The Trump Crime Family - Legal Issues

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

In Trump's case, criminal intent to retain the documents is pretty damn clear, as are his sharing of classified info and obstruction efforts. Please get a clue.

Do you truly believe that what Trump and Pence did are the equivalent in the eyes of the law? If you have skepticism about Trump's case, how can you believe in a viable prosecution of Pence?

1) Do you truly believe that what Trump and Pence did are the equivalent (sic) in the eyes of the law?

A) Not at all. I'm not a lawyer and neither are you. That said, I don't see where Pence nor Biden had any legal protection for being in possession of classified gov't documents. Mere possession is a cause for the pursuit of an indictment, as you pointed out earlier (which likely isn't true, but you said it so we'll roll with it for now). Yet, none is pending against Pence, and I suspect the same will be the result for Biden.

Why? As I stated here after the Mar a Lago raid, document control in gov't sucks, as it does in many businesses, The gov't would be issuing indictments until it ran out of cash, because the reality is that classified documents could be anywhere and everywhere.

2) In Trump's case, criminal intent to retain the documents is pretty damn clear, as are his sharing of classified info and obstruction efforts. Please get a clue.

A) He's being charged under the Espionage Act. The two most relevant recent cases are Sandy Berger, and David Petraeus. Each pleaded guilty to misdemeanors under the threat of Espionage Act prosecution. Neither of these cases triggered the level of Justice Dept response that we're seeing now. Both of these cases featured similar "criminal intent" that you're concerned about in your post above.

3) Your equivalencies and whataboutisms are truly a sight to behold. You're either brainwashed or simply insist on bad faith debating.

Sorry, but we're in the legal realm now. The legal term for "whataboutism" is precedent. Berger and Patraeus cases are both examples of precedent.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Get on board, Whell!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...is-indictment/

Scott: “This case is a serious case with serious allegations, but in America you are still innocent until proven guilty.”

Haley: “If this indictment is true, if what it says is actually the case, President Trump was incredibly reckless with our national security. This puts all of our military men and women in danger if you’re going to talk about what our military is capable of or how we would about invading or doing something with one of our enemies. And if that’s the case, it’s reckless, it’s frustrating and it causes problems.”

Former Trump secretary of state Mike Pompeo: “If the allegations are true, President Trump had classified documents where he shouldn’t have had them, and then when given the opportunity to return them he chose not to do that for whatever reason. … That’s inconsistent with protecting America’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. And if allegations are true, some of these were pretty serious, important documents.”

Former Trump attorney general William P. Barr: “If even half of it is true, then he’s toast. It’s a very detailed indictment, and it’s very, very damning.”

Former New Jersey governor and 2024 presidential candidate Chris Christie: “A very tight, very detailed, evidence-laden indictment, and the conduct in there is awful.”

Former Arkansas governor and 2024 presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson: “Trump’s actions — from his willful disregard for the Constitution to his disrespect for the rule of law — should not define our nation or the Republican Party.”

Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.): “They’re very serious allegations.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): “The charges in this case are quite serious and cannot be casually dismissed. Mishandling classified documents is a federal crime because it can expose national secrets, as well as the sources and methods they were obtained through.”

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah): “Mr. Trump brought these charges upon himself by not only taking classified documents, but by refusing to simply return them when given numerous opportunities to do so.”

Buck: “I think the allegations are very serious. I think there were national security implications from having documents in an unsecure area. … He hid documents, purposefully putting them in a shower, purposely putting them on — on a stage. So there — there clearly is an intent to hide.”

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) on whether he would support Trump if convicted: “I’d just have to read the conviction, but no, honestly, on the surface, I wouldn’t. That doesn’t look good.”

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.): “I just think it’s obvious what the president did was wrong. I just think the emperor has no clothes, and we need to have Republicans stand up and say that, because come around after the primary … the other party’s going to be saying this.”

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Tex.): “It’s very problematic. There’s a reason I’m not commenting on it.”

I'm already "on board", dufus, as stated earlier. Let the gov't present its case in court.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Sorry, but we're in the legal realm now. The legal term for "whataboutism" is precedent. Berger and Patraeus cases are both examples of precedent.

DOJ threatened to charge Petraeus with three felonies, including “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information” and therefore Petraeus pled guilty to one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. If Trump would have cooperated and returned the documents as soon as the Archives/DOJ asked for them instead of lying and obstructing their return, he would have been treated similarly (at worst). He didn't and now he gets to suffer the consequences. He chose to gamble that he could lie his way out of his problem and lost. Fuck him.

Even though I'm not a lawyer (though my Dad was and I worked in contract law for 20 years as a DoD Contracting Officer and did some expert witness work), I do know that Petraeus' guilt or innocence have exactly zero bearing on Trump's case. Should you be able to murder your wife and get away with it simply because OJ did so?

[RickeyM]

You're either brainwashed or simply insist on bad faith debating.

Nah, he's not brainwashed. Radicalized, but not brainwashed.
"I simply insist on bad faith debating" ought to be in his sig line. Perfect description. He thinks he can whatabout without saying whatabout. I nominate him for the Political Chat Linguistical Gymnastics Award.

I'm already "on board", dufus,

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm already "on board", dufus, as stated earlier. Let the gov't present its case in court.

I prefer "doofus." While we wait for the gov't case to be presented in court (beyond the damning indictment itself), we get to watch Trump present his case in the court of public opinion as he lies, self-incriminates, threatens Jack Smith and his wife and sics Gym Jordan and his compliant Freedumb Caucus goons on the DOJ/FBI.

[Chicks]

What’s truly pathetic here is that, after Dear Leader called for “the biggest protest ever” for his little court date in FL, only a few of Whell’s closest nutjob friends showed up. Sorry Donny. Loser!

[finnbow]

Trump's former chief of staff John Kelly on Trump's visit to a famous Cuban restaurant in Miami after his arraignment: “He’s scared shitless...This is the way he compensates for that. He gives people the appearance he doesn’t care by doing this. For the first time in his life, it looks like he’s being held accountable."

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

DOJ threatened to charge Petraeus with three felonies, including “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information” and therefore Petraeus pled guilty to one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. If Trump would have cooperated and returned the documents as soon as the Archives/DOJ asked for them instead of lying and obstructing their return, he would have been treated similarly (at worst). He didn't and now he gets to suffer the consequences. He chose to gamble that he could lie his way out of his problem and lost. Fuck him.

Even though I'm not a lawyer (though my Dad was and I worked in contract law for 20 years as a DoD Contracting Officer and did some expert witness work), I do know that Petraeus' guilt or innocence have exactly zero bearing on Trump's case. Should you be able to murder your wife and get away with it simply because OJ did so?

Thank you for your opinion on the relevance of the Patreaus case. We'll agree to disagree on that.

As to your ongoing accusations of "lying and obstructing" the return of the documents, I understand that perspective.

1) Smith will need to prove to the jury that the statements made by Trump and Natua were "lies". Also, the lying is primarily in the context of "lying to the FBI" as laid out in the indictment. Back to precedent, there is precedent in a Federal Court case, albeit in a different district, decided just last year that a lie to the FBI was not worth convicting someone for. In fact, the comments of the jury foreperson are quite specific on this. “Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted because I think we have better time or resources to use or spend to other things that affect the nation as a whole than a possible lie to the FBI. We could spend that time more wisely,” said the foreperson of the jury in Sussmann’s case, according to Politico.

2) For obstruction, the prosecution must prove "intent". There were classified documents all over Clinton's server, and transmitted to others via email such that these documents ended up in odd places, like Anthony Weiner's laptop. Still, Comey determined that "intent" was lacking in the Clinton case. This was at the core of his "no reasonable prosecutor" statement. "Intent is not easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. We'll see what evidence Smith is able to bring to support his case for "intent".

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

There were classified documents all over Clinton's server

...but, her emails! Waaaaaaahhhhhhh!

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Thank you for your opinion on the relevance of the Patreaus case. We'll agree to disagree on that.

As to your ongoing accusations of "lying and obstructing" the return of the documents, I understand that perspective.

1) Smith will need to prove to the jury that the statements made by Trump and Natua were "lies". Also, the lying is primarily in the context of "lying to the FBI" as laid out in the indictment...

2) For obstruction, the prosecution must prove "intent"...

They will indeed have to prove those things. Thankfully, Trump has made it really easy on them. Hell, he admitted as much last night at Bedminster.