs. authoritarian regimes. Democratic systems value the opposition as a check on arbitrary power. Authoritarian systems see the opposition as a threat to the exercise of arbitrary power. The first is loud and chaotic but agile, productive and strong. The second is fixed, boring as hell, woefully inefficient and unfair. Choose your camp.
I see no willingness to even consider an opposing view to the ones routinely expressed in here.
And any messenger with an opposing view is shot at in here instantly with no regard to the message attached.
So you are saying that there are some positive things about Trump and MAGA ?
I think there is a pretty easy litmus test to tell if someone is truly interested in getting to the truth of a matter or not.
A truly objective person understands the value of opposing arguments and uses them to test their own beliefs and has no problem in deferring to the better argument.
A dogmatist sees opposing arguments as an attack, no matter their merits, and will try to dispute or discredit opposing arguments with any means at their disposal.
The same is true for democratic vs. authoritarian regimes.
Democratic systems value the opposition as a check on arbitrary power.
Authoritarian systems see the opposition as a threat to the exercise of arbitrary power.
The first is loud and chaotic but agile, productive and strong.
The second is fixed, boring as hell, woefully inefficient and unfair.
That is what you get for interjecting yourself into someone else's discussion ... steeler is an attorney and you are not. I wanted his opinion, not yours.
I know you’re new here… but this is a public forum. DM him if you need advice.
A predictable response. You just can't resist. I asked for an opinion, not advice. I guess that you do not know the difference.
You felt the need to defend and interpret steeler's thoughts as if he is incapable of speaking for himself.
You have a compulsion for putting words in other peoples mouths. Much like the good captain does ...
Let's see if you got it right when he does respond.
I was addressing steeler on this not anyone else. But since you interjected yourself into this ...
Everyone had classified documents in their possession, correct ?
In that case, everyone should have been arrested, prosecuted and all the differences that you brought up would be sorted out in a trial. Not interpreted on the fly by those whose job it was was not to make these decisions. Their jobs were to arrest, not judge. Same goes with Clinton and Comey who famously said that no prosecutor would take her case. It was not Comey's decision to make.
Guilt or innocence is determined by the courts and the courts only.
You literally can't help yourself...
Whatabout...whatabout...whatabout....ignore the Trump facts... whatabout.
It was Steeler's point (I think).
At least you agree that Trump is a felon and sexual abuser... since it was determined by the courts.
... They all had classified documents, yet only one was prosecuted. Should no one have been prosecuted or all of them ? Help me out here.
This is precisely the point. You either lack the intelligence to understand differences, or have decided to ignore any and all facts associated with politicians in defense of the tribe. ...
Either you see the difference and don't care (in this case, you seem to care a great deal about details for others), or you're not intellectually capable of understanding the differences. Which is it?
I was addressing steeler on this not anyone else. But since you interjected yourself into this ...
Everyone had classified documents in their possession, correct ?
In that case, everyone should have been arrested, prosecuted and all the differences that you brought up would be sorted out in a trial. Not interpreted on the fly by those whose job it was was not to make these decisions. Their jobs were to arrest, not judge. Same goes with Clinton and Comey who famously said that no prosecutor would take her case. It was not Comey's decision to make.
Guilt or innocence is determined by the courts and the courts only.
Location: At the dude ranch / above the sea Gender:
Posted:
Oct 29, 2025 - 8:16am
rgio wrote:
This is precisely the point. You either lack the intelligence to understand differences, or have decided to ignore any and all facts associated with politicians in defense of the tribe.
Regarding the docs:
Biden voluntarily returned classified documents once discovered, consented to searches, sat for voluntary interviews, and cooperated fully with investigators.
Trump refused to return documents despite multiple requests, falsely claimed he'd fully cooperated, and enlisted others to obstruct justice, destroy evidence, and lie about the situation.
Either you see the difference and don't care (in this case, you seem to care a great deal about details for others), or you're not intellectually capable of understanding the differences. Which is it?
...
They all had classified documents, yet only one was prosecuted. Should no one have been prosecuted or all of them ? Help me out here.
This is precisely the point. You either lack the intelligence to understand differences, or have decided to ignore any and all facts associated with politicians in defense of the tribe.
Regarding the docs:
Biden voluntarily returned classified documents once discovered, consented to searches, sat for voluntary interviews, and cooperated fully with investigators.
Trump refused to return documents despite multiple requests, falsely claimed he'd fully cooperated, and enlisted others to obstruct justice, destroy evidence, and lie about the situation.
Either you see the difference and don't care (in this case, you seem to care a great deal about details for others), or you're not intellectually capable of understanding the differences. Which is it?
