That’s what it boils down to when we examine the government’s theory of the MEANS used in the commission of this act. If we keep probing to get past the hysterical shrieks of the 30,000-foot view of “Interference!”, “Hacking!”, “Treason!”, “Illegitimate!”, “Direct attack on the sovereignty of our electoral process!”, “Grave threat to national security!” and so forth, we eventually elicit the precise description of the actual deed: true information was provided to American voters. Stolen, but true.
How can that be a crime?
Every politician who supports the investigation has provided American voters with true information. Every media outlet who reports on the investigation has provided American voters with true information. (Hey, they at least print the date and page number on each page, or display the time on the screen, so they do provide some true information!)
Will they all go to prison, since they, too, have committed this deed which they say is so terrible?
Of course not. They know it’s not a crime, they’re just using it as a pretext for attacking Trump. The really clever ones might retort that the crime is the theft of information. Okay, fair point … which leads to comparing the treatment of two thefts of information during the campaign. Wikileaks published the stolen Democrat e-mails and files, and the New York Times published the stolen Trump tax return.
Same crime. Same campaign. But very different treatment by the investigators. One instance was investigated out the wazoo by SEVENTEEN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES!!! The other instance, no investigation at all. Yet they are the exact same act: theft of information, which is then published by a news organization, revealing confidential information about a Presidential candidate.
This is obviously not equal protection of the law. Which means that it must be just a political witch hunt. Examination of the MEANS used in the government’s theory of this case leads inexorably to the witch hunt conclusion – either there was no crime at all in providing true information to American voters, or there was denial of equal protection of the law by not investigating the second instance.
ERpundit – 04/24/2018