ChiGoose

You’re not wrong. Maybe that’s why they like her. She’s a kindred spirit in quackery

I don’t understand why anyone listens to her if they want to be informed about legal matters. As far as I can tell, she has no training, background, or experience. I guess it just because she tells them what they want to hear. Feelings always over facts for them.

Facts just don't matter to these people. You could have Trump telling people that he didn't think he won the election, that the same election theories he was putting out there were crazy nonsense, and they would still believe he won the election. Feelings over facts. No matter what Trump does or says, they will never believe he ever did anything wrong.

Just for the adults capable of reading, a quick reminder: There are legal ways to contest an election. Trump is not being charged for those. There are illegal ways to contest an election. Trump is being charged for those.

Because she tells them what they want to hear. It doesn’t matter that she has no relevant background or experience; or that she has no idea what she’s talking about; or that she’s constantly wrong. She validates their feelings. And feelings are all that matters to them. It’s why they reject facts and seek the comfort of morons and grifters.

I see you still are huffing glue.

Aaaaaaah. You're one of those people living in a fantasy world. Carry on with your nonsense then.

Lol. Maybe you should try reading more than two paragraphs. The indictment lays out the challenges to the election and statements by Trump there were legal, and therefore are not charged. It then goes on to explain the actual crimes he committed. It would be third world country ***t to not indict someone who did this.

It's almost as if he has no idea what he's talking about... For any adults, here is what is being charged and the alleged facts of the case.

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371) Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512(k)) Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding (18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2),2) Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241) (Here ya go)

Text of the indictment for anyone who wants to read it.

Irrelevant. There is overwhelming evidence that he committed crimes. Anyone else who did what he did would have been indicted a while ago. It would be a political act not to indict him.

Maybe, just maybe, an electoral system designed to protect slavery that had state legislatures electing senators and has resulted in elite capture of our government isn’t the best way to do things… You do you, though.

That would likely require fixing our electoral system. Which I’m all in favor of but has little chance of happening.

I hope that’s a joke…. What if instead we strengthened the controls around classified documents and how electeds are moved out of office?

Trump lied and told the government he turned them over when he hadn’t. As part of the negotiations with NARA, Trump had agreed to move the documents into a locked storage room. His lawyer was tasked with going in there and sorting through the boxes, removing anything that belonged to the government so it could be turned over. Prior to his lawyer doing the review, Trump instructed his employee to go into the room and remove some of the boxes still containing classified materials. So when Trump’s lawyer did the review, he sealed all of the government docs in a container and taped it closed. Trump then had his lawyers send a letter to NARA saying that they had returned ALL of the documents, even though he knew they hadn’t. When NARA discovers the deception, they bring in law enforcement and that’s when we get the search (done reportedly low key without even the FBI jackets). So Trump is given the opportunity to review the materials in his possession, but decides to deceive the government anyway, and you think it was wrong for the government to stop trusting him?

What’s the “real” conversation? That it is political to enforce the law? Or that we should let ex-presidents break the law with no recourse?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Nah, we can address climate change without degrowth. We have the technology. We just need the willpower.

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 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.

I still struggle to understand this viewpoint, honestly. The timeline makes it clear that there wasn't much of a choice left at that point: The government notified Trump that he had their stuff Trump refused to return it Over the better part of a year, the government tried to get Trump to return it Eventually, Trump turns over boxes of stuff and tells the government that he returned everything Then the government learns that Trump was lying and actually still had stuff, having intentionally kept it from the government (and, as it turns out, his own freaking lawyer) At that point, it's completely clear to anyone that this guy is not trustworthy on this. Why would you expect that he'd actually do a good faith review after he intentionally deceived you? Why would you think he'd honestly return the materials when you know he's been lying to you the whole time? If securing the documents is important (and obviously it was), I don't think you have any options other than to execute a search warrant.