EverythingIsFine
No bio...
User ID: 1043
EverythingIsFine
10mo ago
I think the FBI basically concluded something very similar to what you and I are both saying, in fact, which is not actually that far apart.
A few key quotes from the actual statement:
Was there deliberate deletion? Seems not (they also reviewed the attorney process and found that basically it was just lazy and not very particular, using mostly header searches, thus not consistent with behavior trying to hide specific stuff)
I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.
Was the rule-breaking willful? No, but "extremely careless".
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information
Should she have known better for certain conversations? Yes. I think your comment is right on the money about this point!!!
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
But let's take a step back. I am in total agreement that it was monumentally stupid of her. But Hillary used a freaking BlackBerry. She wasn't that tech savvy. She ignored warnings about it being insecure. And as far as I can tell, they just discussed classified topics, with occasional lower level (confidential) copy-pasting going on, they weren't attaching fully marked documents.. I also don't think she really did the majority of her regular work via email either, like most of us do. It's not like 100% of her communications were through email like today they might be.
Was it hacked ever? No direct evidence, but didn't expect any, so hard to say. They use the phrase "possible":
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
So does it meet the standard I propose, of "willful"? What about similar cases? The FBI here outlines four key areas that can help decide. THIS is the critical paragraph. Emphasis mine:
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.
While Hillary lied to the public a lot about the facts, she didn't lie to investigators about it. Thus no obstruction allegation. This is a key difference when comparing the Trump case, in addition to the "willful" aspect which is applicable to his actions after the Archives directly asked for the classified stuff back. That's why I made a comparison to "criminal negligence", which you seem to think is grounds for prosecution. I think that's a fair opinion to have, but ultimately a bad idea. Like in plane crashes, it's often best to allow immunity in these cases and focus on improving processes to learn from the mistakes and make sure it doesn't happen again. Which would have been the case if Trump had not been so incredibly prideful so as to refuse to return things and attempt to hide them when officially asked told to. She gave bad excuses, but not horrible ones. Avoiding FOIA requests is borderline illegal to illegal but not as severe a violation. Personal convenience was cited (she didn't want to give up her BlackBerry or use several phones).
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
The above just lays out explicitly what we already know: A run of the mill employee might be charged, but civilian heads of department and top leaders get a bit more leeway. That's not super great, but also understandable. Also, it's important to ask-- were the people around her careful (i.e. was she an anomaly? No. She wasn't too abnormal. Just an old person who hates change and dislikes personal convenience.
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.
In summary: None of these reasons apply to Trump. I think it's totally appropriate and also consistent with the past to have him charged, found guilty, and then given a slap on the wrist type of sentence (or have the current President pardon him, only at that stage, similar to what happened with Nixon.)
I don't feel like these responses are "equal". I think a questionnaire with the goal or producing interesting data has to have each point be at least somewhat compelling, even if it isn't always going to be even. 1 and 2 sound so similar and are vague, while 4 is pretty radical.
For example I would say these would be better responses below (plus I would clean up the question phrasing so that the "pros and cons" are more explicit, or move some of the implications to the answer portion). Also, as an aside, the cost of the actual farm land itself is completely irrelevant from a macro perspective, as systemically the costs are aggregated -- unless the individual welfare of farmers themselves is intended to be part of the question? I feel like that's adding too many dimensions to the question however. Ideally, I think you only want to involve two primary "axes" at a time, otherwise it creates too many complications for your data modeling. There's a reason most political tests only try to isolate one at a time. Three is a lot and four is crazy. Right now, as far as I can tell from BOTH the question AND the answers, is you are trying to gauge if the responder thinks food insecurity is a national security issue (1), if they care or agree that developing farmland causes ecological damage (2), if they like or accept globalism as an ideal trade system (3), if they support forcible wealth or resource distribution (4), and how much they value the economic well-being of farmers (5).
Could be wrong about the above, but it seems to me that if you want qualitative analysis you may as well just make it a total free response, or maybe throw in a few "suggestions" as prompts. From a data perspective though, assuming you want to use all questions to generate a holistic assessment, I just don't agree with your current approach.
How I would phrase:
A small but densely populated island country doesn't produce enough food to feed its population. Food production continues declining as both farmland is developed for urban and industrial use. The country has many allies and participates in global trade and so has unfettered access to food imports. Still, government advisers have identified food insecurity as a key vulnerability for the country in the case of a conflict or severe economic shock.
-
Do nothing because the country’s aggregate wealth and income is maximized by specializing in other products and importing food is cost-effective.
-
Raise tariffs, use subsidies, or other measures to incentivize farmers to grow more food and protect farmland, even if it raises the price of food, land, or taxes, because it is a national security vulnerability and to be more self-sufficient.
And leave it at that. Narrow it down to an assessment of issues (1) and (3) of the five listed above from your original question. Aren't these realistically the only true options? Basically original options 1 and 3, because 2 brings ecological conservation and farmer's welfare into the mix for no reason, forces them to be coupled, and is the only place it's mentioned, while 4 doesn't even make sense. Farmland is by definition already used macro-wise to farm, and changing who exactly owns the farmland (it's implied that all farmers are exploited share-croppers in the question, but not stated) isn't going to magically change aggregate food production? And an important final detail: Is the population of the island increasing, increasing rapidly, or flat? (Plus, one wonders how big the deficit is -- implied is that all the solutions would be effective)
I might be missing your point about philosophical vs practical views entirely, but I've always thought that a lot of the compass quizzes I've taken are at least partially true to life?
EverythingIsFine
10mo ago
I think it's as simple as: SE is positioned as a high-quality Q and A site above all else. In particular high-volume users and mods are particularly prideful about this and really, really hate low-effort stuff (plus, again, pride). SE rightfully banned chatGPT and AI content both in answering questions as well as (AFAIK) posing questions, both in generation as well as clarification. This lead to the site more or less continuing as before as well as a lot of bans and mod action to preserve this, coordinated with the site/network as a whole. They then did an about-face, threw the gates open to AI content, and have forbidden mods for banning people (or even doing more regular moderation) for AI content-related stuff. The manner in which this was done feels to some like shoving it down their throat.
So the mods and hyper-active users are unhappy. It should be mentioned that although SE feels like a Wikipedia-type site, and operates similarly in some ways, it's NOT. It's owned by a for-profit ed-tech company.
EverythingIsFine
10mo ago
Hillary had mountains of intent/willfulness in doing what, exactly? Please state exactly what you're implying because it isn't at all obvious to me.
All I can tell is she was trying to hide embarrassing stuff from becoming plastered over the front page of the NYT, stuff like "yeah I secretly hate Obama" or whatever, not "oh I embezzled some money". Stuff like the DNC leaks, maybe a Hatch act violation or two. The private vs public line is always a bit fuzzy when it comes to FOIA type record keeping, this isn't anything new. The fact she had her own email SERVER (with accompanying insecurities and non-cleared IT guy), not merely her own private email (which others did do before her), is not exactly "retention", though it is criminally negligent IMO (my whole point is that negligence is technically illegal but not worth prosecuting as a precedent, but willful commission of an illegal act is).
Great point about circumstantial evidence, though.
EverythingIsFine
10mo ago
So here the facts specific to the case matter a lot. Investigations showed that the emails were sorted through and set to be deleted PRIOR to the public blowup and it becoming a campaign issue. The sysadmin in charge of the deletion seemed to have followed through on the deletion as a way to cover their own butt (fearing Clinton's retribution more than others, apparently). Given this information, what can we conclude or assume about intent? The presumption is of course that the private emails were in fact private and not "oh this looks illegal better get rid of it". Because at that time, it was still a FOIA-type, "avoid something embarrassing" concern, not a "let's hide illegal behavior" thing. Clinton wasn't even involved in this process directly.
EverythingIsFine
10mo ago
Jokes have elements of truth in them. And to take a holistic view is important. Most politicians would make the joke, and then clarify at some point. However Trump to my knowledge never ever released nor spoke about how he thought the email hacking was bad and shouldn't happen, nor warned against foreign interference. Thus I think we're justified at taking the "joke" at face value. We all know that one guy in our lives who makes mean jokes and then when called out on it goes "JK bro why so serious". It's a similar thing.
To be clear, I don't think the conclusion that Trump colluded in some way is correct. That's also what the investigations concluded, rightly. Justice was served in the end. But starting the investigation isn't out of the question, and people who are super outraged about the start of things ignore that politically, it seems to have helped him, if anything. So I fail to see the cause for outrage.
They did investigate Russia. They did a lot, and still do all the time. We just don't see the results of that sort of investigation because it's CIA business and not something that's usually public.
EverythingIsFine
10mo ago
First of all, Clinton seemed genuinely surprised that classified info was found on the server. After all, investigations showed that nothing was clearly marked as such. There was no moment where she was told by the government officially, "hey, shut this down" and then she said no. Intent was all about FOIA and disclosure avoidance (not appropriation of government secrets), which is bad and sorta illegal but nothing super new in government and she was punished appropriately (politically, by the public - hell she lost an election in part because of it).
Contrast Trump. He clearly has explicitly labeled classified stuff. He knows it's classified. The government very officially says "give it back" and he says "no". That's as plain as the nose on your face.
EverythingIsFine
10mo ago
I don't think you read my comment closely enough. I claimed both of them were due to shortsighted pride but one of them was a lesser, "omission" type deal and the other is a much more brazen "commission" type, which I do think should be treated differently. I think most people agree the intent of the server was to avoid embarrassing FOIA type revelations rather than a deliberate and insecure discussion of top secret stuff.
EverythingIsFine
10mo ago
Well the Clintons had undergone multiple decades of scrutiny before the election so it makes sense there's only so much "new" stuff. Whitewater, for example. If she had been new to politics like Trump, you'd see a similar level of scrutiny. And in fact if you sum up all the investigations on the Clintons over the years you probably get a similar scope. Trump has so many investigations because he was a businessman in a famously shady business (real estate and show business both tend to be full of obfuscation and do often hide real crime), not because of being a "threat" to the "establishment". And note that Justice was indeed served at the end of the day, most of the investigations didn't turn up too much and the one that did (impeachment) went through the normal process and he was found not guilty. End of story. I know people were bitter about investigations starting but in the end he wasn't actually harmed all that much?
It also makes zero sense that Hillary would deliberately allow her personal email to be hacked. That's an insane suggestion and you should feel bad for making it. Note that I never accused Trump of actually cooperating with a foreign power or anything. Just like in Hillary's case, it's a pride thing, but manifested a different way. When you're no longer the President, you are no longer the President! You can't just make your own rules, much less retroactively, you have to "declare" them and then follow them. That's what the whole presidential order system is for. Trump even himself admitted that he could have but did NOT declassify these things in order to keep them. And either you're being disingenuous or are misinformed when you say we don't know what's in the documents. We have a decent idea of at least a few articles, and they are most definitely classified. And remember, the classification system exists to protect harmful secrets from becoming public. It defeats the whole purpose if you arbitrarily declare manifestly harmful secrets to be declassified (read: non-harmful) when they clearly still have the same potential for harm.
Don't get me wrong, I DO think Hillary should have been charged with a lesser crime of negligence and maybe obstruction, but in terms of setting a precedent it's more important to convey to future leaders Cabinet level and up that negligence is bad and will hurt you politically but willful disobedience will result in criminal charges. That's a reasonable precedent in my opinion. After all we don't want to make a habit of charging former officials left and right, it leads to a cycle of retribution. You might ask, well won't this Trump thing lead to it? It wouldn't have if there wasn't WILLFUL lawbreaking involved.
EverythingIsFine
10mo ago
I think presumably the implication is that the FBI believes that ISIS truly does recruit online and that by re-routing some of the would-be terrorists to them, they are taking away "real" terrorists. This assumes that a) there is a finite number of people who would commit a terror attack for ISIS online (thus being a sort of zero-sum thing), and b) if the FBI doesn't help them, they will go to someone real who can. I think assumption A is probably fine, I don't really think that the FBI is somehow generating additional potential recruits by their actions, so a fixed pool generally seems to make sense. Assumption B is a bit trickier, but from a law enforcement perspective, is it truly worth the risk of ignoring potential terrorists because you're hoping that they aren't serious and that they will grow out of it or something? Furthermore, I don't have much sympathy to be honest for the so-called "false positives" in this kind of scenario. Even if you are (let's say) hoodwinked and egged on by the FBI to do things you don't want to do in actuality... nothing's really stopping you from just stopping these conversations? Unless their process violates assumption B (the honey traps somehow radicalizing MORE than a comparable "real ISIS" control group) I can't see this being a concern keeping many people up at night. It's not like going to a terrorist training camp is the kind of "whoopsie" that anyone could be suckered into doing.
EverythingIsFine
10mo ago
So what? That might sound flippant but it's truly not. What is the implication or application to politics here? What are we supposed to do with this information/what is the logical call to action? I think that's almost as important as discussing the actual contents.
Example. A lot might read your post and linked article, and let's say for the sake of argument it's all true. Some might say, "well this means Trump shouldn't be charged for the crimes he's currently accused of." Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Because at the end of the day, intent does matter. While Hillary is certainly guilty of thinking she's above the law, used to be coddled by the media, and having her wishes fulfilled by government bureaucrats, and being dishonest on top, she didn't intend to expose confidential or classified information and most of the email saga came down to a mixture of negligence and pride. Contrast Trump in the most recent classified docs saga. It's NOT an issue of over-classification (though it does exist). It's NOT a case of negligence, as he was given a number of chances to cooperate. It was WILLFUL retention of government secrets. It's not like he couldn't access these secrets -- I'm almost certain former presidents are given access to these materials if they are writing their memoirs, for example. It was the pride of "owning" them, though they manifestly weren't his. It doesn't matter how the investigation started, only how it ends.
Vague gestures at other would-be conspiracies sound much like the Steele Dossier inspired ones. Hunter Biden has gone through at least one GOP led congressional investigation. So far, not a whole lot to show.
EverythingIsFine
11mo ago
This is just off the cuff but honestly I’d expect the 90s research to be better not worse. My impression is online IQ tests with heavily self selected populations are too influential and hurt generalizability.
EverythingIsFine
11mo ago
I think you’re being pedantic and uncharitable. It is unprecedented for Trump himself to be in the wrong, per Barr. But that’s a hang up that you’re focusing on while missing the point, which is that Hillary or anyone else is an irrelevant distraction. The substance is: the fact that Barr calls this lawsuit out as different than past (alleged) “phony claims” is pretty telling. We should therefore be paying close attention to the indictment and resist the urge to write it off as yet another exercise in partisan hackery/deep state persecution. Because here we have an ardent Trump defender and an unquestionably experienced legal leader admitting Trump is in the wrong. Isn’t that enough to take it seriously? It should be viewed more or less on par with Jan 6th, or more seriously, because the wagons that you’d expect to circle aren’t actually circling.
EverythingIsFine
11mo ago
He said Trump was wrong. He also said and I quote from earlier in the article, “almost anyone else in the country would have returned the documents if asked”.
Sure the word unprecedented doesn’t specifically appear. But in terms of Trump scandals, from media hype to legitimate offenses, it’s clear Barr is saying that this particular scandal is far worse than any other that he witnessed. That’s along the same lines (no cross party comparison is directly made however).
EverythingIsFine
11mo ago
You asked about the Comey statement specifically. It was an independent investigation. And by all accounts Comey agonized about which phrasing to use and the conclusions and knew that whatever he said would be gone over with a fine toothed comb by the media as well as politicians alike. He knew that it was in some sense a no win situation for the FBI’s reputation, but the exact phrasing needed to be as defensible as possible to protect said reputation.
So yes, I think it’s very fair to say that every phrase was closely and carefully chosen to be accurate yes but also legally sound. That’s what the “sanitizing and proofing” is designed to do — not that anyone in the White House had much control over the contents!
EverythingIsFine
11mo ago
I don’t think you can simply call the entire body of WWII scholarship “suspicious narrative building”. I’m especially astonished to see an actual argument… arguing that the West’s meddling caused the war? Dude. It was brutal and vicious German expansionism, abetted by Soviet greed, that caused the invasion of multiple neighbors, an outright war of conquest. And that’s not even getting into the obvious Holocaust and associated war crimes angle. I do appreciate the source but it’s the height of narcisssism on the part of the two Americans quoted to take full responsibility for the UK going to war. They aren’t as influential as their egos think. Don’t forget Poland was the last straw of a long string of events and invasions. If you want to find a culprit, Munich is a good start as even Hitler admitted he was willing to back down if push came to shove. But the acquiescence gave him a false sense of weakness for later moves. In particular, it’s well documented Hitler thought until the very end that the UK wouldn’t join in and was a bit in denial when they did — but a lot of that had to do with his idea of Britain as a racially superior country, and in his schema the racial winners didn’t fight each other, and less the actual actions of the UK itself.
EverythingIsFine
11mo ago
Yeah that’s exactly where it breaks down, that’s a misunderstanding. Germany declared war on the US! Not the other way around. It wasn’t actually a total given that we would have preemptively declared on them first. And if we had declared first, it would have been a much more difficult sell to the public. Being the recipient, even if it may seem a bit of a technicality, nevertheless quieted a lot of domestic opposition. On top of all that, there’s the military reality of the Pacific campaign — pure numbers aren’t useful, as you need lots of ships to make use of those numbers, and time. While Europe was a lot easier to just ship over men by the hundred thousand much sooner, once the war is truly Axis vs Allies.
EverythingIsFine
11mo ago
Wouldn’t your point be considerably undermined by the near indisputable fact that Nazism was, in actual fact, a severe threat to both fundamental human right to life as well as world peace? And the fact that despite all this FDR actually failed to bring the US into war against the Nazis? There is no global Jewish conspiracy.
EverythingIsFine
11mo ago
To provide a further excellent piece of evidence, let’s ask Bill Barr, former Attorney General FOR TRUMP, who has decried other efforts as “witch hunts”.
In differentiating this investigation from others that examined Trump’s conduct, Barr said he had defended Trump in the past — including in response to Alvin Bragg’s recent indictment in New York — but this case is different.
“This idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, a victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous,” Barr said.
“Yes, he’s been a victim in the past. Yes, his adversaries have obsessively pursued him with phony claims. I have been at his side defending against them when he is a victim. But this is much different. He is not a victim here. He was totally wrong that he had the right to have those documents. Those documents are among the most sensitive secrets the country has.”
I think that’s pretty telling that Barr also claims Trump is doing unprecedented and serious things. This is not some partisan hack. It is someone republicans trusted to run the entire Justice department. And he agrees with the charges!
EverythingIsFine
11mo ago
On the contrary, the statement being vetted by so many people and subject to so much scrutiny implies it’s a very solid and defensible statement…
EverythingIsFine
11mo ago
More importantly, the statute is short for a reason. It’s not a healthy democratic activity to perpetually start jail hunts for defeated politicians.
Hillary wasn’t jail-punished, but she was election-punished. She lost it in large part because she couldn’t shake the liar-insincere (plus “rules don’t apply to me”) label she picked up primarily because of the email saga and her changing answers.
The whole point of this saga is that Trump had an easy way to avoid all of this. Give back all the damn documents! He does this, there’s no case. It’s also presumably what every other former president does when asked to do something like that.
EverythingIsFine
11mo ago
I mean, friendly reminder that criminal cases like this require unanimous juries, as they should. Not a single dissenter. That's always a bit of a high bar. The article rightly points out that this is potentially more of a judge issue than a jury issue, for allowing a certain line of defense with a very tortured fruit of the poison tree type argument. I wish we had a slightly better system for voting in and retaining judges.
EverythingIsFine
11mo ago
I think in this particular case, though Trump is just a terrible client and that's why MOST lawyers leave him, I believe that here due to the timing the lawyers are dropping out on purpose to try to obtain a trial delay, thus kicking the trial as late as possible (i.e. after the election).
I could be wrong but it seems to me that the recording(s?) in and of itself contains literally 90% of the court case against Trump in one short recording. I think they have him dead to rights. It blows up intent, it blows up the classification issue (though the charges are structured so the classification status isn't all that relevant), it blows up the recipient of that intel, all at once. The relevant laws are relatively broad so I think the only true issue is one of proving intent. I think the orders to move boxes around is more than enough, and if coupled with the broken attorney privilege as you mention, it's even easier. I say that as someone who has never thought any other single legal case against Trump has been worth much.
EverythingIsFine
11mo ago
Just some anecdata for the Reddit blackout, unless everyone is sick of it; I went through all my own personal subscribed subreddits and looked for their stance on the blackout:
NOT joining blackout: 135 subreddits. Of these, less than 10 actually posted why. Most ignored it entirely.
STILL DECIDING: 9 subreddits. Of those with public vote totals, overwhelming majorities for blackout and majorities for indefinite duration.
YES, for 24-48 hours set duration: 39 subreddits.
YES, for AT LEAST 48 hours: 20 subreddits. Most copied and pasted a vaguely worded post that implied only 48 hours but threatened longer, so hard to say how many conversions to the next category.
YES, INDEFINITELY: 16 subreddits. Honestly I'd be scared as shit as a mod that my mod powers would be permanently taken away from me. I sense from some of these announcements a real grieving process.
Overall if all the fence sitters black out, that's a good 84/219 going dark. I don't plan on visiting reddit those two days, but even if I did, that's a 40% reduction in content (number pretty fuzzy though). Not quite critical mass to be noticeable to me or to another user if I were representative, but surely enough to degrade the experience. A lot of the bigger content subs aren't participating, so maybe more like 30%.
So, my main two takeaways. One, most moderator teams genuinely don't seem to care, at all. I think almost any truly conscientious mod would at least address the issue head on rather than ignore it. The ones who did make an actual post saying they won't participate in the blackout generally had good motivations and impressed me, (which made the lack of response elsewhere even more deafening). One case was /r/manga, they didn't want to attract attention to a copyright-skirting sub. Another few think they are the online equivalent of support subs, or "essential workers", mostly fair arguments. One was scared of the sub being banned as it almost had under previous lax moderation, as a one-man mod team without an easy replacement.
The second takeaway was looking at the general quality of the subreddits that aren't participating. There's a few with obvious admin ties/ mod plants. But the bulk of them were either very small one-issue subs, or in most cases the nonparticipants all had one thing in common: low-effort, often comedic TikTok-esque video subreddits. I enjoy them, obviously, or I wouldn't be subscribed. But only about 3 or 4 that I recall actually decided to shut down (shoutout to /r/videos, a massive sub that is going completely dark). What's the implication of this anecdata? I predict that reddit is clearly headed even more strongly toward TikTokification, if the blackout fails. Ironic, because the official app does so poorly at displaying and loading videos!
See my other responses in this thread -- deletions did not happen by Clinton or on her orders and evidence about the process that was investigated by the FBI found nothing strange or odd about the process of marking private emails nor the actual deletion by a panicked subordinate. Sure the deletion sounds nefarious but this turned out not to be the case. You are mischaracterizing this deletion entirely and I encourage you to re-check your sources about it, as we now know much more than we did initially. Her crime was being told "your setup is insecure" and her going "well no I like it the way it is and don't want to break things" like an old tech-illiterate person in a position of power frequently does. That's akin to omission because the email server was one she had been using for eight-ish years as a senator and didn't want to change. It's not like she made a big deal about setting it up that way, just that no one relevant knew about it or if they knew, they were a junior person who didn't raise a stink about it.
Trump's timeline is different. He's literally pestered both formally and informally to give stuff back, doesn't give back the majority of it, and then is on record as taking action to hide or move other stuff. The search warrant was an unusual step, I agree -- one that proved to be wholly valid as they found classified stuff in new unexpected locations. There are elements of obstruction and admission of guilt and of lying to the government. It was a crime of omission initially, as there were admittedly a LOT of documents and I'm sure a lot WERE personal, but as soon as the official requests are coming in Trump has a duty and legal obligation to do his due diligence and return stuff. But what, at that juncture, was his response? Not just ignoring the requests, but deliberately doing the opposite. Right at that moment, it becomes a crime of commission.
More options
Context Copy link