Couple of items have popped up lately in the equal protection category.
First, the notion that Trump pulling out of Syria makes him a Russian agent, so the FBI should investigate THAT. Hmmmm. So the FBI thinks that providing no opposition to Syria makes you a Russian agent, eh?
Well, then, where are the investigations of Obama, Clinton, Kerry, et. al., who also provided no opposition to Syria? Gee, that sure looks like the FBI is not providing equal protection of the law, doesn’t it? They say the law means one thing when applying it to Trump, yet means another thing entirely when applying it to Democrats. No surprise here, just cataloging the history so people can see the pattern.
By the way, Trump did not never provide opposition to Syria. He sent in troops to smash ISIS. When that was done, he had them depart the scene and resume their regular duties. Just like the police when there’s a wreck. They render assistance and direct traffic until the wreck is cleared up. Then they depart the scene and carry on their regular duties.
Second example is this nonsense that Trump asking Russia to help find the Clinton emails makes him a Russian agent and triggered the whole collusion investigation. That’s nonsense on several levels, and denial of equal protection on another.
The nonsense is that his comment was obviously a joke at the time. Further nonsense is that by the time of Trump’s comment, it was known that the Clinton server had been wiped clean (and with BleachBit!) … so what, exactly, could Russia gain by hacking an empty server with nothing on it?
The denial of equal protection angle is that Obama and the FBI and SEVENTEEN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES! insisted that the prospect of Russia hacking Clinton’s server did no harm to national security. Got that? When it was active, being used by the Secretary of State and full of national security information stored on an unsecured private server … under those conditions, the prospect of Russia hacking the Clinton server posed no harm to national security.
But when they think they can pin responsibility on Trump, they declare that inviting Russia to hack an empty server with nothing on it … is somehow a GRAVE THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY!
Oh, and then there’s this angle: Trump’s joke was described as inviting Russia to commit espionage against the United States. Hmmmmmm. If hacking Clinton’s emails would be espionage … then wouldn’t her making the emails vulnerable to hacking by putting them on an unsecured private server … wouldn’t that be a serious breach of national security? Making it easy to commit espionage against the U.S.? How can it be no big deal to make the information easy to hack, yet it would be espionage and a GRAVE THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY if it were hacked?
Well, I guess that one is both denial of equal protection and nonsense. Two-for-one. Bonus.
ERpundit – 01/29/19