Unit2Sucks said:
I'm starting to question how reliable BG's breathless defenses of Trump in the stolen government documents case were. If we can't trust a self-proclaimed Trump critic like BG to accurately evaluate a situation, who can we trust?
BearGoggles said:
I think the FBI and DOJ likely overreached in pursuing the warrant - but until we know the nature of the "documents marked classified" I'm not sure. Hopefully more detail will come out - though we already have seen misleading leaking from the DOJ (what happened to the "nuclear secrets" claim?).
The scope of the warrant has been revealed to be overly broad (probably unconstitutionally so) - lots of people on the left think that's the case. I think it remains unclear whether there's an actual criminal case, though pursuing a criminal case is not necessarily a requirement to pursuing a warrant.
I still think there's an obvious double standard. No one has explained to me why a warrant was pursued for Trump vs. HRC (or for that matter Comey). Or why many in HRCs camp (e.g., Cheryl Mills) were given immunity in exchange for an agreement to produce materials that could have been seized by warrant. Why did the DOJ negotiate with (and make unprecedented concessions to) the Clinton team, but raid Trump?
As is typical, Trump is his own worst enemy - there is seemingly no rational explanation for his behavior (which, again, is typical). He has hired (with limited exception) mediocre attorneys who are doing him no favors. No surprise there.
My post that you quoted is actually holding up quite well, particularly the part about not having all of the evidence. That is still the case. The WaPo article you linked to continues to have only anonymous "government sources" which has proven very unreliable in the past, like when they told us that the Steele Dossier was not used in the FISA court and/or that Mueller would be indicting trump "soon."
I know it fits your narrative so there's confirmation bias. But it is remarkable how you cite these thinly sourced press reports, from the same provably unreliable publications, as if they are true. Fool you one, shame on the press. Fool you over and over again, shame on you. But your happy to be the fool.
And for the record, I posted just the other day that Trump's greatest exposure was the Florida case, as opposed to the NY indictment.
____________
I think the FBI and DOJ likely overreached in pursuing the warrant -
but until we know the nature of the "documents marked classified" I'm not sure. Hopefully more detail will come out - t
hough we already have seen misleading leaking from the DOJ (what happened to the "nuclear secrets" claim?).
The scope of the warrant has been revealed to be overly broad (probably unconstitutionally so) - lots of people on the left think that's the case. I think it remains unclear whether there's an actual criminal case, though pursuing a criminal case is not necessarily a requirement to pursuing a warrant.
I still think there's an obvious double standard. No one has explained to me why a warrant was pursued for Trump vs. HRC (or for that matter Comey). Or why many in HRCs camp (e.g., Cheryl Mills) were given immunity in exchange for an agreement to produce materials that could have been seized by warrant. Why did the DOJ negotiate with (and make unprecedented concessions to) the Clinton team, but raid Trump?
As is typical, Trump is his own worst enemy - there is seemingly no rational explanation for his behavior (which, again, is typical). He has hired (with limited exception) mediocre attorneys who are doing him no favors. No surprise there.
