The "What About."..games being played in DC ? Any value?

 Countering "what about" from the GOP with another "what about" from the DEMS proves nothing substantive, it cannot be considered as a defense argument in a trial in a court of law, but it is a nifty way to call out flagrant hypocrisy and false equivalencies. Two can play this game, President Biden may choose not to play, but his surrogates can. It is DC hardball in the battle for public opinion... Here are some of the most obvious on my "what about list".

GOP: What about Hunter using his status as the VP's son to get rich:

DEMS: What about Kushner et al. and the $2 billion Saudi investment fund deal generating a management fee of $25 million to Kushner a year from the Saudis two weeks after Trump left office https://www.bing.com/search...

GOP: What about Hunter getting a slap on the hand for not paying taxes. Pleading guilty to a misdemeanor is no big deal; lock him up. This is an example of unequal treatment.

DEMS: What about Hunter having paid back as restitution the $million plus in taxes (he did) before also getting a criminal charge to which he had to plead guilty. (He did). More often, those who pay back are not charged with a crime.per former federal prosecutors. Yes, sons are treated differently than their presidential or VP fathers. In this case, Hunter got it harsher than others.

GOP: What about the FBI being used as a political weapon against political opponents.

DEMS: what about the FBI scuttling Hillary's election, with the letter ten days before the election reopening the email server case. https://fivethirtyeight.com/.../the-comey-letter.../

Those who claimed the DOJ and the FBI are weaponized tools of the Biden crime family and that the DOJ and FBI should be independent of the Oval Office, consider this: Aside from both the Durham report or the Inspector General finding no evidence of a deep state in the DOJ or FBI, Trump has promised to eliminate any independence of the DOJ or the FBI and he would appoint them to go after the "Bidens".. and the p deep state.https://news.yahoo.com/radical-strategy-behind-trump-promise-114124088.html Those who cannot see the hypocrisy, ill logic, contradictions, or humor in Trump's promised use of the DOJ for his retribution campaign v.the pious goal of an independent DOJ or FBI are tone deaf

GOP: What about the FBI being used by Biden as a political weapon against Trump in the Mar A Lago document indictment?

DEMS: What about the pictures? What about the recordings and issues of the attempt to fool his own attorney? etc. (Indictment has a wealth of other" what about" besides just these)

GOP: What about Trump being treated worse than anyone else in FBI action for taking home documents critical to national security?

DEMS: What about the two chances the FBI gave Trump to return the documents, his hiding them, his lying about them? What about the long list of those in government in jail who even pleaded guilty? Here is a list of eleven recent cases: FBI, Justice Department Routinely Prosecute Misuse of Classified Documents (voanews.com). Many were not even given the same chances to comply as Trump was. Pence's case was closed. He gave them back; he didn't lie or hide them like Trump did. The Biden case is hung up in the House Oversight Committee in a spitting match between the committee chair and the FBI. House Oversight leaders clash after viewing FBI document on Biden allegations | The Hill

One rather effective use of What Abouts is to put up a theory and then set about to find the proof. (If you think what Trump's kids did was bad, just look at Hunter Biden, why he is part of the Biden crime family). Accusing first, hunting for the proof later, is putting a cart before the horse, and is particularly embarrassing when the proof poofs as the alleged proof somehow disappears. Republicans Admit They ‘Don’t Know’ if Biden Bribery Tapes ‘Really Exist’ (msn.com) In the meantime, the die-hard partisans consider any plausibility as the same as evidence or proof. When these hashed and rehashed "what abouts" are still posed as the truth, the response should be "What about the lack of evidence, court decisions, etc.". Comer Admits Nobody Has Heard From Alleged Biden Informant for Three Years (msn.com) Even the unspoken get spoken and reveals to intent to keep on hunting Hunter (there must be something there and we will keep on looking) when the Committee chair's response to the disappearing evidenc, admits publicly the purpose of the committee is to keep on digging for dirt until they find something. GOP lawmakers vow to continue investigating Hunter Biden | CNN Politics

The granddaddy of the What Abouts of course, is the claim the election was stolen, as the GOP presented what they saw as evidence. and theories. 63 federal court judges and the Supreme Court looked at the What Abouts and ruled and dismissed the accusations for lack of evidence. At least three "forensic audits" came also found was never enough evidence to overturn the election results, and in fact, errors were found that favored the Biden vote instead of the Trump vote. Last week, some tapes were reported as evidence that Biden was bribed per a telephone conversation. Those "tapes" appear to be lost and the GOP committee chairs had to admit. it.

Another GOP approach is What About Democrats weaponizing the DOJ to go after Biden's enemies, a deep state plot and the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.This one the GOP used as an excuse to investigate the investigators,

The DEM response: What about the failure of Durham to find any "deep state" plot? durham report may 23 findings summarized - Search (bing.com)

.

The court of public opinion will try the Trump classified doc case until the real deal

 Fair enough, if the Trump document case ever gets to trial in time to make any difference., since it landed in a court whose judge could delay, delay, delay until other states and federal criminal cases get decided before the summer of 2024. In the meantime, the indictment case laid out in the detailed indictment charges that presented their evidence of Trump's intent to obstruct the investigation. As the public becomes more aware of the DOJ's indictment contents, the court of public opinion will be the judge and jury until the real trial settles it. The national security nature of the documents that were the subject of this kicked it up to something more serious than what we knew at the beginning of the investigation, which began way before Trump announced his candidacy.

What sets Trump's case apart from Pence, Biden, and Clinton was there was either no proof of intent to obstruct ( as Barr, Trump's DOJ, concluded about Clinton) or they returned the documents voluntarily when asked. What about other cases, Hillary and a long list of others sent to prison recently, recently, have no meaning in a trial. They do have importance at the sentencing if Trump pleads or is found guilty. Trials are not about "what about X", but what about the accused, in this case, Trump. Some recently got a slap on the hand and others went to prison, depending on the facts in the cases.

Every time some Trump supporter raises " What about X" as their only defense, the answer is "What about Trump"? And then to repeat, repeat and repeat the details in the indictment, including witnesses and conversation recordings. What about the pictures? What about the recordings and issues of the attempt to fool his own attorney? etc. In time, those who have the temerity to "what about", deflect and deceive will give the opportunity for the other side to push back. The pushback must be always made to make this approach to educate the public about the indictment contents to get equal time.

Statement of Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice before the U.S. House of Representatives Committees on Oversight and Government Reform and the Judiciary concerning “Oversight of the FBI and DOJ Actions in Advance of the 2018

.

COLORADOPOLITICS.COM

Responding to Trump charges, Ken Buck says he 'won’t support a convicted felon for the White House'

The really serious issues in the indictment of Donald Trump; updated 6/17/23...

Updated:  June 17, 2023  First impressions gained from those reporting about the details of the indictment are that if Trump is guilty of anything, it is he cannot be trusted with national security secrets and should never be let close to the Oval Office again, whether he is found guilty of breaking the letter of the laws or not.  It is the act itself that is the legal basis under the espionage act. NSA Staffer Sentenced to 5.5 Years in Prison for Taking Documents Home - Government Executive (govexec.com)

Trump's chief loyalty was obviously to himself, not to the Constitution or any law of the land, with the irresponsible handling of the national security documents by him or others under his supervision. The documents he tried to hide concerned nuclear secrets and military plans of us, our allies, and our adversaries. These were not dirt on domestic politicians he went to extreme measures to hide, but secret national security information. This is what his actions put at risk. For what purpose? Ego, souvenirs of past glory,  bargaining chips for future transactions to benefit himself, business, or political advantage in foreign dealings? 

Trump may be presumed innocent until trial, and the indictment document contains alleged evidence, waiting for a trial jury to verify,  but whether he himself was guilty or not of violating espionage laws,  there is no denying the documents in his possession were not kept secure. This visual impact of the stacked banker boxes alone was explosive in the indictment documents' pictures sashed in bathrooms, bedrooms, office rooms, and ballrooms.  The photo of the spilled box of national secrets was taken by his own staff. For sure, the documents were not kept in a secure place by any standards.. Most of the evidence found in the indictment documents did not rely only on FBI findings but also on text messages and staff photos,  recordings, and interviews with  Trump's own attorneys.   See pictures from Trump indictment that allegedly show boxes of classified documents in Mar-a-Lago bathroom, ballroom - CBS News

With the release of the indictment detail of Trump in the Mar A Lago documents case, the political howl has just begun, and so has the Trump campaign fundraising. "Biden is out to get him.  The Justice Department is political, too."  Ok, deep breath.  Some of the issues are more serious than others. In fact, the indictment was not about violations of the records act procedures but about elements of the espionage act. The least legal problem is he made his own judgment that he declassified the documents in his own mind, so no foul was committed.   The bigger issue is what he did to play keep away and hide the documents once informed he had to return them (both Pence and Biden did return them), defying the law with obstruction of the investigation. Far more seriously would be if  he used the purloined documents to harm national security (espionage act) and also used them for personal monetary gain or personal power enhancement.  FYI: the espionage act is not about just sharing classified documents, but any documents, classified or not. What is certain, the potential to do great harm to national security is serious enough. We may never know if some foreign actor took advantage of the low-hanging fruit to put it to good use on behalf of their own national interests.  The dilemma the DOJ faces is exposing sources and methods to make any evidence like that public.

 All we know is that Trump waived some documents and revealed contents before those unauthorized and without security clearance.  That spies from foreign adversaries made photos of them so easily accessible or that, indeed, it resulted in serious damage to US intelligence services, we the public may never know, per former CIA director John Brennan on MSNBC on June 9.  The disclosure of such information could be too sensitive and damaging to national security interests. 

Per a large variety of legal experts on  the espionage act, the reasons or motivations for keeping unauthorized  personal possession of national security documents are not elements in determining guilt. Recently, an NSA staffer took some documents home and was sentenced to 5.5 years in jail. Her reason? To catch up on work.  It is the act itself that is the legal basis under the espionage act. NSA Staffer Sentenced to 5.5 Years in Prison for Taking Documents Home - Government Executive (govexec.com)

Update June 17. 2023.What we also got a clue from the indictment documents is what motivated Trump to refuse to gi.ve up the boxes full of national defense secrets. I had speculated and wondered if it was sheer ego and narcissism, or had he planned to use the documents to blackmail or induce others to behave or deal in a way that benefitted him? I was a little closer to the truth about ego and narcissism than I had speculated when the indictment text was released..  From the indictment text, there was an exchange between staffers presented as evidence. A staffer at Mar a Lago referred to Trump's obsessions with the bankers' boxes full of national security secrets as Trump's "beautiful mind boxes", indicating it was like the Academy award-winning Russell Crowe 2021 movie depicting the mental illness of a math genius who hid in a shed to" realize" a paranoid delusion. I must admit that did not cross my mind to explain Trump's refusal to give up the documents when he had two chances to do so, to lie, and to hide them:  he was obsessed with their possession (not only of those but of other boxes when he was in office).   He knew what was in them, wanted them easily available to him, and did not want them to go to storage.  That is the reason the staffers stashed them in the bathroom.  Trump Indictment: Docs Moved to Bathroom After Staffer Requested ‘Beautiful Mind’ Papers Be Kept Out of Storage (yahoo.com)   

 Once he left the White House, Trump no longer had any cover of executive power. He became just like any citizen in the eyes of the law.  That declared candidates are immune from prosecution 60  days before the election is an internal FBI policy, and we are nowhere near election time.  If Trump is convicted of a crime, his only way out was to get re-elected so he could pardon at will anyone he wishes, and maybe even himself.

Trump risked national secrets, prosecutors allege in indictment | Reuters

Memories of being the first woman to run for mayor of Denver: still no woman mayor.

This brought back a memory of mine dating to 1979, when I was the first woman to run for Mayor of Denver. I came in second in a field of about 11 to the incumbent Bill McNichols but just missed forcing a run-off. For some reason in a very blue city, no woman has ever been elected Denver Mayor and last night was no exception.

https://www.denverpost.com/2023/06/06/denver-mayor-election-results-kelly-brough-mike-johnston-runoff

Collection: Felicia Muftic Papers | Denver Public Library ArchivesSpace (denverlibrary.org)

Will Denver’s next mayor be a woman? – The Denver Post