@LostInParadise Let’s compare the cases against Clinton and Trump. Let’s start with Trump. There is a claim he took papers to Mar-a-Lago as well as stories of tearing up papers and flushing them. Where is the proof? What was on the papers? Right now, as far as I can tell it is all hearsay, just like every other claim against him. It is speculation and conjecture. BUT, let’s say there actually was proof he took papers. Did they have classified materials on them? Was there a subpoena served on him for all papers and other communications concerning anything in particular? If not, it could have been his first effort at a memoir that he was tossing out.
Now let’s look at Hillary. Hillary was charged with using an unauthorized server. Why was this important? Because it violates the rules of proper control of classified materials. She is entirely allowed to use her own private server if all she did was send personal emails and did no business on it. That was not the case. When she was subpoenaed for her emails, she destroyed 30,000+ because she said no one needed to see them, they were all of a personal nature. Eventually she turned over SOME of the remaining emails but refused to turn over the servers, only allowing her own private civilian company to do anything with them and then they destroyed them…on her orders. So she has already ostensibly destroyed evidence. As @Tropical_Willie might say, “I wonder what incriminating things are missing?”. But going on, the emails the investigators DID get had tons of classified materials on them ranking from classified to top secret. And these had been sent over a non-secured server to non-secured people. Some of these were found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. So now she has lost control of these classified materials. There is a statute that talks specifically about this. She was in direct violation of this statute. The FBI, who we know was working with her to overthrow Trump, created a new addition…the intent clause is what I call it. She didn’t Mean to release those materials so it wasn’t done with malice and therefore isn’t punishable under the law. But if you look at (f) under this statute, it specifically states that gross negligence is not an excuse. And it specifically states she should have been fined or imprisoned or both. For each count and there were thousands.
Now I will give you the point that Hillary was investigated, but even when she was guilty, she was not prosecuted. So given her example, shouldn’t Trump be able to do whatever he wants with documents and then just say he didn’t mean to? The law has been bent to that application so it should apply equally across the board, shouldn’t it?