Someone mentioned this irony to me just yesterday laughing over the entire farce that's become the Left's accusations against Trump and virtual blindness when it comes to Hillary.
Track with me here a moment:
Now according to the Left, Trump is guilty of "attempted" obstruction of Justice. He may not have actually obstructed Justice, but he at least "attempted" to, even though there was no crime he's alleged to have committed. Still, he's guilty of "attempted" obstruction of Justice (that's the same as "intent" to obstruct correct?)
Then you have Hillary. Who we know committed a crime, and was being investigated for it. Her use of an unsafe, unsecured, illegal server, and trafficking classified documents over it. A clear violation of the espionage act. We also know she deleted 33,000 e-mails off that server which had been subpoenaed as part that criminal investigation, clearly "obstruction of justice" with intent (hiding evidence) a Felony. These are all facts.
So on one hand we have a known crime, known investigation into it, known obvious "obstruction of Justice" of that criminal investigation but since it's called without Hillary's "intent', the Left simply shrugs "so what"?
However with Trump, we have no crime committed, no investigation stopped, no "intent" to obstruct any justice or break any law and certainly no obstruction because no crime was ever found or named. Ah, but according to the Left he should be impeached! So on the Left "no intent" after committing a crime is not as bad as "attempting" to obstruct investigation of no crime committed. One should be punished for merely attempting to break the law without actually breaking it, & one should be exonerated for actually breaking the law, but simply calling it "lack of intent".
Leftist logic
Unreal.
Track with me here a moment:
Now according to the Left, Trump is guilty of "attempted" obstruction of Justice. He may not have actually obstructed Justice, but he at least "attempted" to, even though there was no crime he's alleged to have committed. Still, he's guilty of "attempted" obstruction of Justice (that's the same as "intent" to obstruct correct?)
Then you have Hillary. Who we know committed a crime, and was being investigated for it. Her use of an unsafe, unsecured, illegal server, and trafficking classified documents over it. A clear violation of the espionage act. We also know she deleted 33,000 e-mails off that server which had been subpoenaed as part that criminal investigation, clearly "obstruction of justice" with intent (hiding evidence) a Felony. These are all facts.
So on one hand we have a known crime, known investigation into it, known obvious "obstruction of Justice" of that criminal investigation but since it's called without Hillary's "intent', the Left simply shrugs "so what"?
However with Trump, we have no crime committed, no investigation stopped, no "intent" to obstruct any justice or break any law and certainly no obstruction because no crime was ever found or named. Ah, but according to the Left he should be impeached! So on the Left "no intent" after committing a crime is not as bad as "attempting" to obstruct investigation of no crime committed. One should be punished for merely attempting to break the law without actually breaking it, & one should be exonerated for actually breaking the law, but simply calling it "lack of intent".
Leftist logic
Unreal.
Last edited:
