"Trump again summons the mob"
Aug 30, 2022 07:43:44 #
"Richard M. Nixon famously deployed the madman theory of foreign policy, directing aides to suggest to his counterparts overseas that they might not be able to control a volatile and reckless president. Now, Donald Trump and his defenders are using a version of that gambit to deter the Justice Department from prosecuting the former president, arguing that going after Trump would dangerously incite his already angry followers.
Trump had his lawyer deliver this sinister message to Attorney General Merrick Garland — wrapped in a purported effort to calm the waters. “President Trump wants the Attorney General to know that he has been hearing from people all over the country about the raid. If there was one word to describe their mood, it is ‘angry,’ ” a Trump lawyer told a senior Justice Department official three days after the search at Mar-a-Lago. “The heat is building up. The pressure is building up. Wh**ever I can do to take the heat down, to bring the pressure down, just let us know.”
Then, on Sunday, Trump acolyte Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) didn’t bother with the disingenuous niceties. He went straight to the threat. “Most Republicans, including me, believe when it comes to Trump, there is no law. It’s all about getting him,” Graham said on Fox News, citing the decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for having classified information on her private email servers. “And I’ll say this: If there’s a prosecution of Donald Trump for mishandling classified information after the Clinton debacle … there’ll be r**ts in the streets.”
The Post's View: Lindsey Graham’s prediction of r**ts reads more like a threat
Lest you missed his point, Graham said the phrase twice — and then Trump reposted his comments on his social media platform. A retired Air Force lawyer and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham said nothing to convey dismay over the prospect of violence; to the contrary, his clear meaning was that outrage would be justified.
Let’s address that supposed “double standard” between Trump and Hillary Clinton: There isn’t one. Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state was, as I said at the time, sloppy and exasperating. She shouldn’t have used her private email address for official business, and she should have been more careful about classified information being on it. This is, as then-FBI Director James B. Comey concluded, a far cry from an indictable offense.
Think what you will about the wisdom of Comey’s July 2016 statement that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” Comey laid out a convincing distinction between what Clinton did and previous indictments for mishandling classified information, as in the cases of Gen. David H. Petraeus and former national security adviser Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger. Clinton and her aides, he suggested, were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
But, Comey said, “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. We do not see those things here.”
How does Trump’s conduct fit into this rubric? With so much of the evidence under seal, we can’t tell for sure. But we know, based on the redacted affidavit, that there appear to be significant differences between the Clinton and Trump situations.
In Clinton’s case, Comey said, that “only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information”; Trump, by contrast, appears to have been fully on notice that he had classified materials whose return authorities were desperately seeking. Investigators found 113 Clinton emails containing information that was classified at the time; more than 300 documents with classified markings have been recovered from Trump. Finally, in Trump’s case, the government had “probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found” at Mar-a-Lago, according to the affidavit.
Greg Sargent: Lindsey Graham’s vile ‘r**ts’ threat gives away Trump’s game
Not that those distinctions, if they hold up, will convince anyone in Trump’s camp. R**ts in the streets might well ensue if he is criminally charged. Garland shouldn’t let that prospect affect his judgment about the correct course of action. Prosecutors are supposed to be confident of winning conviction before bringing a case, but that doesn’t mean they should be deterred from taking steps that might be unpopular if they believe that prosecution serves the public interest.
The Justice Department’s Principles of Federal Prosecution lay out the considerations: “Where the law and the facts create a sound, prosecutable case,” prosecutors are told, “the likelihood of an acquittal due to unpopularity of some aspect of the prosecution or because of the overwhelming popularity of the defendant or his/her cause is not a factor prohibiting prosecution.”
A sound, prosecutable case. That’s the test — not intimations of mayhem from Trump and his allies only too happy to summon the mob, once again, to his defense.
Ruth Marcus
Trump had his lawyer deliver this sinister message to Attorney General Merrick Garland — wrapped in a purported effort to calm the waters. “President Trump wants the Attorney General to know that he has been hearing from people all over the country about the raid. If there was one word to describe their mood, it is ‘angry,’ ” a Trump lawyer told a senior Justice Department official three days after the search at Mar-a-Lago. “The heat is building up. The pressure is building up. Wh**ever I can do to take the heat down, to bring the pressure down, just let us know.”
Then, on Sunday, Trump acolyte Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) didn’t bother with the disingenuous niceties. He went straight to the threat. “Most Republicans, including me, believe when it comes to Trump, there is no law. It’s all about getting him,” Graham said on Fox News, citing the decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for having classified information on her private email servers. “And I’ll say this: If there’s a prosecution of Donald Trump for mishandling classified information after the Clinton debacle … there’ll be r**ts in the streets.”
The Post's View: Lindsey Graham’s prediction of r**ts reads more like a threat
Lest you missed his point, Graham said the phrase twice — and then Trump reposted his comments on his social media platform. A retired Air Force lawyer and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham said nothing to convey dismay over the prospect of violence; to the contrary, his clear meaning was that outrage would be justified.
Let’s address that supposed “double standard” between Trump and Hillary Clinton: There isn’t one. Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state was, as I said at the time, sloppy and exasperating. She shouldn’t have used her private email address for official business, and she should have been more careful about classified information being on it. This is, as then-FBI Director James B. Comey concluded, a far cry from an indictable offense.
Think what you will about the wisdom of Comey’s July 2016 statement that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” Comey laid out a convincing distinction between what Clinton did and previous indictments for mishandling classified information, as in the cases of Gen. David H. Petraeus and former national security adviser Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger. Clinton and her aides, he suggested, were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
But, Comey said, “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. We do not see those things here.”
How does Trump’s conduct fit into this rubric? With so much of the evidence under seal, we can’t tell for sure. But we know, based on the redacted affidavit, that there appear to be significant differences between the Clinton and Trump situations.
In Clinton’s case, Comey said, that “only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information”; Trump, by contrast, appears to have been fully on notice that he had classified materials whose return authorities were desperately seeking. Investigators found 113 Clinton emails containing information that was classified at the time; more than 300 documents with classified markings have been recovered from Trump. Finally, in Trump’s case, the government had “probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found” at Mar-a-Lago, according to the affidavit.
Greg Sargent: Lindsey Graham’s vile ‘r**ts’ threat gives away Trump’s game
Not that those distinctions, if they hold up, will convince anyone in Trump’s camp. R**ts in the streets might well ensue if he is criminally charged. Garland shouldn’t let that prospect affect his judgment about the correct course of action. Prosecutors are supposed to be confident of winning conviction before bringing a case, but that doesn’t mean they should be deterred from taking steps that might be unpopular if they believe that prosecution serves the public interest.
The Justice Department’s Principles of Federal Prosecution lay out the considerations: “Where the law and the facts create a sound, prosecutable case,” prosecutors are told, “the likelihood of an acquittal due to unpopularity of some aspect of the prosecution or because of the overwhelming popularity of the defendant or his/her cause is not a factor prohibiting prosecution.”
A sound, prosecutable case. That’s the test — not intimations of mayhem from Trump and his allies only too happy to summon the mob, once again, to his defense.
Ruth Marcus
Aug 30, 2022 07:44:23 #
Aug 30, 2022 09:31:22 #
I don't known about you but I has effect of Mr. Moron' s BS time to put him in jail and let him die there, so America can move on.
Aug 30, 2022 09:38:56 #
The United States needs to move on, before the damage is irreparable, but even after Trump is gone, Trumpism will still be a problem.
Aug 30, 2022 09:51:18 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
The United States needs to move on, before the damage is irreparable, but even after Trump is gone, Trumpism will still be a problem.
If history is any guide you are right. Civil War ended in 1865 and here we are still fight for equal rights for people in America.
Aug 30, 2022 17:18:03 #
Aug 30, 2022 19:03:49 #
Aug 30, 2022 19:07:22 #
Aug 30, 2022 20:14:36 #
Trump enjoyed the r**t he instigated on J****** 6th—it stoked his massive, but insecure ego; and he will do it again. It will be even “wild”er.
Aug 30, 2022 20:19:30 #
Racmanaz
Loc: Sunny Tucson!
Kmgw9v wrote:
Trump enjoyed the r**t he instigated on J****** 6th—it stoked his massive, but insecure ego; and he will do it again. It will be even “wild”er.
Lol why do you continue to spout out the same BS lie? It is as if you have no integrity or you don't really care about t***h or facts. You suffer from a severe case of TDS.
Aug 30, 2022 20:29:34 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
Are Trump crazies mobilizing now?
Such a hypocrite, when you people r**t in the streets, burn down businesses, beat and bloody people, k**l dozens it is called social justice, when the right becomes angry because of political and governmental corruption, well you call it an i**********n.
Such BS.
Aug 30, 2022 20:31:48 #
Racmanaz
Loc: Sunny Tucson!
Blurryeyed wrote:
Such a hypocrite, when you people r**t in the streets, burn down businesses, beat and bloody people, k**l dozens it is called social justice, when the right becomes angry because of political and governmental corruption, well you call it an i**********n.
Such BS.
Such BS.
At least 25 people were k*****g by Democrat r**ts in 2020 and costing Americans upwards of $2 billion dollars on damages.
Aug 30, 2022 23:29:34 #
Racmanaz wrote:
At least 25 people were k*****g by Democrat r**ts in 2020 and costing Americans upwards of $2 billion dollars on damages.
And there were charges, arrest and convictions
Aug 30, 2022 23:45:35 #
Racmanaz
Loc: Sunny Tucson!
DennyT wrote:
And there were charges, arrest and convictions
What does that have to do with the point of my post? We are addressing the hypocrisy of the Left.
Aug 31, 2022 01:39:30 #
Trump had info about Clinton? Are Republicans still bothered by the Clintons? Hahaha!
Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Hahaha!
Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Hahaha!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.