Writes Alan Dershowitz, in "'But Her Emails'? A Defense of 'Whataboutism'"/Mrs. Clinton should take her hat off. Treating like cases alike is crucial to the equal protection of the law" (Wall Street Journal).
The hat in question was a baseball cap with the words "But her emails," worn by Hillary Clinton as a mockery of anyone who would react to the aggressive pursuit of Trump with whataboutism pointing at her. "Why was the matter handled so differently from the prior investigations of Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton, who were also suspected of mishandling classified material?,” Dershowitz asks.
Berger and Mrs. Clinton were suspected of mishandling confidential materials -- he by removing them from the National Archives in 2005, she by transmitting them over her private email server while serving as secretary of state. Berger was administratively fined, and Mrs. Clinton was rebuked by James Comey, then director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which might have cost her the 2016 election. But neither was subjected to broad search warrants or criminal prosecution.
পোস্টগুলি
১৫৮টি মন্তব্য:
But there is. The rule of law is dead in this country.
What about her Private Server? created and used to hide her e-mails. What about the money that flowed to Clinton Foundation coffers from secret Russian Uranium deals?
Doesn't that make Hillary the real Russian asset?
I love Dershowitz. Such an active mind.
I think he would have been a really interesting Supreme Court Justice. Definitely an independent thinker.
Is it any wonder Hillary herself concocted the "Trump is a Russian spy" Bullcrap?
What about Biden and his family corruption? Not a peep from our corrupt hack-D party press.
Hillary sells hats and shirts that say 'What about her e-mails". Hillary is a walking middle finger to the rule of law - and her hacks in the press give her cover.
Berger and Mrs. Clinton were suspected of mishandling confidential materials -- he by removing them from the National Archives in 2005, she by transmitting them over her private email server while serving as secretary of state.’
The President has unilateral declassification authority. Apples and oranges.
Didn't the Clintons also have FBI files IN the White House while he was President?
Shorter Dershowitz: STFU Hillary.
Trump wants a break because his DOJ decided not to prosecute Hillary? Got it.
And he won because Comey contrary to policy publicly discussed the investigation days before the election. Trump has nothing to complain about.
Denial is a simple and primal coping strategy, and people will not move beyond denial if they can avoid harm by sticking with it. Projection of one's own flaws and failings onto others is a subtype of denial (see link below), as shown through endless silly and transparently imbalanced attacks on Trump.
The 2016 to present era prolonged a viable state of denial for many people. After their denial strategy fails their entire lives are set to crack. Anger and depression are bound to follow.
https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/denial
The #equality crowd couldn't survive a week without access to privilege.
Their kids still get legacy admissions into Harvard and their husband still plays golf with the DA.
Their government-subsidized Tesla allows them to park in front of the building and get free electricity for the ride home.
And their non-profit foundation allows them to escape taxation.
What Hillary did was completely different than what Trump did.
I would be in jail forever if I had taken NOFORN/TS/SCI material off of NIPR and put it on my personal computer and then deleted it during the investigation of that material.
Over 30,000 of these documents is incomprehensible.
The fact that Hillary Clinton is not in jail is a slap in the face to all service members of this country.
What Trump did is what every single president of this country has done for decades and he is being selectively prosecuted because the FBI is clearly corrupt and trying to cover up their illegal surveillance of Trump.
Dershowitz is a cowardly piece of shit for equating these two people.
Clinton and Democrats no longer even pretend to be concerned about equal application of the rule of law. They just shove it in Americans’ faces and challenge them to do something about it.
The comparison isn't Trump vs. Hillary. It is President Trump vs. EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT -- including Joe Biden when he is carried out of the White House. They ALL take their papers with them. SOME go to the National Archives, but some things they take home. Hence the large moving vans.
The comparison is Trump vs. the other presidents because it shows that Trump merely followed prior practice and did not violate the law.
Hillary broke the law.
Since WHEN have the Democrats had standards, unless they are double?
"There can't be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans."
Of course there can be two rules. Who's going to stop them?
He's a criminal defense attorney. He is Trump's attorney. He didn't seem to have any trouble when his client Epstein got an incredibly sweetheart deal from Acosta. Don't hear too many child molesters arguing that it isn't fair they are locked up because look what happened to Epstein.
He's correct.
And they will indict and convict Trump in a DC kangaroo court.
Biden will pardon him in some manner to appear magnanimous and 'heal the country.'
Buckle up...
The Progressive Democrats got away with the FAKE RUSSIAN COLLUSION. The one guy they had who committed perjury (because that is all they would arrest for all of this millon dollar corruption fairytale) is already back to work as a lawyer. They can do and say whatever they want with no consequences. Compare that to the people who were taking selfies in the Capitol, many of whom are still waiting for their fake trials where they are being told what to say if they want a lighter sentence. Must be nice
The Fact of the Matter is: Donald Trump is an Enemy of the Party, and thus: MUST BE DESTROYED
There is no double standard, there is only the single standard
All within The Party, nothing outside The Party, nothing against The Party.
all you have to do, is read the motto of the FBI: Shield and Sword of the Party
And he'll still vote for the dems.
Dershowitz always sounds so rational, but having heard him say straight out to Maria Bartiromo that 'Biden is a moderate' not once but several times, to the point that she felt compelled to contradict him to his face, I wonder what it takes for anyone to admit that their choice of political affiliation was a huge mistake.
So sad that Dershowitz is this alone on an issue with such clear distinctions between the treatment of similar issues. Except I must note Hillary and her team defied subpoenas and obstructed the investigation with impunity. It’s not “but her emails” like Hillary frames it, it’s “but the sledgehammer,” Dersh.
Hilary's mishandling of classified information is absolutely part of what she did wrong and obviously germane to the current issue. But it pales in comparison to the aspect of her behavior that was truly vile. She took bribes while Secretary of State and set up a private email server so that she could hide this activity. When her emails were subpoenaed, she deleted the incriminating evidence. This was all reported, even in "reputable" newspapers. The focus on classified information in her case is a smokescreen to distract from this appalling behavior. That she wasn't forced to flee the country or, at the very least, shut up and go away, is an unanswerable indictment of the Democratic Party and (along with the disgusting Kavanaugh farce and Joe Biden's racist presidential campaign) a principal reason why I cannot imagine ever voting for a Democrat again.
I think people may be missing the root issue in all of this. For partisans, it is not about fairness, because fairness is not the basis for the conclusion. This is a case of question-begging. IF you look at the comments from the commenters on the left you will notice that they believe a priori that Trump is evil, a Russian asset, a threat to Democracy, and that Hillary is a loyal American, dedicated to the service of her country.
So, when Hillary is embroiled in some malfeasance, the assumption is that it is simple mistakes. no bad intent existed, so we should just tell her, "you shouldn't do that" and move on. Intent was the key factor in the decision not to prosecute, but intent as assumed based on the assumption that she was a good person. Thus, if she broke a law it was accidental and she was just trying to do what was best for the country.
When Trump is embroiled in a controversy, the assumption was that he was a self-serving person with no loyalty to America and that his intent is to line his coffers at the expense of the country. Thus, even if he didn't break any laws, that was incidental to the point that he was abusing his position to do what was best for him.
Thus Hillary is innocent because she is good and Trump is guilty because he is bad, irrespective of the actual actions taken.
Just remember, Democrats wear white hats, regardless of the color of the hat your lying eyes see, and Republicans wear black hats. If you understand that, you can reconcile everything.
Equal treatment here is a stand-in for not using the law as a weapon, a sort of law of attainder thing. All the people in question are too special to generalize from.
It's not about treating whites blacks differently, for example.
he could have been more persuasive writing as Delan Arsehowitz approvingly special treatment for Hillary et al
"There can't be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans."
There most certainly can be and there most certainly is and there will most certainly continue to be.
There is just one caveat: this clearly established New Soviet Democratical double standard will become more and more pronounced.
Remember: conservative words are "violence", and lefty/dem actual violence is just "speech".
And now our New Soviets are floating new ideas, such as Rosaries are literal assault weapons.
Embrace the reality folks. The left/dens/nevertrump are going all the way to Stalin-ville-i-stan.
"Unequal treatment of two equal wrongs is a third wrong."
Which is just right in progland.
Equal justice under law is for tourists in DC.
Whatever holiday parties on Martha’s Vinyard were still open to him are being slammed shut.
The concept of "whataboutism" is understood correctly as a criticism of changing the subject. Here is a joke that I heard several time in Russia:
-------
Many people in the Soviet Union live in poverty.
What about racial discrimination against Negroes in the USA!
-------
That change of the subject could be called "whataboutism".
Pointing out that the US Government is persecuting Donald Trump's treatment of classified documents but did not prosecute Hillary Clinton for her treatment of classified documents should not be dismissed as "whataboutism".
"I think he would have been a really interesting Supreme Court Justice."
Alan Dershowitz, a lifelong Democrat and liberal, would not get a single vote from the Democratic caucus if he were nominated to the Court.
What Dershowitz and other people don't understand is that the US Department of Justice is not a part of the Federal Government.
Now, I know what you're thinking: Of course it is. But it's not.
The Department of Justice is a part of the Democrat Party. Solely.
You see this confusion time and time again. For example, over on Instapundit right now, there is a link to the Wall Street Journal claiming that "The payback for Mar-A-Lago (raid) will be brutal." This is just NOT the case. There will be no payback, because the President of the United States doesn't control the Department of Justice (as Trump found out the hard way). The Democrat Party leader controls the Department of Justice. And ONLY the Democrat Party controls it.
So there won't be any brutal paybacks when Republicans take over the Congress or the White House. There never has been. And there never will be.
Because the US Department of Justice answers, not to the President, but to whoever is heading up the Democrat Party.
Dershowitz must know this. If he doesn't, he is incredibly naive.
its a regime of criminals and traitors, stop voting for them Alan,
The mockery of "whataboutism" is likewise grossly inappropriate. It's the equivalent of mocking an expectation of fair play, of the even-handed application of the law, and so on. There are not many things more corrosive to our society than heaping derision on the idea of fair play, and it should be fought vigorously whenever it occurs.
"There can't be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans."
Sure there can. And sure there is. And the reason? The press covers for Democrats. They know they can get away with it.
oops - T-shirts that say "But her e-mails"
You too can buy a T-shirt that is tantamount to expressing your support for a person who is above the law.
Blogger Rusty said...
But there is. The rule of law is dead in this country.
Blogger Hunter Biden's tax payer funded Hooker said...
Hillary sells hats and shirts that say 'What about her e-mails". Hillary is a walking middle finger to the rule of law - and her hacks in the press give her cover.
Bigger problem is a large portion of the country (vaccinated, mask wearing, voter fraud supporting, Ukraine flag waiving Democrats) doesn't care that the rule of law is dead. They have been programmed to believe they are battling Hitler and his followers, so any means necessary is acceptable They see the Constitution as an outdated document written by a bunch white guys.
If you follow the trajectory, more and more people will side with the class protected from prosecution and IRS audits. Self-preservation and survival is a strong motivator. Human nature tells us they will gladly turn in neighbors, family, and friends who are on the heretic side of the law. They will see it as a civic duty.
COVID showed the population of the Untied States that if you don't go along with Federal and local bullshit edicts...you can lose your job and the ability to participate in commerce. Constitutional rights and protections were thrown out the window after 9/11. COVID ended them.
This situation in the United States is going to get much worse. The November 2022 ballot box is not solution. If MAGA candidates win, the deep state goes deeper, and they too will become targets of the FBI, DOJ, and DA's. If Democrats or establishment Republicans win, the current state of affairs becomes the norm.
How long until Trump rallies are outlawed, or friendly venues are afraid to host them?
It was URGENT because he had the NUCLEAR CODES!!!!
Sean Davis
@seanmdav
DOJ is panicking. First, Garland claimed the warrant was narrow. That was a lie. Then Garland claimed DOJ would only speak through court filings. That was a lie, as these leaks prove. DOJ claimed the raid was URGENT! Also a lie, since Garland piddled around for weeks beforehand.
"There can't be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans."
Isn't it pretty to think so?
The double standard is no longer a bug, but a feature.
Try to stop the Authoritarians in control today, and YOU TOO can end up in the DC gulag for not bowing down to the New King of America.
A fair argument, but one that begs a response from She Whose Voice Harms Men.
When they knock on my door and arrest me and drag me in front of the magistrate for subversive comments posted on the Althouse blog, I'm going to insist on being addressed as "Gusty Winds".
I hope I get taken in an put in front of the judge at the same time as "Hunter Biden's tax payer funded Hooker".
I'm picturing the judge saying, "Of course Mr. Winds. I'm very familiar with your subversive opinions. For these proceedings you're welcome to address me as Judge Inga.
It's more than unequal treatment before the law, it's unequal treatment by those charged with enforcing the law. In one case law enforcement has it's thumb on the scale to persecute one politician, but has it's thumb on the scale to exonerate the other; it's the mainstream media exaggerating the malfeasance of one party, but minimizing and making excuses for the malfeasance of the other. This is why the whole system desperately needs an enema to remove the excrement that is our law enforcement agencies and national media. When the enema is finally administered one can only hope the anal probe used is the size of a baseball bat because they need to be made to feel the same pain in the ass that they cause us.
jim5301: "Trump wants a break because his DOJ decided not to prosecute Hillary? Got it.
And he won because Comey contrary to policy publicly discussed the investigation days before the election. Trump has nothing to complain about."
Scott Adams did a good job tbis morning diagramming out the structure and flow of the New Soviet Democratical Hoax Machine.
The assembly line process that churns out one hoax after another using the same templates and tactics over and over again.
If you pull it up from his podcast today you will note that the last hoax process step listed out is that long after a democratical hoax has been debunked, the democraticals you encounter will be utterly oblivious to the debunking because there will STILL be more links to the corrupted legacy press pushing the debunked hoax than to the debunkings, and so the lefties just keep pushing the lies.
Jim5301 is a perfect example of this.
Another tactic of the left is to layer 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 debunked hoax lies on top of one another in a single post or broadcast so that to even attempt to detangle the lies, once again, in order to illustrate the debunking, once again, becomes ridiculous.
Jim5301 and gadfly are also perfect examples of lefties utilizing those tactics.
FYI, as of this morning Norah ODonnell of CBS news has NOT retracted her claim that Trump lied about having his passports taken by the FBI, even though the FBI provided public communications stipulating the 3 passports would be returned.
As of this moment, it appears most democraticals still believe Trump lied about the passports.
Its this behavior that makes for a "good" democratical.
Gusty Winds said...
How long until Trump rallies are outlawed, or friendly venues are afraid to host them?
Trump has had to cancel rallies in places like Chicago.
This has already happened.
The leftists were thrilled that they were able to threaten violence and shut down a Trump rally.
Trump had power for 4 years and didn't use it.
His Justice Department could have prosecuted and jailed Hillary and they didn't do it.
This was the result of weakness on his part and on the part of the R party.
It may be to late to learn the lesson as there will be so much fraud going forward, a conservative R may never again be president...
Dershowitz always sounds so rational, but having heard him say straight out to Maria Bartiromo that 'Biden is a moderate' not once but several times, to the point that she felt compelled to contradict him to his face, I wonder what it takes for anyone to admit that their choice of political affiliation was a huge mistake.
LOL, I saw that too.
The problem is Dersh hangs out with these people and knows what they say when they think no one is listening.
By that standard, Biden IS a moderate...
The democrat party elite (money grubber insider deluxe) (Xi approved) are trying to erase and cancel all opposition to them thru intimidation.
m5301 said...
Trump wants a break because his DOJ decided not to prosecute Hillary? Got it.
And he won because Comey contrary to policy publicly discussed the investigation days before the election. Trump has nothing to complain about.
jim1234 loves this. Give the finger to Republicans and pretend this is all on the up and up. Comey might have been facing an agent revolt for his treatment of Hillary's criminal behavior. My left wing FBI agent daughter said she would NOT vote for Hillary no matter what. Comey said he did not want to interfere with an election by arresting the criminal. Four years later, the Democrats had no problem enlisting Zuckerberg and a few other rich fascists in determining the election result.
The difference is Trump's reaction to government efforts to retrieve documents. They met informally. They issued subpoena. Nothing worked in the face of his arrogance and incompetence and the incompetence of his aides and attorneys. He turned an administrative matter into a criminal matter.
truth be told, there's no one in massachussetts to vote for, charlie baker, just wears a different collar for the serfs, going all skydragon, shipping infected elderly back into nursing homes,
I'm not sure how you can even compare the two situations of Trump and documents he said he declassified, and HRC and the emails on her server. Before you get into the details, you have to remember that Trump was President. Hillary was not. Affording her the same privileges as the President when discussing classified information has you starting from the incorrect point and thus any discussion going forward is going to lead you down the wrong path. The two instances are not comparable from the start.
I hear, far too often, crap like, "He must", "there can't", "justice demands".
No he doesn't, yes there can, justice bows.
There is no giant, invisible umpire hiding in the clouds.
It's all a measure of power. Garner enough (education, media, politicians, dark money) and YOU decide what must-can't-demands.
Eric Holder destroyed the DOJ with assist from Bill Clinton. This has been a long time coming. I just wish some courageous politicians and law professors had acted on it while they still could. But, careerism, groupthink, bla bla bla. Now it's too late.
jim5301 said... "He's a criminal defense attorney. He is Trump's attorney. He didn't seem to have any trouble when his client Epstein got an incredibly sweetheart deal from Acosta. Don't hear too many child molesters arguing that it isn't fair they are locked up because look what happened to Epstein."
Dude, did you forget that Epstein died in prison: maybe suicide, maybe murdered. Perhaps that's why "other child molesters" aren't clamoring for the same treatment Epstein got from the authorities.
Such an annoying person. Doesn't he know which ones are the Good Guys?
I've read some that think "doesn't matter about Hillary, because statute of limitations". There is no statute of limitations in mishandling classified data. The only out I know along this line is if the once classified information is now in the public domain, and even then, there isn't an out if you are the person that released it to the public domain (think Snowden), nor is it advisable to discuss what you knew of the information when it was classified. This goes for Trump and Clinton, but Trump did hold the position that has full authority to declassify information, which is the only out I know for intent prior to Comey inventing an intent clause for Clinton.
In short, Hillary was never prosecuted and still at jeopardy for committing the crime that Democrats seem to think they can convict Trump of committing.
Don't hear too many child molesters arguing that it isn't fair they are locked up because look what happened to Epstein.
8/16/22, 9:40 AM
Why do you think child molesters would feel comfortable saying this to you? How many do you know?
What Trump did is what every single president of this country has done for decades and he is being selectively prosecuted because the FBI is clearly corrupt and trying to cover up their illegal surveillance of Trump.
Well, this is just a flat out lie. And he has not been prosecuted (yet). He was served a search warrant to recover documents he had no right to.
The democrats have to be banking on retaining power forever through "law enforcement." That's the only way to protect the Biden Crime Family from prosecution after this reduction of our justice system to despotism.
Yowza. I would love to see Althouse's take on this Peter Navarro column about Jared Kushner!
https://amgreatness.com/2022/08/15/the-clown-prince-of-pennsylvania-avenue/
Whataboutism is embedded in the Constitution, it's the Equal Protection Clause.
It is wrong, unfair, unlawful, and in some cases unconstitutional, to apply government power in a different way, more severely or more leniently, to one person or category of people, and not another.
Every child understands this.
So, Hillary's jeering is an answer to a different question. It is not a response to whether what happened to her versus Trump is fair.
It answers the question: Is HRC so insulated, so protected by arbitrary government power, that she can mock people who ask about her criminal conduct, knowing she will never pay any price?
She knows the answer, that's why she is smiling.
A party that has mocked equal justice under the law to protect a woman whose foundation took hundreds of millions of dollars from Putin and his cronies, a foundation she still uses to provide a cushy rice bowl for political operatives, and whose campaign mgr held millions of dollars in Gazprom stock "for services rendered" cannot expect to be trusted. Remember when all of that Gazprom subsidiary's stock. became worthless within a day of Hilary losing the election, meaning that the Clinton connection was what it was selling.
Remember when Eric Holder protege James Comey found Hillary to be "extremely careless" but not "negligent," because that would have landed her behind bars, and then he found that she lacked the "mens rea" (Hillary Clinton, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate did not understand her job) to know she was committing a crime, even though the relevant statute does not require intent? What about that?
True did not realize the depths of the partisan corruption he faced when he took office, and made many personnel mistakes, and had the good choices he made attacked by the corrupt ones.
Biff said...The mockery of "whataboutism" is likewise grossly inappropriate.
When used in good faith, sure. But on social media, those legitimate uses are in the minority.
(1) As Mike Sylvester points out above, whataboutism is most commonly used as a stealth subject change. "Stop talking about that, talk about this instead."
(2) It's an accusation of hypocrisy used to block discussion of an issue that the whatabouter has no better answer to.
(3) It's usually logically incoherent--both people want to say "my thing is ok while your thing is not." Whatboutism says those two things are the same, but the whatabouter wants to make that point while also maintaining that their own thing is ok.
"Trump has nothing to complain about."
What about the rest of us? This isn't really about Orange the Clown. It's about using the DOJ for purely political purposes. If that can be done in such an overt way against Trump, it can be used against anyone, and will be. Again, you TDS assholes are willing to destroy the system to get at one narcissistic real estate developer. Your need to be proven correct is even worse than his.
"There can't be one rule for Democrats...."
[GIF of that pretty girl taking a sip and hearing the above and spitting the sip and laughing delightfully and uproariously goes here"]
Thanks for the self esteem boost, Althouse. Nice to see the dream team supporting DJ.
Just as James “Not wittingly” Clapper was never indicted for lying to Congress, and Eric “Wingman” Holder was held in contempt of Congress — but not indicted.
But if Ukraine’s President Zelensky had investigated whether VPBiden had corruptly pressured Ukraine into firing a prosecutor, we were told that would be interference in a U.S. election.
Equal Protection of the Law should be expanded by SCOTUS to include EQUAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW. For how can you be protected by the law if the law can pick and chose what laws to enforce?
Yes this means maybe abolishing official discretion, that is the power of officials to act according to the dictates of their own judgment and conscience. Discretion is abused when the officials actions are arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable..
And as we see so often in politics.. they are abused and abused and abused.
Ok, fair is fair but didn't Hillary answer questions in front of congress for hours about her emails? Did she take the 5th at all or did she actually answer the questions, I can't remember.
That case was very similar to the Benghazi hoax, in that after investigating it in bad faith as far as they possibly could, there was nothing there.
Pro-Choice ethical religion. All's fair in democracy and dictatorship.
Didn't James Comey, the director of the FBI at the time, say publicly Clinton broke the law and committed wrongdoing but argued there was not intent to do so?
Why is it suspected at this point? Would the same justification be now that Trump broke the law but did not intend to do so? (I'm not saying that argument would hold up)
Saying Sandy Berger was "suspected' of mishandling classified materials" is like saying Hurricane Katrina was suspected of causing some storm damage in New Orleans. He took a pair of scissors to documents. He didn't safely store them in a locked room in his house for his own records. He stuffed them into his pants and in his socks, removing them, without permission, from the National Archives. He then hid them under a construction trailer on the premises, then went back later to retrieve them, and later still, cut them up in his office and threw the pieces out. Originals and copies. So nothing exists now of what he destroyed. But, being a Dem playah, he got a monetary fine that I'm sure, one of the 'Friends of Bill' probably covered.
These were the ones he got caught doing. Who knows what else got destroyed in those years?
As for Hillary, her cap should be reading, "But her Foundation", as the world knows the Clinton Foundation was an open air market for governmental access. The Biden Family offered government access for cash to various players, but they kinda sorta did it under the guise of official business. Except for the Hunter part. Or the James Biden part. Or the part where Joe bragged about getting an investigator fired in Ukraine. But I digress...Bill and Hil and Chelsea used the Foundation to host large Hollywood style events, conferences, dinners, and lavish travel- all the while offering access to the former and (they thought) future President- for cash. Right out there in the open. And it's funny, since Hillary did not become President, the Foundation has dried up. (But the Biden Family is still taking it in!)
Anyway- let's raid Trump.
Some people are more equal than others.
Can’t and Shouldn’t aren’t the same.
The whole thing about "the rule of law" is right there with "2+4=4" and "women and children first" and "I disagree, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" and "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts". All old-fashioned notions that were only ever part of the white power structure and may now be discarded.
The more modern NewSpeak does not even have the structures to form a definition of the "rule of law". The rules are made by the powerful for the powerful and are enforced by the powerful and judged by the powerful and punished by the powerful -- and why bother with rules at all? There is no objective truth. There is no standard. The jury is instructed NOT to consider their own experiences but to decide only upon the instructions from the judge about how the case before them falls under the law the judge has decided applies.
Trump is, in my opinion, a typical New York power-player. As honest as a New York Minute is long -- not very damn much. BUT, he's a classic example of the Milton Friedman admonishment: the wrong kind of person who finds it personally profitable (in the sense of gaining votes) to do the 'right' things; the things voters want. The Obama/Clinton/Biden leaders don't particularly want to do what the VOTERS want. they find it personally profitable to do what their DONOR want. So ...
Dersh has to find a new thing since he’s been expelled from Summer on Martha’s Vineyard…
"There can't be one rule for frogs and one rule for scorpions," said the frog.
"LOL," replied the scorpion. "LMFAO."
So long as mainstream propaganda can distract enough voters the asymmetry will continue.
I am glad to see this post, having wondered for a long time about 'whataboutism'. Wouldn't the practice of pointing to legal precedents be a form of 'whataboutism'? Is this not the primary method of forming a legal argument?
"How long until Trump rallies are outlawed"
These are already labelled as "insurrections" and people are being put in jail without trail and no bail for attending them. They're not considered "rallies" they're considered "terrorist meetings."
We have political prisoners now in the United States.
It's a joke country.
Treating like cases alike is the bottom definition of justice, isn't it?
"There can't be one rule for Democrats, and another for Republicans."
First, this is clearly incorrect, because in the real world, "different rules" is the case.
Second, I find that it provides a wonderful way to make leftist political loudmouths shut up. When someone asks "Aren't you upset about {the latest accusation from the left}?", I've taken to responding, "No, and you don't care about that issue either." All you have to have is a modest list of examples, e.g. Hillary's private email server, or the last weekend's list of shootings in Chicago. There's plenty at hand. Then, just drop them, like little grenades, into whatever response your leftist friend tries to make.
Works every time. They shut up, go away, and (here's the amazing part) they don't hate me for making this argument!
Gusty, I'd bet significant money that issue with Trump rallies will happen before September is over.
It isn't really about Democrats and Republicans. You don't have to be a Republican to find yourself in the crosshairs of the DOJ/FBI.
And he won because Comey contrary to policy publicly discussed the investigation days before the election.
Once again, here's another dishonest leftist who refuses to look at who exactly put herself in that position.
Nope. It's easier to blame everybody else for Hillary Clinton's law-breaking.
That case was very similar to the Benghazi hoax,
Why don't you tell the friends and family of the four, dead Americans it was all a hoax.
POS.
Can you imagine a world in which the New York Times was as interested in getting at the truth for its readers as it is in covering for Obama and Biden and getting arch enemy of the regime, Donald John Trump?
He was served a search warrant to recover documents he had no right to.
Speaking of flat-out lies. You have no fucking way of knowing whether or not Trump had the right to possess those documents because you don't know what they are.
None of us do. Liar.
As I understand the Sandy Berger theft, the documents were not classified and he paid the price for his theft in court.
As for Mrs. Clinton, Jim Comey did his best to see that she was not elected by blowing the whistle ahead of the election. Now Hillary had dirty hands but so did the DOJ for accusing her in an effort to ensure a Clinton loss in November. Trump never did thank him.
Neither of these incidents is similar to carrying off classified documents as Trump did. Also, Trump attorney Bobb signed a document in conjunction with the June subpoena declaring that all classified documents were returned - an easy lie to disprove with a search.
"worn by Hillary Clinton"
The only picture I saw was of the hat photoshopped onto a 30 year old Hilary pic.
Blogger Buckwheathikes said...
"How long until Trump rallies are outlawed"...These are already labelled as "insurrections" and people are being put in jail without trail and no bail for attending them. They're not considered "rallies" they're considered "terrorist meetings."
Not only is the justice system two tiered, the actual laws medical "science" and viral transmission are two tiered as well.
I went to the 2020 Trump rally at the Waukesha County Airport when the Milwaukee County refused to let him use a hanger at Mitchell field. Some asshole group paid for a billboard just outside the airport that said "Super Spreader Event Being Held Here". This was after "scientists" claimed that BLM riots in the Summer of 2020 didn't spread COVID.
Now we see all these Democrat boosted politicians coming down with COVID, thankful of course they had their fake vaccine. The scary part it half the country buys into this ridiculous bullshit. That's how you know if you neighbor is one of them, they'll be happy to turn you in when the time comes.
We have political prisoners now in the United States.
==========
abandoned by their congressional representatives in the name of 'rule of law'
what else can rule of law mean other than rule by lawyers?
Whataboutism:
Again, I'm not too crazy with so many people here essentially saying that Trump is just like Hillary.
The two cases are completely different. Hence the equal treatment argument is inapposite.
Hillary broke the law. Trump did not.
Blogger Fred Drinkwater said...
Gusty, I'd bet significant money that issue with Trump rallies will happen before September is over.
DeSantis just appeared at a Turning Point USA rally in AZ with Kari Lake on 8/14. The question for the end of Trump rallies (really between now at NOV, are in support of his endorsed primary winners) is when do they arrest him? If I was on the evil Merrick Garland side of this political charade, I'd roll the dice with late Sept/early Oct. It would suck up all the air in the last month of the midterm elections. Inflation would be a side note.
Some endorsed candidates (Like Dr. Oz in PA) will distance themselves. Others like Kari Lake will embrace it. We'll see what Tim Michels will do here in WI.
Kari Lake was quoted at the Turning Point Event saying, "Ron DeSantis has BDE [Big Dick Energy]. The same kind of BDE that Donald Trump has. I wish all of our Republicans had that BDE"
I now officially have a crush on Kari Lake. She is hot.
The Clintons have hundreds of Get Out of Jail Free Cards. It's like they could see into the he future and pre-cover their ass.
The White House FBI files controversy of the Clinton Administration, often referred to as Filegate,[1] arose in June 1996 around improper access in 1993 and 1994 to FBI security-clearance documents. Craig Livingstone director of the White House's Office of Personnel Security and white house associate counsel William H. Kennedy III improperly obtained FBI background reports concerning several hundred individuals without asking permission.[2][3] The revelations provoked a strong political and press reaction because many of the files covered White House employees from previous Republican administrations, including top presidential advisors. Under criticism, Livingstone resigned from his position. Allegations were made that senior White House figures, including First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, may have requested and read the files for political purposes, and that the First Lady had authorized the hiring of the underqualified Livingstone.
Meanwhile, DOJ is basically (ab)using the grand jury as a sword in trying to keep the affidavit secret. Grand jury secrecy is for the benefit of the accused, not for the benefit of the government.
Nevertheless, it is just a matter of time before some media site publishes it. I'm sure that it has already been given to the favored outlets, but they are sitting on it because it would be to Trump's benefit to publish it.
‘He was served a search warrant to recover documents he had no right to.’
You cannot possibly know that to be true.
Test.
Blogger is censoring me today--or at least making my comments disappear somewhere along the way.
But y'all are dong OK, so carry on.
"There can't be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans."
Oh, you sweet summer child.
Maybe it has to be that way. In the family structure not all the kids are treated the same. One, so called black sheep, gets away with murder while the straight lace is often held on a leash. It would probably be unhealthy and impossible to treat everybody the same.
I love Dersh, but this argument is lame.
Donald Trump isn’t yet being prosecuted over the classified documents found at Mar-A-Lago, and probably wont’t be, so he’s getting the same treatment as Hillary Clinton, having to start a Presidential campaign while under threat of prosecution. Also, Hillary avoided a subpoena and search by turning over the email server and other documents at the FBI’s request.
“But her emails” is a reference being under investigation by the FBI and threatened publicly with jail by none other than Donald Trump. So I think we have to score Alan Dershowitz as being engage in civility bullshit. It was fun while his team was doing it, now it’s not so fun for him.
Whataboutism doesn't apply in this situation. The term requires some sort of equality in the crime committed. If you think the Trump/Clinton situations are the same I've got a bridge to sell you. It's just another attempt to cover for Clinton. Hence the T shirts. Not exactly Newspeak, more along the lines of 2+2=5.
Clinton = robbing the bank and burning the building down to hide the evidence.
Trump = pissing on the fire hydrant and ruining the grass.
Freder Frederson said...
What Trump did is what every single president of this country has done for decades and he is being selectively prosecuted because the FBI is clearly corrupt and trying to cover up their illegal surveillance of Trump.
Well, this is just a flat out lie. And he has not been prosecuted (yet). He was served a search warrant to recover documents he had no right to.
Obama took truckloads of documents home. Multiples more than Trump. Many marked classified.
And the FBI had already looked through all of the documents in MAL in June.
You just cannot be honest about any of this. You are a lying piece of shit.
Beasts of England said...
‘He was served a search warrant to recover documents he had no right to.’
You cannot possibly know that to be true.
I'll bite Beast! please explain; in detail (hell, explain in General) how a 'search warrant' gives the FBI the right to 'recover' passports. I'll wait
This isn't unusual. Suspects who co-operate in investigations almost always get better treatment from authorities than suspects who thumb their noses at them.
https://ballotpedia.org/Hillary_Clinton_email_investigation
If you want the law to be fair, then, yes, we need to have this discussion.
If you want to play the game where rules differ depending on who the accused is, then there are ways to resolve this problem. None of them are pleasant.
Choose wisely.
When the government found out Trump had taken documents to MAL they had informal talks to get them all back. When that failed they used a subpoena. At some point they got a false affirmation that 45 had no classified documents. When that proved to be false they conducted a search pursuant to a warrant in an unobtrusive, non-public manner when the club was closed and the Trumps out of town. Trump and his circle chose to publicize it and spin a different bs story every day. Yeah, things go different when you are Donald Trump. This will continue to get worse for Trump because he is a dumpster fire.
gadfly: "As I understand the Sandy Berger theft, the documents were not classified and he paid the price for his theft in court."
See how effortlessly and brazenly the lefties lie over things things easily checked.
Blogger Annie C. said...
Yowza. I would love to see Althouse's take on this Peter Navarro column about Jared Kushner!
https://amgreatness.com/2022/08/15/the-clown-prince-of-pennsylvania-avenue/
That account agrees with Kellyanne Conway's book. It also recalls Scott Atlas' book about how he tried to get the White House to change policy that was not working on Covid but was blocked by the Campaign, probably Kushner.
They met informally. They issued subpoena. Nothing worked in the face of his arrogance and incompetence and the incompetence of his aides and attorneys. He turned an administrative matter into a criminal matter.
Readering is another one of those lefty mind readers we see so much of. When did you get back from Palm Beach ? Take any pictures ?
It's not enough for the Republicans win this November. It's not enough for Trump and the Congressional Republicans win in 2024.
Unless they commit to pass legislation to allow Trump ( for only his term) to fire any and all Federal employees at will it won't make a difference. Once there is a depression in DC then the country will recover. Until then it's a minor delaying tactic. As for the FBI and the DoJ abolish and reconstitute. Prosecute the Clintons, the Bidens, Obama and his minions and abolish all armed agents of the Federal government that are not in the military or the US Marshalls. The rest have no business being armed. If they need armed response, get it from the Marshalls. Until real consequences are suffered by the arrogant and lawless elite.
"There can't be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans."
==========
who in heck's name fashions these rules? such passivity in pronouncimentos are beneath self-respecting people
‘As I understand the Sandy Berger theft, the documents were not classified and he paid the price for his theft in court.’
It was a Presidential Daily Briefing. That’s an ‘eyes only’ document, originator controlled, and NOFORN. Top Secret is an understatement. Piss off with your ‘not classified’ bullshit.
Maybe it has to be that way. In the family structure not all the kids are treated the same. One, so called black sheep, gets away with murder while the straight lace is often held on a leash. It would probably be unhealthy and impossible to treat everybody the same.
I love Dersh, but this argument is lame.
And if we were talking about something analogous to a family, maybe this metaphor could carry some weight.
But we're talking about whether we are a nation of laws, or of men.
How quaint of Dershowitz to believe that Hillary and her “progressive” allies give a a hoot about the “rule of law.” The only time they care about the “rule of law” is when they can use it to game the system.
And he won because Comey contrary to policy publicly discussed the investigation days before the election. I said at the time, and continue to say, I have not seen evidence that what Comey did moved a single vote. He re-opened an investigation and then quickly closed it. I can't conceive of the voter who suddenly decided because of that that the emails were a big deal, but had ignored them till now.
As far as I know, no one ever did a survey that asked people if that changed their vote, and no one ever quoted a voter who said it did.
What is it called when someone asks a question when they already know the answer?
Oh, oh- rhetorical…
I would be in jail forever if I had taken NOFORN/TS/SCI material off of NIPR and put it on my personal computer and then deleted it during the investigation of that material.
I get your point, but even you just having those types of materials ON NIPR would be grounds for some serious punishment and a huge violation of INFOSEC. Unless you randomly found them and were on the way to report it to security.
#espillagekills
HRC emails were found to contain three emails that were labeled with a “C” at the time the emails were sent. She sent none of them, she a receiver on email chains. And two these were later determined to not deserve the “C”
There were also less than two dozen emails that were retroactively determined to contain top secret info, though folks question if emails necessarily deserved that classification cause this set of emails includes emails that talk about a WaPo (or other media) article where the WaPo (or other media) article references a top secret program.
And after that batch of retroactively classified email contents the accusations keep getting weaker and weaker w/ retroactive assessments of lower levels of classification in question.
The three marked w/ a “C” emails, none of which were sent by HRC, not all of which needed the “C”, is the big bad “lock her up” crime.
Sheesh.
P.S. Do folks remember that Comey was fired for being mean to HRC, according to the DJT administration?
You can always yell when the loyal Democrats are nervous. They come out in force here with their false focus group tested narratives. Unfortunately for them, the facts and logic of the case do not fit the narratives.
Ah, but what does it matter? They only want to reinforce their delusions and fool the idiots.
It was fun while his team was doing it, now it’s not so fun for him.
There's no sense in even trying to explain the difference to you anymore. You don't get it, and you never will.
The bigger problem is, you don't want to understand the difference. Which makes you a dishonest hack.
It’s impossible to know the classification level of emails that were deleted.
You might have a point Sprezzatura if we could see the tens of thousands of other e-mails she deleted.
But we can't. And you don't.
Why are you people so blatantly dishonest? These aren't things up for dispute. They're facts. It's what actually, fucking happened. We saw it. She admitted it. Why do you think we don't remember?
Congress announced an investigation and Hillary broke out the bleachbit and hammers, once the evidence was thoroughly destroyed, she cooperated, but still the FBI had to pretend that extreme carelessness didn’t amount to negligence and that Hillary did not have the “mens rea” to understand she had broken the law, even though intent was not required in the statute.
Go ahead and try to pretend that there are not two sets of laws.
Congress had a duty of oversight re the State Department and Hillary simply destroyed the documents that it sought. It’s not enough to say that Republican controlled congresses have no rights of oversight.
‘I'll bite Beast! please explain; in detail (hell, explain in General) how a 'search warrant' gives the FBI the right to 'recover' passports. I'll wait’
That was a claim from one of the lefties, not me! The raid was pure bullshit.
gadfly said...
As I understand the Sandy Berger theft, the documents were not classified and he paid the price for his theft in court.
That statement just makes you a stupid liar and just another regime supporting piece of shit.
Eyes only presidential daily briefing notes and a terrorism after action report and they are classified the minute they are created.
It was NOFORN.
"On Friday Mr. Berger pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges for stealing five copies of one of the nation’s most highly classified terrorism documents. The document, an “after-action” memo on the millennium 2000 terror plot authored by terrorism expert Richard Clarke, is so highly classified that any person removing it from secure rooms must do so in a case handcuffed to his or her wrist. Mr. Berger stuffed the five copies in his coat jacket and secreted them out of the archives. He proceeded to cut three of them to pieces with scissors at his downtown offices. Archive officials observed Mr. Berger stealing the documents and reported it to their superiors. "
You people just cannot be honest about any of this.
You are terrible people trying to bullshit your way into justifying political persecution of your enemies.
‘There were also less than two dozen emails that were retroactively determined to contain top secret info.’
Retroactively top secret? Holy shit, dude!! The phrase you’re looking for is ‘top secret, period’.
Blogger Sprezzatura said...
HRC emails were found to contain three emails that were labeled with a “C” at the time the emails were sent. She sent none of them, she a receiver on email chains. And two these were later determined to not deserve the “C”
There were also less than two dozen emails that were retroactively determined to contain top secret info, though folks question if emails necessarily deserved that classification cause this set of emails includes emails that talk about a WaPo (or other media) article where the WaPo (or other media) article references a top secret program.
This is absolute garbage and a total lie.
Hillary Clinton deleted emails that were under subpoena and being investigated for dissemination of classified material.
There are service people in jail right now for this. They generally deleted less than 10 files.
Hillary Clinton deleted 33000.
Everyone that has dealt with NIPR and other classified networks knows what Hillary did and knows that they would be in jail forever if they did what she did.
You are just another leftist telling lies trying to justify your fascist bullshit.
You are all just pathetic shitheads.
After endless investigations (including a glimpse into back channel stuff to Abedin via Weiner computer, after HRC’s lawyers sorted personal from not-personal on HRCs server), HRC was found to have received three emails that had a “C”, though she sent none of these three, and some were later determined to not deserve the “C.”. On her server, other than these three email chains, she had no other emails that were declared to contain classified info when these emails were created.
And it was Comey that was fired by DJT because Comey was being nuts with the overboard investigation of HRC. That is the conclusion. The conclusion of DJT as POTUS re HRC re emails.
People here have brains that can’t/won’t exist in reality.
Carry on.
What is pissing me off is that the discussion is whether in some universe Donald Trump could be considered to have possibly committed a public documents violation, when the real discussion ought to be why haven't the public employees responsible for this outrageously unconstitutional "raid" and the higher-ups who OK'd it been fired, and, after an appropriate hearing, imprisoned.
Look - the DOJ is playing with fire and I’m not sure they’re not playing with it intentionally. 75m people voted for Trump in round two. Almost all of them think the election was fishy. I voted for Jo Jorgensen and I think the election was pishy. This raid on Trump’s home is an escalation of insane proportions. And, like it or not, trump represents something - he represents the an abandoned working class. The deplorables and bitter clingers to quote Hillary and Obama. And these folks are well armed, angry, and they’re living the pain of economic and social injustice. That seems like a great situation to pour gasoline on and yet that’s exactly what Garland did. If this is ends without bloodshed in a mass scale, I will be shocked. And maybe that’s what Democrats want.
Hillary's IT guy asked redditt for help altering e-mails
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/09/20/hillary-clintons-it-guy-asked-reddit-for-help-altering-emails-a-twitter-sleuth-claims/
"Jim5301 and gadfly are also perfect examples of lefties utilizing those tactics."
They honestly think you're as stupid as they are.
Hillary Clinton deleted emails that were under subpoena and being investigated for dissemination of classified material.
THAT is the true beauty of it all.
Hilary! was under subpoena.. Hilary! deleted evidence.. Hilary! said: Look hardly ANY proof of felony!
AFTER she wiped the server (like? With a cloth?) there was "hardly" Any proof left. If you let gilbar wipe HIS computers, there will be NO proof of any nefariousisms*.. NONE
But, you know what? Destruction of evidence is a CRIME
nefariousisms*
to the Best of Your knowledge there is no evidence of nefariousisms because gilbar does NOT condone nefariousisms
Beasts of England said...
That was a claim from one of the lefties, not me! The raid was pure bullshit.
thanx Beasts! i was wondering if you'd been hijacked?
Spezzatura-
I have no idea where you heard that there were only three classified e-mails. Here is what Comey said in his briefing:
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
One hundred ten e-mails on her unsecure server contained classified information, and about 2,000 more e-mails were later classified. That's certainly more than three.
We don't know how much actual classified material was included; a single e-mail could have multiple classified attachments in it yet only count as one event in Comey's description.
HRC was found to have received three emails that had a “C”, though she sent none of these three, and some were later determined to not deserve the “C.”.
What horseshit ! The FBI never even examined Hillary's illegal server. Messages were copied from secret servers and then transferred to Hillary's server. That's a felony unless you are HC.
Rusty: "They honestly think you're as stupid as they are."
Indeed.
There were several reasons why Comey was fired. One reason was that he botched the HRC investigation. Part of that had to do with his going public when he did. He was not fired got being too hard on Clinton or for being mean to her.
And yes, we never found out what the deleted emails said.
Why don't you tell the friends and family of the four, dead Americans it was all a hoax.
POS.
Ok but I think they saw it happen in real time too.
Hey friends and family of our brave fallen Benghazi soldiers; craven, opportunistic political hacks turned your sacrifice into political Kabuki theater.
Feel better?
I wonder if "The Great Trump Raid" may have gotten out of DOJ's control. At first they were pretty cagey about what they were looking for and what they found, but the Public (the real target of the exercise) didn't seem particularly interested (except in Melania's scanties). So they started leaking scarier-sounding stuff, including about nuclear weapons. Public still not interested. Eventually they're going to have to come up with something people will give a sh*t about, or just let the whole thing die on the expiration of the public attention span. Maybe DOJ has something they could sell to a DC jury, but going to court is always risky. I'm glad I'm not Garland.
Readering said...
When the government found out Trump had taken documents to MAL they had informal talks to get them all back.
&&&&&&&&&&&
Government employees in the General Services Administration packed up those documents in the White House and shipped them to MAL.
So the government knew from the start. It didn't "find out".
Don't hear too many child molesters arguing that it isn't fair they are locked up because look what happened to Epstein.
8/16/22, 9:40 AM
Now do BILL CLINTON. WHY is he still free, when the Madam is in prison. We all know old Billy Goat had his way with a few underaged girls when hanging with his besties. But no FBI raid for HIM!!!
Left Bank - "Hillary avoided a subpoena and search by turning over the email server and other documents at the FBI’s request."
After having bleach-bitted the server. And we have no idea if beforehand, she made a back up of the entire cache. Furthermore, the server was a national security hazard from the start, so there was a continuing dereliction of duty on her part over several years, whereas documents stored in a building protected by the Secret Service are not such a security risk. But you know that.
Marty,
Only three of the emails (none were sent by HRC) had documents that were marked as classified (i.e. marked like the contents of the many boxes that DJT folks stole and hid after the return of this stuff was requested).
Other emails chains were retroactively determined to have info that was classified. This included things such as mentioning the media reporting on classified top secret projects. Such an email chain would be considered to contain top secret info, even if it was discussing what WaPo/NYT/etc wrote or said.
The fact is that HRC was not using her private server to spread classified documents. And the investigation of her was absurdly too harsh such that this harshness toward HRC was the reason that DJT fired Comey. That’s the true record of the conclusion of the HRC email investigation: DJT fired Comey for being too aggressive re investigating HRC. Facts.
Left Wank of the Charles wrote: Also, Hillary avoided a subpoena and search by turning over the email server and other documents at the FBI’s request.
If by 'turning over the email server and other documents at the FBI's request,' you meant "deleting emails under subpoena by the tens of thousands, using BleachBit to wipe down the servers to thwart the investigation, and smashing electronic devices with hammers, you might have a point.
But somehow you left all that out.
You intellectually dishonest hack.
As to whether Hilary’s email server was a national security risk, a bunch of government emails and other classified stuff ended up on WikiLeaks, but not hers. If Trump had shredded the classified material he took to his hotel resort club, no search warrant would have been necessary.
"If you follow the trajectory, more and more people will side with the class protected from prosecution and IRS audits. Self-preservation and survival is a strong motivator. Human nature tells us they will gladly turn in neighbors, family, and friends who are on the heretic side of the law. They will see it as a civic duty."
Inga and the gang will look stunning in KGB blue.
"As to whether Hilary’s email server was a national security risk..."
It is illegal for a Cabinet member to have a private, unsecured communication system on which any (i.e., n>=1) government documents exist. So the existence of a single government document on Hillary's "private" server was illegal. There is no sliding scale on that illegality - a single document is evidence and if guilt is proven the owner of the system in question is eligible for prison.
And it is also illegal for a Cabinet member to use a non-official email address on correspondence dealing with official government busines. Hillary extensively used her "private" email address in this manner. Included in some of the emails which were identified and recovered from Hillary were ones with the President of the United States' "private" email address, again mentioning or discussing official business.
It wasn't just Hillary that was being protected. It was also POTUS.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন