Loading...

"There can't be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans. So the question 'What about her emails?' is an appropriate one." - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title "There can't be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans. So the question 'What about her emails?' is an appropriate one.", we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : "There can't be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans. So the question 'What about her emails?' is an appropriate one."
link : "There can't be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans. So the question 'What about her emails?' is an appropriate one."

"There can't be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans. So the question 'What about her emails?' is an appropriate one."

"Mocking it is no answer. Neither is the cliche 'two wrongs do not make a right.' A second wrong doesn't justify or excuse the first, but unequal treatment of two comparable wrongs should raise concerns about fairness and equality. Unequal treatment of two equal wrongs is a third wrong. The 'whataboutism' argument applies as well to the manner in which Trump loyalists such as Peter Navarro, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort were arrested. In comparable cases involving similar charges, the defendants weren't handcuffed, shackled or subjected to restraints generally reserved for those who pose a risk of violence or flight.... It is often argued that presidents aren't above the law, but neither are they beneath deserving fair treatment, as Bill Clinton can attest.... Just as [Hillary's] actions don't excuse Mr. Trump's, his don't excuse hers.... [U]ntil Mr. Garland fully and specifically answers the hard questions about what appears to be unequal application of rules and practices, 'what about her emails?' will be a pertinent question."

 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.

Loading...

"Mocking it is no answer. Neither is the cliche 'two wrongs do not make a right.' A second wrong doesn't justify or excuse the first, but unequal treatment of two comparable wrongs should raise concerns about fairness and equality. Unequal treatment of two equal wrongs is a third wrong. The 'whataboutism' argument applies as well to the manner in which Trump loyalists such as Peter Navarro, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort were arrested. In comparable cases involving similar charges, the defendants weren't handcuffed, shackled or subjected to restraints generally reserved for those who pose a risk of violence or flight.... It is often argued that presidents aren't above the law, but neither are they beneath deserving fair treatment, as Bill Clinton can attest.... Just as [Hillary's] actions don't excuse Mr. Trump's, his don't excuse hers.... [U]ntil Mr. Garland fully and specifically answers the hard questions about what appears to be unequal application of rules and practices, 'what about her emails?' will be a pertinent question."

 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.

Thus articles "There can't be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans. So the question 'What about her emails?' is an appropriate one."

that is all articles "There can't be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans. So the question 'What about her emails?' is an appropriate one." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article "There can't be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans. So the question 'What about her emails?' is an appropriate one." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2022/08/there-cant-be-one-rule-for-democrats.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: