No, the FBI's Trump investigation is not just like the Hillary Clinton email probe. Here's why

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Clinton had three emails that were not marked classified and were later deemed classified without her knowledge. There was no gross negligence or other conduct that was remotely criminal

Link to tweet

https://abcnews.go.com/US/fbis-trump-investigation-hillary-clinton-email-probe-heres/story?id=89069046&cid=social_twitter_abcn

As more details emerge about why the FBI decided to raid former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate earlier this month, both Trump and his allies are increasingly suggesting the FBI is treating him differently than it treated Hillary Clinton, who avoided charges for her use of a private email server as secretary of state......

"James Comey read off a list of all ... Hillary Clinton's crimes, only to say that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute," Trump said of the former FBI director in a social media post this past weekend.

But a review of government documents from both investigations suggests there are key differences between the evidence uncovered in Clinton's case and the evidence already publicly documented in the Trump investigation.......

To charge any of them with violating 793(e), prosecutors would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton or her aides acted "willfully" and "with the intent to do something the law forbids," the Justice Department's inspector general said in its report on the case.

Prosecutors determined that the evidence and facts of Clinton's case showed "a lack of intent to communicate classified information on unclassified systems," especially since "[n]one of the emails Clinton received were properly marked to inform her of the classified status of the information," and investigators found evidence that Clinton and her aides "worded emails carefully in an attempt to 'talk around' classified information," according to the inspector general's report.

"There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified information," prosecutors concluded, according to the inspector general......

Witnesses in the Clinton case told investigators they "expected that any emails sent to a state.gov address would be preserved" -- and many of those emails were acquired from other devices -- so "there was no evidence that Clinton or anyone else" intended to conceal, remove or destroy the emails from government systems, the inspector general said.

In addition, federal prosecutors concluded that, unlike the electronic communications underpinning Clinton's case, "every prosecution under Section 2071 has involved" the "physical removal" or destruction of a document, the inspector general said.

There is no real comparison between the Clinton and TFG cases

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. Opinion Trump wants to be treated like Hillary Clinton? By all means.

TFG does not want the Clinton treatment

Link to tweet

Ever since the FBI found boxes upon boxes of government secrets hoarded at his resort residence, Trump has complained that he’s being held to a different standard from the one applied to Clinton during the probe of her private email server in 2016. “Absolutely nothing has happened to hold her accountable,” Trump claimed when he confirmed the search of Mar-a-Lago......

So, by all means, let’s relitigate. In fact, Trump should be treated exactly the way Clinton was:

The FBI should undertake a sprawling, multiyear investigation into Trump’s conduct, grilling him and his staff, running extensive forensics, and examining whether his actions allowed hostile actors to compromise U.S. security. The FBI should continue to keep him under investigation while he runs for president in 2024.

In July 2024, after Trump secures the GOP nomination, the head of the FBI should break with long-standing Justice Department protocols and publicly announce that while he doesn’t recommend prosecuting Trump, Trump was “extremely careless” with classified information, that “any reasonable person” in Trump’s position would have known their actions were inappropriate, that “it is possible that hostile actors gained access” to government secrets, and that “there is evidence of potential violations” of law.

Then, 13 days before the 2024 election, a top official with the Democratic nominee’s campaign should announce that he has heard via leaks by “active” FBI agents of a coming “surprise” related to the Trump investigation.

Eleven days before the election, the FBI director, in another breach of protocol, should send a public letter to Congress announcing that he has reopened the investigation into Trump because of new, “pertinent” information.

Two days before the election, the FBI director should say the new information announced in his previous bombshell amounted to nothing. But by then it is too late: The news of the reopened probe will dominate coverage in the closing days of the campaign, and, analyses will show, cause Trump to lose an election he otherwise would have won.

That is precisely what happened to Clinton in 2016. And Trump wants to be held to the same standard? Well, fair is fair.