>Viewing as someone who doesn't care about defending any side, these so-called nuances don't change anything. The law says otherwise: https://www.law.cornell.

>Viewing as someone who doesn't care about defending any side, these so-called nuances don't change anything. The law says otherwise: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1038 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1038 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1784 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1784 If you want to ignore the law, then your assertion has merit. I'm not defending anyone. Rather, I'm merely pointing out that ignoring nuance and details is a mistake. Then again, if you view the world through the lens of self-serving PR and ignore the details (as well as the relevant laws), I can see why you came to that conclusion. And you're not alone. Many folks form their understanding of current events based on the opinions and assertions of those with an agenda. That's a mistake. Facts matter. Timelines matter. And all of those who are supposed to serve us (regardless of ideology/partisan affiliation) should be held to account for their actions. That's not a partisan take, rather it's rooted in the idea that we are a nation of laws, and all who are within the borders of the nation are subject to those laws. No exceptions. There's also a lot of nuance in that too, but if we abandon that concept, we're just a mob.