I think the MarALago search happened on the 8th. Could be wrong. Not in the neighborhood.
1 Like
yesterday. One day after yesterday is today
1 Like
I misunderstood which item you were thinking of as happening today.
If the writer wants to imply causation, the writer might use a phrase like âevent b happened x days after event aâ, as opposed to âevent b happened todayâ. YMMV.
1 Like
I think you may be thinking mid-2008. The primaries donât start until January of the year of the election which is leap year/summer Olympics year so 2008.
1 Like
Me.
1 Like
By mid-2007 the primary campaigns are well underway. I think the first debates were in the summer. As you say, the first primary is in January, so they are certainly campaigning well before that.
I expect the 2024 campaigns will be in full swing by Summer 2023.
Rules around email changed a lot during the 2000s, especially in the early half of the decade. I didnât think w used email much, but i an not sure his use of it is really a good example of how anyone should act, good or bad
I would not be surprised if the rules among government officials was still evolving into the early Obama administration. This is something that has become a lot more obvious in the last decade. We canât apply todayâs rules to prior administrations.
So anything Trump did that compares to Hillaryâs emails is already going to be worse.
4 Likes
Right so your opinion is no matter what Trump did, it is worse than Hillary. Got it.
I donât think thatâs what he said. I read it as:
âDue to evolving standards on internet security in the first decade of the 21st century, it is reasonable to hold the Trump and Biden administrations to a higher standard than the Obama administration and it is reasonable to hold the Obama administration to a higher standard than the George W Bush administration.â
4 Likes
While rules did evolve, it was clear what the rules were at the time. In 1993 when email was still basically in itâs infancy Podesta sent an email to all presidential staff that the Presidential Records Act required staff to preserve all records including email. WH memos in 1997 and 2000 indicate staff were required to only use the White House email system for official business.
Email was pretty ubiquitous by the early 2000âs, and thereâs plenty of direct evidence that Wâs administration was deliberately using the separate domain to avoid public records scrutiny. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Itâs not true that email was not used much in that administration. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington indicated 5 million emails were lost due to the use of the separate domain. CREW was a big part of why this scandal came to light at the time, publicizing the server and writing to Henry Waxman to start a congressional investigation.
Clearly. We should only go by what standards were at the time.
1 Like
Yeah, Iâm getting curiouser and curiouser here.
And apparently it was elevated to Felony based on a law Trump signed in 2018. Canât make this up.
3 Likes
Maybe I should have included the other quotes. The_Pres has asserted that Trumpâs actions were at least as bad or worse than Hillaryâs 3 times in this thread. In none of them was it pointed out how they could be considered worse based on currently known facts.
You could make the opposite case. Since we have never actually punished people for committing crimes with emails and texts, itâs a good idea to always commit crimes with emails and texts.
That really doesnât seem like The_Presidentâs meaning, but Iâll let him speak for himself.
I meant opposite case against him. Not what he actually meant.
This does feel like a trapâŚ
National Archives requests classifieds documents.
Trump hands over some. Keeps some. Burns some.
The FBI knows some are at Mar-A-Lago, but canât be sure what.
Performs the raid. Comes up with some boring things.
Trump wins the Witch Hunt game. And does victory laps for 2 years.
1 Like
Some are theorizing that this move is an attempt to disqualify Trump from running for office under this federal statute:
Iâm not buying it other than as a strategy, as I imagine the statute will get overturned as unconstitutional if challenged to the supreme court. That could still be campaign fodder.
Trump should be disqualified under the 14th Amendment for participating in an insurrection. That would be constitutional, but I doubt congress would pull that off. Could make for an interesting January 6th, 2025 if Trump wins a majority of electoral votes. Note that I assume Trump would indeed be the new president if that were the case, but it could produce a Constitutional crisis.
I read some lawyers saying that there was a similar case already and basically since the constitution spells out what the qualifications are for running for president a statute isnât going to be able to impose additional restrictrions - it would require a constitutional amendment. So that law wouldnât prevent Trump from running for President.