SoCal Deek Posted July 28, 2023 Posted July 28, 2023 26 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Clarity of the law has nothing to do with where I think you’re fumbling around with going, FYI. Clarity relates to vagueness. You’re meandering toward contriving an equal protection issue. But you still don’t know how to get there or what part of this sacred document that you talk about all the time but apparently haven’t read is relevant to that approach. Comey famously said that no prosecutor would bring this case. Apparently he either lied to sway an election or he too believes that these laws/regulations are not well written. And in the Hilary Clinton matter he was talking about a Secretary of State….not a President. Goose has opined that this case is not about stolen secrets or espionage, but instead about obstruction. Which is another way of saying that Trump is being arrested for not agreeing with the other side of a legal dispute. Seems to me that the government could bring an obstruction charge in virtually every case where there’s such a dispute….but they don’t. Again, per Comey
Doc Posted July 28, 2023 Posted July 28, 2023 10 hours ago, SectionC3 said: Hoax. Trump said they were returned. They weren’t. I believe in national security. You don’t. Sick and sad. Hoax. You have no problem with Joke keeping classified documents in his garage. 2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: Thanks Goose, that’s a much better response than Section who just wants to scream hoax. But I’ll put it to you if the laws are as clear as you make them out to be then why are all of these high level officials repeatedly breaking them? I put it to you, that much like a speed limit sign, the government has a responsibility to post that limit every so many miles so that drivers know what it is. Clearly our elected officials do not. So then it comes to selected enforcement of laws. If the government posts a speed limit sign but either never enforces it, or always plants a tree in front of it, then it’s what we call a ‘speed trap’. No? Yeah but can you prove they saw the speed limit sign...
ChiGoose Posted July 29, 2023 Posted July 29, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: Thanks Goose, that’s a much better response than Section who just wants to scream hoax. But I’ll put it to you if the laws are as clear as you make them out to be then why are all of these high level officials repeatedly breaking them? I put it to you, that much like a speed limit sign, the government has a responsibility to post that limit every so many miles so that drivers know what it is. Clearly our elected officials do not. So then it comes to selected enforcement of laws. If the government posts a speed limit sign but either never enforces it, or always plants a tree in front of it, then it’s what we call a ‘speed trap’. No? I want to answer you earnestly, but it's not a single thing, so this might be a bit long. Apologies in advance. The laws were not written for elected officials There are something like 3-4 million people in the US with security clearance. These laws were mainly written for them (PRA aside). Because they are contractors and employees, they face non-legal consequences for rule breaking. They can be disciplined or even fired for actions with secretive material that don't rise to an actual crime. Electeds are different because they generally don't face the same non-legal consequences. So they can mishandle documents in a way that is improper and would get an employee fired but wouldn't lead to prosecution or discipline. You would hope that they would become un-elected officials at the next election but they generally don't have a boss that can suspend or fire them so if they acted improperly in a way that doesn't rise to a crime, there aren't real consequences for them. We classify too many things We classify way too much. There are things that are widely publicly known that are still classified for some reason. So people can think that what they are looking at is not classified when it is. There are ways to help with this like coversheets and markings, but those can be removed in electronic documents or someone could carelessly reference classified material in a non-classified document. If you're an official, you may have a large mix of documents where many are classified even though the information is publicly known. It's also clear that the process for moving electeds out of office at the end of their terms is broken. It seems like they just throw everything into boxes and move them out instead of doing a thorough search for things that don't belong to the official. Prosecutorial Discretion Given the costs, in terms of hours and dollars, of prosecution (especially should it make it to trial) prosecutors are only going to charge someone if they believe there is a very strong chance that they will win. So even if they believe someone committed a crime, they likely won't charge unless they think they'll win. I'm not a prosecutor but from what I've heard, it's generally somewhere around 75% or greater certainty. Maybe more. By the way, this is why I remain skeptical that Trump will be charged with incitement for Jan 6. You can make a prima facie case where you have evidence for all of the elements, but you're not looking at a 75-90% chance of winning. You may not be even looking at a 50% chance of winning. In those cases, even if you believe the person is guilty, you'd rather spend your resources on prosecutable cases where you think you'll win. For the documents cases, without evidence of intent beyond mere possession, it's very hard to sustain a charge. That's why Hillary and Pence were not charged. It's why Biden probably won't be charged unless new facts come to light (the investigation into him is still ongoing). --- We should probably update a lot of things given the Hillary-Biden-Pence-Trump cases. But given the laws that we have today, a former elected official who has government documents will avoid prosecution if they turn over the materials when it comes to light that they have them. Even if they took them intentionally, it's a high bar to be able to prove that, and mere possession won't be enough. It's a bad loophole, but that's how it is. Edited July 29, 2023 by ChiGoose
John from Riverside Posted July 29, 2023 Posted July 29, 2023 26 minutes ago, BillStime said: There is really no other way around this statement. It is absolutely correct. 6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I want to answer you earnestly, but it's not a single thing, so this might be a bit long. Apologies in advance. The laws were not written for elected officials There are something like 3-4 million people in the US with security clearance. These laws were mainly written for them (PRA aside). Because they are contractors and employees, they face non-legal consequences for rule breaking. They can be disciplined or even fired for actions with secretive material that doesn't rise to an actual crime. Electeds are different because they generally don't face the same non-legal consequences. So they can mishandle documents in a way that is improper and would get an employee fired but wouldn't lead to prosecution or discipline. You would hope that they would become un-elected officials at the next election but they generally don't have a boss that can suspend or fire them so if they acted improperly in a way that doesn't rise to a crime, there aren't real consequences for them. We classify too many things We classify way too much. There are things that are widely publicly known that are still classified for some reason. So people can think that what they are looking at is not classified when it is. There are ways to help with this like coversheets and markings, but those can be removed in electronic documents or someone could carelessly reference classified material in a non-classified document. If you're an official, you may have a large mix of documents where many are classified even though the information is publicly known. It's also clear that the process for moving electeds out of office at the end of their terms is broken. It seems like they just throw everything into boxes and move them out instead of doing a thorough search for things that don't belong to the official. Prosecutorial Discretion Given the costs, in terms of hours and dollars, of prosecution (especially should it make it to trial) prosecutors are only going to charge someone if they believe there is a very strong chance that they will win. So even if they believe someone committed a crime, they likely won't charge unless they think they'll win. I'm not a prosecutor but from what I've heard, it's generally somewhere around 75% or greater certainty. Maybe more. This is why I remain skeptical that Trump will be charged with incitement for Jan 6. You can make a prima facie case where you have evidence for all of the elements, but you're not looking at a 75-90% chance of winning. You may not be even looking at a 50% chance of winning. In those cases, even if you believe the person is guilty, you'd rather spend your resources on prosecutable cases where you think you'll win. Without evidence of intent beyond mere possession, it's very hard to sustain a charge. That's why Hillary and Pence were not charged. It's why Biden probably won't be charged unless new facts come to light (the investigation into him is still ongoing). --- We should probably update a lot of things given the Hillary-Biden-Pence-Trump cases. But given the laws that we have today, a former elected official who has government documents will avoid prosecution if they turn over the materials when it comes to light that they have them. Even if they took them intentionally, it's a high bar to be able to prove that, and mere possession won't be enough. It's a bad loophole, but that's how it is. I absolutely hate it, and that goes for everybody on both sides of the aisle when it comes to classified information When I worked with classified information, if something ended up going home that I didn’t know about it wouldn’t have ***** mattered I’ve been standing tall before the man
SoCal Deek Posted July 29, 2023 Posted July 29, 2023 47 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I want to answer you earnestly, but it's not a single thing, so this might be a bit long. Apologies in advance. The laws were not written for elected officials There are something like 3-4 million people in the US with security clearance. These laws were mainly written for them (PRA aside). Because they are contractors and employees, they face non-legal consequences for rule breaking. They can be disciplined or even fired for actions with secretive material that don't rise to an actual crime. Electeds are different because they generally don't face the same non-legal consequences. So they can mishandle documents in a way that is improper and would get an employee fired but wouldn't lead to prosecution or discipline. You would hope that they would become un-elected officials at the next election but they generally don't have a boss that can suspend or fire them so if they acted improperly in a way that doesn't rise to a crime, there aren't real consequences for them. We classify too many things We classify way too much. There are things that are widely publicly known that are still classified for some reason. So people can think that what they are looking at is not classified when it is. There are ways to help with this like coversheets and markings, but those can be removed in electronic documents or someone could carelessly reference classified material in a non-classified document. If you're an official, you may have a large mix of documents where many are classified even though the information is publicly known. It's also clear that the process for moving electeds out of office at the end of their terms is broken. It seems like they just throw everything into boxes and move them out instead of doing a thorough search for things that don't belong to the official. Prosecutorial Discretion Given the costs, in terms of hours and dollars, of prosecution (especially should it make it to trial) prosecutors are only going to charge someone if they believe there is a very strong chance that they will win. So even if they believe someone committed a crime, they likely won't charge unless they think they'll win. I'm not a prosecutor but from what I've heard, it's generally somewhere around 75% or greater certainty. Maybe more. By the way, this is why I remain skeptical that Trump will be charged with incitement for Jan 6. You can make a prima facie case where you have evidence for all of the elements, but you're not looking at a 75-90% chance of winning. You may not be even looking at a 50% chance of winning. In those cases, even if you believe the person is guilty, you'd rather spend your resources on prosecutable cases where you think you'll win. For the documents cases, without evidence of intent beyond mere possession, it's very hard to sustain a charge. That's why Hillary and Pence were not charged. It's why Biden probably won't be charged unless new facts come to light (the investigation into him is still ongoing). --- We should probably update a lot of things given the Hillary-Biden-Pence-Trump cases. But given the laws that we have today, a former elected official who has government documents will avoid prosecution if they turn over the materials when it comes to light that they have them. Even if they took them intentionally, it's a high bar to be able to prove that, and mere possession won't be enough. It's a bad loophole, but that's how it is. Thanks Goose...a very close relative of mine held a very high security clearance as a private contractor. He was actually on the metro heading to the pentagon when the plane hit. I believe this is tricky when it comes to a former President, who I would offer is way more than an "elected official". While I have no problem with the government getting the documents back, the way that they did it was completely heavy handed and overtly political. And once the dispute of possession is remedied by the raid, then the obstruction charge is simply over the top...and done SOLELY to kneecap a political rival. It serves no other purpose. None.
SectionC3 Posted July 29, 2023 Posted July 29, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: Comey famously said that no prosecutor would bring this case. Apparently he either lied to sway an election or he too believes that these laws/regulations are not well written. And in the Hilary Clinton matter he was talking about a Secretary of State….not a President. Goose has opined that this case is not about stolen secrets or espionage, but instead about obstruction. Which is another way of saying that Trump is being arrested for not agreeing with the other side of a legal dispute. Seems to me that the government could bring an obstruction charge in virtually every case where there’s such a dispute….but they don’t. Again, per Comey You still haven’t answered the question. You think this case presents a constitutional issue that should be determined immediately by SCOTUS. So, again, what part of the constitution is in question in this matter? 34 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Thanks Goose...a very close relative of mine held a very high security clearance as a private contractor. He was actually on the metro heading to the pentagon when the plane hit. I believe this is tricky when it comes to a former President, who I would offer is way more than an "elected official". While I have no problem with the government getting the documents back, the way that they did it was completely heavy handed and overtly political. And once the dispute of possession is remedied by the raid, then the obstruction charge is simply over the top...and done SOLELY to kneecap a political rival. It serves no other purpose. None. That’s ridiculous. The charge, among other things, discourages the knowing retention of secret government documents. Give me a break. Edited July 29, 2023 by SectionC3
BillStime Posted July 29, 2023 Author Posted July 29, 2023 35 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: the way that they did it was completely heavy handed and overtly political. How many times should the government have to ask? The government played nice over and over again - why didn’t he just comply?
John from Riverside Posted July 29, 2023 Posted July 29, 2023 40 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Thanks Goose...a very close relative of mine held a very high security clearance as a private contractor. He was actually on the metro heading to the pentagon when the plane hit. I believe this is tricky when it comes to a former President, who I would offer is way more than an "elected official". While I have no problem with the government getting the documents back, the way that they did it was completely heavy handed and overtly political. And once the dispute of possession is remedied by the raid, then the obstruction charge is simply over the top...and done SOLELY to kneecap a political rival. It serves no other purpose. None. Jesus Christ He was moving boxes around to avoid detection deek
ChiGoose Posted July 29, 2023 Posted July 29, 2023 2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: Thanks Goose...a very close relative of mine held a very high security clearance as a private contractor. He was actually on the metro heading to the pentagon when the plane hit. I believe this is tricky when it comes to a former President, who I would offer is way more than an "elected official". While I have no problem with the government getting the documents back, the way that they did it was completely heavy handed and overtly political. And once the dispute of possession is remedied by the raid, then the obstruction charge is simply over the top...and done SOLELY to kneecap a political rival. It serves no other purpose. None. Ok, let’s try a counterfactual. Let’s say that the documents in Biden’s garage and office were discovered after he left the office of VP, but before he was president. Like 2018 or whatever. And when it was discovered that he had these documents, the government asked for them back. But Biden said no. And when the government was negotiating to get them back, Biden sued them to get them to stop. And then Biden told one of his employees (maybe Hunter!) to secretly remove documents from the box of documents before his lawyer could look at them. And then Biden had his lawyer search the boxes and send anything belonging to the government back to the government. And then Biden had his lawyers send a letter to the government stating that they had completed a search and turned over all of the documents, despite the fact that Biden had secretly had someone remove a bunch of documents without his lawyers knowing. And then the government discovered that Biden had been lying to them the whole time and that he still possessed government documents. Would you oppose a search warrant? Would you oppose charges? Because I know that I wouldn’t.
SoCal Deek Posted July 29, 2023 Posted July 29, 2023 9 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Ok, let’s try a counterfactual. Let’s say that the documents in Biden’s garage and office were discovered after he left the office of VP, but before he was president. Like 2018 or whatever. And when it was discovered that he had these documents, the government asked for them back. But Biden said no. And when the government was negotiating to get them back, Biden sued them to get them to stop. And then Biden told one of his employees (maybe Hunter!) to secretly remove documents from the box of documents before his lawyer could look at them. And then Biden had his lawyer search the boxes and send anything belonging to the government back to the government. And then Biden had his lawyers send a letter to the government stating that they had completed a search and turned over all of the documents, despite the fact that Biden had secretly had someone remove a bunch of documents without his lawyers knowing. And then the government discovered that Biden had been lying to them the whole time and that he still possessed government documents. Would you oppose a search warrant? Would you oppose charges? Because I know that I wouldn’t. I think you missed it where I said I didn’t oppose the government getting the documents back. I oppose the way they did it and totally oppose the obstruction indictment.
Doc Posted July 29, 2023 Posted July 29, 2023 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: I think you missed it where I said I didn’t oppose the government getting the documents back. I oppose the way they did it and totally oppose the obstruction indictment. Forget it Deek. You're arguing with people who believe that "Dur, I didn't know I had classified material, in my garage I've visited hundreds of times no less" is a valid excuse. 1
SoCal Deek Posted July 29, 2023 Posted July 29, 2023 Just now, Doc said: Forget it Deek. You're arguing with people who believe that "Dur, I didn't know I had classified material, in my garage I've visited hundreds of times no less" is a valid excuse. Thanks but the entire purpose of this message board is to have discussions with people who do NOT agree with you. With that said, I’m not the slightest bit partisan on this topic. I believe that the President is unique under the Constitution. He is given special authority, and responsibility that neither a Vice President nor a Senator has. It seems utterly ludicrous to me that the President would be trusted to know and see America’s ‘secrets’ while the Commander in Chief but the minute he leaves the Office they need to purge his brain and boxes of all such knowledge. It’s literally junior high double secret probation level nonsense. This is why I believe there’s a constitutional issue involved here to consider the post presidency retention of this stuff. Having a bunch of librarians be the impetus for the arrest of the former President is utterly laughable.
ChiGoose Posted July 29, 2023 Posted July 29, 2023 35 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Thanks but the entire purpose of this message board is to have discussions with people who do NOT agree with you. With that said, I’m not the slightest bit partisan on this topic. I believe that the President is unique under the Constitution. He is given special authority, and responsibility that neither a Vice President nor a Senator has. It seems utterly ludicrous to me that the President would be trusted to know and see America’s ‘secrets’ while the Commander in Chief but the minute he leaves the Office they need to purge his brain and boxes of all such knowledge. It’s literally junior high double secret probation level nonsense. This is why I believe there’s a constitutional issue involved here to consider the post presidency retention of this stuff. Having a bunch of librarians be the impetus for the arrest of the former President is utterly laughable. The system was designed so that once an elected official finishes their term of service, they return to being a regular citizen. While future presidents may grant them access to information to get their informed perspective, they retain zero personal right to government materials or secrets. That being said, I don’t think the PRA really has criminal enforcement mechanisms. That’s why they were negotiating with Trump to get the documents back for most of a year. Law enforcement wasn’t involved until it was clear that Trump still had classified documents and was refusing to return them. All Trump had to do was just cooperate. That’s it. But if you have someone with government property that they aren’t supposed to have and then they obstruct and deceive law enforcement, what kind of precedent are you setting if your *don’t* charge them with a crime.
SoCal Deek Posted July 29, 2023 Posted July 29, 2023 7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: The system was designed so that once an elected official finishes their term of service, they return to being a regular citizen. While future presidents may grant them access to information to get their informed perspective, they retain zero personal right to government materials or secrets. That being said, I don’t think the PRA really has criminal enforcement mechanisms. That’s why they were negotiating with Trump to get the documents back for most of a year. Law enforcement wasn’t involved until it was clear that Trump still had classified documents and was refusing to return them. All Trump had to do was just cooperate. That’s it. But if you have someone with government property that they aren’t supposed to have and then they obstruct and deceive law enforcement, what kind of precedent are you setting if your *don’t* charge them with a crime. I understand ALL of that Goose. But once you’ve now retrieved the documents the dispute is moot. The arrest is PURE politics.
ChiGoose Posted July 29, 2023 Posted July 29, 2023 15 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: I understand ALL of that Goose. But once you’ve now retrieved the documents the dispute is moot. The arrest is PURE politics. It’s punishment for unlawful behavior. Not seeking an indictment just means that elected officials can do whatever they want with government property and refuse to return it (and even show classified materials to those without clearance) with no punishment whatsoever. Joe Biden could order that he gets a copy of every classified document sent to Hunter’s house and there would be absolutely nothing the next president could do to stop it if Biden didn’t want to cooperate. Is that the kind of precedent you want to set?
SoCal Deek Posted July 29, 2023 Posted July 29, 2023 5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: It’s punishment for unlawful behavior. Not seeking an indictment just means that elected officials can do whatever they want with government property and refuse to return it (and even show classified materials to those without clearance) with no punishment whatsoever. Joe Biden could order that he gets a copy of every classified document sent to Hunter’s house and there would be absolutely nothing the next president could do to stop it if Biden didn’t want to cooperate. Is that the kind of precedent you want to set? On the contrary…but I definitely don’t want our political parties arresting the leading candidate from the opposition party. That’s the far more dangerous precedent being set here. As regards the document procedure itself, as usual, the government is great at writing millions of regulations but terrible at administering them. Since the ‘government’ knows exactly the day and hour that the outgoing President is leaving office, why don’t they have security personnel there to search everything leaving the office? I have to take my shoes off to get on an airplane. What this latest political arrest has proven is that in the wrong hands the government can use the regulations to arrest political opponents. Again…very dangerous stuff here. 1
ChiGoose Posted July 29, 2023 Posted July 29, 2023 8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: On the contrary…but I definitely don’t want our political parties arresting the leading candidate from the opposition party. That’s the far more dangerous precedent being set here. As regards the document procedure itself, as usual, the government is great at writing millions of regulations but terrible at administering them. Since the ‘government’ knows exactly the day and hour that the outgoing President is leaving office, why don’t they have security personnel there to search everything leaving the office? I have to take my shoes off to get on an airplane. What this latest political arrest has proven is that in the wrong hands the government can use the regulations to arrest political opponents. Again…very dangerous stuff here. Whatever procedure or controls there are for moving electeds out of office are clearly deficient in terms of handling sensitive material and government property. That doesn’t mean this is a political prosecution. Anyone other than a politician would have been charged earlier but here the government bent over backwards for Trump. It wasn’t until he intentionally deceived him (and his own lawyer) that they brought law enforcement against him.
SoCal Deek Posted July 29, 2023 Posted July 29, 2023 Just now, ChiGoose said: Whatever procedure or controls there are for moving electeds out of office are clearly deficient in terms of handling sensitive material and government property. That doesn’t mean this is a political prosecution. Anyone other than a politician would have been charged earlier but here the government bent over backwards for Trump. It wasn’t until he intentionally deceived him (and his own lawyer) that they brought law enforcement against him. Wrong! They brought law enforcement against him to retrieve the documents. The DOJ is the one who then took it to the next completely political step.
ChiGoose Posted July 29, 2023 Posted July 29, 2023 15 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Wrong! They brought law enforcement against him to retrieve the documents. The DOJ is the one who then took it to the next completely political step. They brought law enforcement against him because he told them he turned over everything when in fact he had secretly had his people hide many of the documents. At that moment, it’s clear to anyone that he would never willingly turn everything over and simply asking was not going to work.
Recommended Posts