This statement I really have a problem with.  You seem to be implying that Clinton and Trump have been treated differently by the FBI for political reasons.  There is ZERO evidence of this, and in fact it's extremely unlikely, given who is running the FBI and the culture at the Bureau.  It's the kind of charge that should only be made if there is genuine evidence supporting it.

There's a very simple reason Clinton's home was not raided by the FBI:  they did not believe there was evidence there that was being withheld from them.  Period.  One notable way in which the Clinton and Trump situations are different is that the latter involves physical documents in cardboard boxes, and the former does not.  If the FBI had believed there was any actual physical evidence being withheld from them sitting in Clinton's home, they would have obtained a warrant and searched her home.

As to the claim that what Clinton and Trump did was "exactly" the same, that's certainly not something anyone can determine without knowing exactly what was in Clinton's emails and exactly what is in the boxes in Trump's home. 

It's true that Clinton was never prosecuted.  It's also true that Trump has not been prosecuted either, and my opinion is that it's extremely unlikely he will be for any crimes related to these documents.  He will likely employ the same excuses as Clinton (negligence/carelessness/ignorance) and that will be sufficient.  The only way he will be prosecuted would be if evidence emerges that he intentionally took these documents for a specific illegal purpose, in which case the situation would be notably different than the Clinton case.

It sickens me to see non-partisan institutions like the FBI attacked and undermined without any evidence, as this sort of thing poses a huge threat to the stability of America.  If you destroy faith in the institutions, the system is going to collapse.

What if there's evidence he sold the info?  Why else would he take it *after* he left office?  Is anyone suggesting he just had a lot of intellectual curiosity about how boosted fission weapons work?  His "preparing for work" claim is ridiculous considering what they had to do to the PDB to keep his attention.

I would be astonished if we have even came close to the bottom of his malfeasance here. 

Well yeah, that would fall into my qualifier "if evidence emerges that he intentionally took the documents for a specific illegal purpose."  I think he would be prosecuted then.  But I think it's unlikely they will find enough evidence to make such a charge. 

Jason>>Well yeah, that would fall into my qualifier "if evidence emerges that he intentionally took the documents for a specific illegal purpose." 

"You seem to be implying that Clinton and Trump have been treated differently by the FBI for political reasons."

Certainly not my intent. If there was preferential treatment for Clinton, I would fault the DOJ, rather than the FBI.  

"As to the claim that what Clinton and Trump did was "exactly" the same, that's certainly not something anyone can determine without knowing exactly what was in Clinton's emails and exactly what is in the boxes in Trump's home."

Trump has been accused of removing documents that belong to the government, including some documents that are classified; possibly at a very high level.  That is exactly what Clinton did. Whether the documents were electronic or hard copies really doesn't make a difference when assessing the potential criminality of what they did.

I agree the precise contents of the documents being sought are unknown, but in terms of criminality, it is the level of classification, and the way the documents were handled that matters; not the specific content. 

"One notable way in which the Clinton and Trump situations are different is that the latter involves physical documents in cardboard boxes, and the former does not." 

You're right. The relevant question now is whether the documents were being withheld from the FBI.  Trump and his lawyers claim they were cooperating with the investigation, and the DOJ/FBI had an open invitation to retrieve any documents they wanted. 

The DOJ was in the same position with regard to Clinton and members of her team, who were suspected of having classified documents on their personal computers.  Rather than direct the FBI to obtain search warrants for the computers, the DOJ negotiated with those individuals (after granting them criminal immunity).

Having said that, my point was not that Clinton received favorable treatment.  Like you, I believe Trump will not be charged, so in the way that matters most, both will have been treated the same.

My point was that even if  Clinton, or any of the others Trump has pointed to, were treated differently, those differences are not a valid defense against any crimes he could be accused of.  

************************

No it's not.  And to even imply that's the case is just feeding into the lies you've been fed.

He physically removed classified documents which is wholly against the law. Clinton never did this, not even via email. Stop perpetuating the lies.

This will be interesting. Poor Don will get so heated about this he'll spend all of his time trying to attack Liz.

Apparently Trump was under the delusion that he owned government documents.  Any scrap of paper (even the ones he ate or flushed down the toilet) are US Government property.  Also, there's your USC 1519 violation.