(08-22-2022 03:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I can't count more than two or three people in this site who could realistically truthfully say: 'I supported the prosecution of Hillary based on the evidence, and if the evidence shows Trump had documents in his possession that were similarly compromised, I would support a prosecution of Trump.'

WHAT prosecution of Hillary? Did I miss something? Last I heard, the FBI allowed her co-conspirators (Cheryl Mills and someone else) to sit in on the FBI interview after receiving immunity from prosecution.

Is that what you mean by "prosecution of Hillary"?

And, as a corollary to that question, what "evidence [of] documents in [Trump's] possession"? Maybe it exists. But why should any of us presume that to be so? In your mind, the very people who gave Hillary a free pass on what was a much more blatantly obvious violation of gov't secrets are the same ones we need to sit quietly for some indefinite period while that let us know what we, the taxpaying public, are and are not entitled to know.

I am still having a lot of difficulty with your "Rules of Procedure", tanq, particularly when you are asking the board to sign off on a hypothetical (the prosecution of Hillary) that we all know didn't happen.