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
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
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
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
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
@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
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
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
