Tiberius Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 6 minutes ago, Doc said: Yeah but he didn't intend to. So he skates. Bull sh it. Incarcerate!
ChiGoose Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 9 minutes ago, Doc said: Yeah but he didn't intend to. So he skates. He intended to posses the documents. That meets the standard under 18 USC § 2071
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 45 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: This is true but the question remains if the DoJ has the balls to do anything about it. it’s not just balls… the leak tells me they don’t intend to press charges. Why, because trump running for office is the gift that keeps on giving for the dems. They last thing they want to do is DQ him from that.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 16 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: He intended to posses the documents. That meets the standard under 18 USC § 2071 Maybe, maybe not. Who really knows what's going on behind the scenes, and when people testify under oath.
B-Man Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Maybe, maybe not. Who really knows what's going on behind the scenes, and when people testify under oath. either way leg-nerd, you will admit that it was, ”THE GREATEST SECURITY RISK IN US HISTORY!!” 😆
ChiGoose Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Maybe, maybe not. Who really knows what's going on behind the scenes, and when people testify under oath. The facts of the case would give prosecutors a very easy time proving intent to a jury: Under the PRA, Trump loses all possessory rights to government documents the moment he is no longer president. So at around noon on January 20th, 2021, Trump’s possession of those documents was illegal. Maybe he did not know at that time and intent would be difficult to prove, but NARA sent Trump a notice that he needed to return the documents and he had no right to them. At that point, he was on notice that his possession of the documents was in violation of the law. After this, Trump, through his attorneys, told NARA that he had returned all of the documents when in fact he had not. Hence, the search warrant. So you have someone who took documents they were not entitled to, was told that they couldn’t retain them, and then lied about returning them. Any reasonable jury is going to find intent there. 1
Tiberius Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 25 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: The facts of the case would give prosecutors a very easy time proving intent to a jury: Under the PRA, Trump loses all possessory rights to government documents the moment he is no longer president. So at around noon on January 20th, 2021, Trump’s possession of those documents was illegal. Maybe he did not know at that time and intent would be difficult to prove, but NARA sent Trump a notice that he needed to return the documents and he had no right to them. At that point, he was on notice that his possession of the documents was in violation of the law. After this, Trump, through his attorneys, told NARA that he had returned all of the documents when in fact he had not. Hence, the search warrant. So you have someone who took documents they were not entitled to, was told that they couldn’t retain them, and then lied about returning them. Any reasonable jury is going to find intent there. And BINGO was his NAME-o!
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 22 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: The facts of the case would give prosecutors a very easy time proving intent to a jury: Under the PRA, Trump loses all possessory rights to government documents the moment he is no longer president. So at around noon on January 20th, 2021, Trump’s possession of those documents was illegal. Maybe he did not know at that time and intent would be difficult to prove, but NARA sent Trump a notice that he needed to return the documents and he had no right to them. At that point, he was on notice that his possession of the documents was in violation of the law. After this, Trump, through his attorneys, told NARA that he had returned all of the documents when in fact he had not. Hence, the search warrant. So you have someone who took documents they were not entitled to, was told that they couldn’t retain them, and then lied about returning them. Any reasonable jury is going to find intent there. There is a long journey filled with twists, turns and unforeseen peril between where we are today and a slam dunk jury verdict. What we don’t know about the case, strategy, potential allegations of misconduct, procedural missteps, prosecutorial misconduct, and the emotional side of prosecuting and convicting a former president could fill a warehouse. That’s why we moved away from lynch mobs, playa.
Westside Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 On 11/16/2022 at 12:39 AM, Demongyz said: Eh... a Clinton is disgusting in every way. Trump is disgusting in every way. It's hard to say. It’s hard for goose to criticize his Idol. He sees no wrong in anything shillary has done.
ChiGoose Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 2 minutes ago, Westside said: It’s hard for goose to criticize his Idol. He sees no wrong in anything shillary has done. Fun fact: I didn’t vote for Hillary. I thought she was a terrible candidate and then she ended up proving me right. I know I keep repeating myself, but if you actually look at the law, there are stark differences between Hillary and Trump. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 33 minutes ago, B-Man said: either way leg-nerd, you will admit that it was, ”THE GREATEST SECURITY RISK IN US HISTORY!!” 😆 One would think with him hiding the nuclear secrets near the box of microwave popcorn, he might have grabbed some files that paint his enemies in a not-so-flattering or unsavory light. Given that his enemies include just about every establishment politician from either party and the FBI/DOJ, it could be an interesting show. 1
ChiGoose Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: One would think with him hiding the nuclear secrets near the box of microwave popcorn, he might have grabbed some files that paint his enemies in a not-so-flattering or unsavory light. Given that his enemies include just about every establishment politician from either party and the FBI/DOJ, it could be an interesting show. The thing I’m more concerned about is that he may have had HUMINT. That’s the sort of thing that can get people killed. Thankfully, if he took the documents for his inflated ego instead of turning them over to the Saudis or selling them, it’s less likely that the information would get into the hands of our enemies. Still, not great.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 13 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: The thing I’m more concerned about is that he may have had HUMINT. That’s the sort of thing that can get people killed. Thankfully, if he took the documents for his inflated ego instead of turning them over to the Saudis or selling them, it’s less likely that the information would get into the hands of our enemies. Still, not great. Sure, I agree on all that but am pretty confident Trump was not trafficking in classified information in any way, shape or form. It would seem unlikely that if he were, the intelligence community would not get wind of it. I also understand your position on Hillary Clinton, but as a citizen, the notion that a Sec of State could be described as careless, reckless, extremely reckless with classified information on a sever, and still be allowed to clean up her own mess without oversight is much more troubling to me. That 60,000,000 people thought an extremely reckless and careless woman was the right choice for president but suddenly develop standards when the DOJ executes an armed raid reminds me that some people have standards only when it’s politically convenient. 1 1
ChiGoose Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Sure, I agree on all that but am pretty confident Trump was not trafficking in classified information in any way, shape or form. It would seem unlikely that if he were, the intelligence community would not get wind of it. I also understand your position on Hillary Clinton, but as a citizen, the notion that a Sec of State could be described as careless, reckless, extremely reckless with classified information on a sever, and still be allowed to clean up her own mess without oversight is much more troubling to me. That 60,000,000 people thought an extremely reckless and careless woman was the right choice for president but suddenly develop standards when the DOJ executes an armed raid reminds me that some people have standards only when it’s politically convenient. I would say that believing someone was careless but understanding why the DoJ wouldn’t prosecute them based on case law is entirely consistent with believing someone who intentionally broke the law should be prosecuted based on case law.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 (edited) 57 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I would say that believing someone was careless but understanding why the DoJ wouldn’t prosecute them based on case law is entirely consistent with believing someone who intentionally broke the law should be prosecuted based on case law. I'm not a prosecutor, I do not have access to case law or precedent, nor do I have the ability to do a deep dive into the relevance of case law to the Clinton situation. I don't know what, if any similarities exist between that and prior cases, or whether there were subtle differences between Clinton's actions and those of defendants past. I do believe that the practice of law and prosecution/defense work involves creative thinking and is as much of an art as a science. I think when someone in a position of authority, overseeing an investigation with massive political implications, declares something to be true, it's reasonable to question their motives. Given the behavior of James Comey during the earliest days of the Trump admin and later on as it came to the IG report on his leaking of self-serving documents, I think it's critical to consider everything said or done from a political perspective. In addition, I don't know that if Prosecutor A decides not to pursue charges, that Prosecutor's B, C and D would agree. These things are subjective. In the Clinton case, an individual with access to our nation's secrets was described as extremely careless in her role, and the FBI seemed to extend substantial, perhaps unwarranted courtesy to her by allowing her to delete potentially incriminating evidence from her server. In the end, as a citizen, it boils down to one exceptionally powerful individual giving special consideration to another exceptionally powerful individual, and I really don't see any other walk of life where the average person would say "Yeah, that makes sense.". If there were a hundred documents marked classified, it certainly appears worse than if there were 10, so there was every incentive for this extremely reckless individual to clean up her mess before Comey finished his report and ultimately scuttled any chance of prosecution by saying it wasn't reasonable. As for Trump, it's on him to know the rules and make the right decision. He certainly should understand the Garland DOJ would stop at nothing to destroy him, so it's an unforced error to give them the opportunity. Edited November 17, 2022 by leh-nerd skin-erd 1
Sundancer Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 22 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: In the Clinton case, an individual with access to our nation's secrets was described as extremely careless in her role, and the FBI seemed to extend substantial, perhaps unwarranted courtesy to her by allowing her to delete potentially incriminating evidence from her server. In the end, as a citizen, it boils down to one exceptionally powerful individual giving special consideration to another exceptionally powerful individual, and I really don't see any other walk of life where the average person would say "Yeah, that makes sense.". If there were a hundred documents marked classified, it certainly appears worse than if there were 10, so there was every incentive for this extremely reckless individual to clean up her mess before Comey finished his report and ultimately scuttled any chance of prosecution by saying it wasn't reasonable. As for Trump, it's on him to know the rules and make the right decision. He certainly should understand the Garland DOJ would stop at nothing to destroy him, so it's an unforced error to give them the opportunity. Trump was extended the opportunity to return the documents as well. He didn’t. He lied about it. Lied about having the documents that he in fact had. Now he’s in trouble, as he should be.
Demongyz Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 3 minutes ago, Sundancer said: Trump was extended the opportunity to return the documents as well. He didn’t. He lied about it. Lied about having the documents that he in fact had. Now he’s in trouble, as he should be. Did Hillary just delete all the emails or did she return them? 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 8 minutes ago, Sundancer said: Trump was extended the opportunity to return the documents as well. He didn’t. He lied about it. Lied about having the documents that he in fact had. Now he’s in trouble, as he should be. That's the narrative, but there have been no charges filed, no testimony given, no questioning of witnesses in a court room setting. It remains to be seen if the laws governing this sort of alleged behavior are those a reasonable prosecutor would pursue, and/or whether or not a reasonable prosecutor is making the determination. What we do have is a cascade of anonymous DOJ sources, some apparently in conflict with others, as is par for the course when the the government squeezes an individual. As I indicated---it was an unforced error on his part, it didn't need to happen, and there was no need to expose his throat to a wolf he surely knows is lurking nearby. Do you think we're in disagreement here? That changes nothing with respect to Hillary Clinton, which was part of the post I replied to.
ChiGoose Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 19 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: That's the narrative, but there have been no charges filed, no testimony given, no questioning of witnesses in a court room setting. It remains to be seen if the laws governing this sort of alleged behavior are those a reasonable prosecutor would pursue, and/or whether or not a reasonable prosecutor is making the determination. What we do have is a cascade of anonymous DOJ sources, some apparently in conflict with others, as is par for the course when the the government squeezes an individual. As I indicated---it was an unforced error on his part, it didn't need to happen, and there was no need to expose his throat to a wolf he surely knows is lurking nearby. Do you think we're in disagreement here? That changes nothing with respect to Hillary Clinton, which was part of the post I replied to. Understanding legal news can be challenging and it's why I try to read the actual filings when possible. The affidavit filed by the FBI cites three laws that they are investigating Trump for as well as the timeline of events. It's also important to note that there is a lot of silence (which is being filled in by the talking heads who may or may not actually know what they are talking about) because the DoJ rarely comments on ongoing investigations. The only reason we know about this investigation is because Trump confirmed it himself. So we don't know at what stage the investigation is in. Are we just starting out? In the middle? Close to the end? Tough to say. We can learn a bit through the ongoing filings between the DoJ and Trump in the 11th circuit and Judge Cannon's court, but we won't know much for certain until the DoJ either indicts Trump or announces their declination. In the meantime, I would not look to traditional media sources for good, nuanced reporting on legal matters. Look instead to the boring legal news outlets if you want to stay on top of it. Or read the filings when they are filed (the DoJ usually posts them to their site). Also, this is a long post so I don't want to spend much time on this, but I think you've been misstating the facts of the Hillary investigation.
Doc Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 1 hour ago, Demongyz said: Did Hillary just delete all the emails or did she return them? That's different. And they were all personal e-mails.
Recommended Posts