The law that made Hillary Clinton's reckless use of classified information illegal? (18 USC §793)

DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTENT

The campaign finance law that Donald Trump supposedly violated? (52 USC §30109)

REQUIRES *KNOWING* AND *WILFUL* INTENT TO VIOLATE IT

THREAD
So here are the logical steps required to prove this "crime", which is why this is never going anywhere. Ever.

1. The hush payments ONLY took place BECAUSE of the 2016 campaign (otherwise it's not a donation)

2. Candidate Trump KNOWINGLY and WILFULLY intended to violate the law
The obvious defence to those

1. Trump paid off women when he WASN'T running for office. He used his own money then & his own money this time too. NOT donor money

2. Trump asked his attorney to handle payments, who never told him it could be or was a campaign finance violation
Can you spot the double standard?

To defend CLINTON, the justice department, FBI and @Comey INVENTED an intent requirement

To attack TRUMP, the DOJ/SDNY has IGNORED an intent requirement
And most of the media have YET AGAIN failed to explain these issues to their viewers and readers

@CNN - that's why more watch Paw Patrol and pro wrestling than your flagship shows these days
Caveat: should Trump be sleeping with porn stars and paying them off to keep quiet? NO, morally wrong

But, had this been known before the 2016 election would it have made *any* difference to the result? NO

Does this justify removing Trump from office or even censuring him? NO
Instead of permanently wrecking the DOJ by going after Trump and anyone associated with him, wouldn't it be easier just campaign in Michigan?

And Media: is it worth damaging your own credibility even more than you have already? You won't "get" Trump but you will destroy yourself

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Undercover Huber

Undercover Huber Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JohnWHuber

Nov 4, 2021
Special Counsel John Durham has now alleged in a federal indictment that Clinton paid shill Steele’s primary and only real “source” *fabricated* that Trump, Carter Page and Paul Manafort were involved in a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” with Russia

THREAD
The FBI literally cut and pasted that exact wording of a “well-developed conspiracy” into a FISA warrant and multiple renewals

(Including one signed off after Robert Mueller took over)
The FBI then redacted the “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” wording from the FISAs when they were released. Because by this time, they’d interviewed Steele’s “source” & *knew he was lying*. And wanted to protect the lie they’d sworn to in a secret court. Let that sink in
Read 9 tweets
Oct 17, 2020
It’s beyond tiring to have to keep answering obscurantist questions like this. But in short, yes. Yes they did.
Question for Weigel: would it be better or worse for Biden if multiple right leaning outlets published allegations *anonymously sourced* to the Biden laptop & emails (with occasional direct excerpts) or if the whole hard drive was provided so everyone could decide for themselves?
The answer for Weigel: it would be worse for Biden, just as it was for Trump. Except the difference in this case is the Biden laptop and stories are true, and the Steele dossier was false, bought & paid for by Clinton to push her scheme to falsely tie Trump to Russia to distract
Read 5 tweets
Oct 13, 2020
One of these guys did a “monograph focusing on the representation of female characters within status competition and the economy of prestige that obtains within the fictive aristocratic courts of Middle High German narrative” and didn’t even work at Notre Dame while ACB did
BREAKING!
Read 4 tweets
Sep 21, 2020
“On the obstruction of justice, Mueller declined to make a determination because of a long-standing Justice Department policy that sitting president cannot be indicted”

100% false and Mueller testified this isn’t true under oath. Great fact checking! theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
“the special counsel shied away from subpoenaing Don Trump Jr. to testify about his notorious June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower”

This is ridiculous as well

The reason Don Trump Jr. wasn’t subpoenaed is that the FBI interviewed the key participants who all backed up Don’s account
“Team M also came close to establishing a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. On August 2, 2016, Manafort dined in New York City with Konstantin Kilimnik”

Kilimnik = Collusion again? Kilimnick was an Obama State dept source!
Read 4 tweets
Sep 19, 2020
A total of 61 SCOTUS justices have been nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court since the turn of the last century (1900)

70% of these (43 Justices) were confirmed in *under 46 days* (the amount of time remaining until the Nov 3 Presidential election)

THREAD
Nominee & days to confirm from nomination:

Lewis Powell —45
Ruth Bader Ginsburg —42
Sandra Day O'Connor —33 (*the vacancy)
Harlan Stone —31
Wiley Rutledge —28
Harry Blackmun —27 (*wrote Roe v Wade)
Arthur Goldberg —25
Robert Jackson —25
John Roberts —23 (*became Chief Justice)
Mahlon Pitney —23
John Paul Stevens —19
Sherman Minton —19
Warren Burger —17 (*became Chief Justice)
Charles Whittaker —17
Tom Clark —16
Pierce Butler —16
Harlan Stone —15 (*became Chief Justice)
William Douglas —15
Abe Fortas —14
Fred Vinson —14 (*became Chief Justice)
Read 10 tweets
Sep 18, 2020
Considering Democrat plan to contest election regardless of the result, and potential for the legal cases to go to SCOTUS, Trump has to nominate, and McConnell has to confirm, an RBG replacement BEFORE the election

Cannot leave possibility of 4-4 decisions on election result
Trump “absolutely” would nominate:
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(