ChiGoose

If you want to argue that the media coverage was terrible, I think you and I would probably agree. I’m sticking to the actual known facts and how they apply to the law. Media narrative is a whole other thing.

LOL. Semantics? One is a crime and one isn’t. That seems like a pretty big difference to me. And WTF does googling have to do with it? Do we decide culpability by search engine hits? Does poor media coverage mean we waive criminality?

Neither. And it matters tremendously. Conspiracy is the word you’re looking for. Very different than collusion.

Wait a second… Do you believe that Mueller was investigating collusion?

This would explain a lot if it’s true.

Or maybe since a president can’t be indicted while in office, all there could be were investigations. It’s why the Mueller Report didn’t include charges but instead told Congress to impeach. Since then, there have been ongoing investigations but if we know anything about Trump, it’s that he LOVES obstruction. Which makes investigating him very difficult. Combined with the fact that prosecutors seem to be very careful about going after a former president (he should have been charged for obstruction the second he was no longer president but they let him get away with several provable cases), and you have a very long and drawn out process. Of course, that’s to Trump’s liking as his goal is to drag everything out until he’s president again and can reclaim immunity. There isn’t some shadowy democract cabal behind this. The judicial system is slow and messy. Throw in a former president whose first instinct is to obstruct, and you’re going to have a weird, prolonged, and messy process.

Third option: you have no idea how the legal system actually works.

Lol.

Probably the most pathetic poster on this board. He must lead an incredibly sad life to spend all his time here tagging people he claims to have muted. SAD!

You’re the one Trump has broken. Provided with clear evidence that Trump has met the elements of a charge for his mishandling of the documents, you continue to put your head in the sand and deny and deflect. As I have stated repeatedly, if Trump did what Biden and Pence did, he would be fine. If Biden or Pence did what Trump did, they would be facing charges. But your TDS is just too strong to admit that your godking is fallible.

Please go back and read the statutes he’s being investigated for violating. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE DOCUMENTS WERE CLASSIFIED. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand.

This is factually incorrect and likely based on a misreading of the statute. Note that the conjunction for the subsections is "or", not "and". You do not need to prove the elements of 18 USC § 793(a)-(f), you just need to prove the elements of one of them. It's an easy mistake if you're not used to reading statutes. So let's look at what might be the subsection the government is using here, 18 USC § 793(d), and break it down into its elements (I honestly think 18 USC § 793(e) is the more likely charge here, but we'll look at (d) because it assumes fewer bad facts for Trump): To establish a prima facie case, the government would need to establish that Trump: Had lawful possession of the documents Had reason to believe either: That the documents could be used to the injury of the United States; OR That the documents could be used to the advantage of any foreign nation Either: Willfully communicates or delivers it to someone not entitle to receive it; OR Willfully retains the documents and refuses to deliver it on demand to the United States [emphasis mine] Given the public evidence, it is clear that the government can support a claim that: Donald Trump (1) had the documents, and (2.1 or 2.2) knew the documents could hurt the US or be useful to a foreign power, and (3.2) willfully retained the documents and refused to deliver them on demand. Your point about the how much time he had to return them is likely a loser in court given the "on demand" language (Trump would need to convince a jury that 8 months after the request was "on demand"). Trump's team will likely argue that they were negotiating in good faith, but the prosecution would introduce evidence that Trump's camp was lying to the government during those negotiations. Once again, that element would be determined by a jury, but I wouldn't bet on Trump there. The facts of this case meet all of the elements to support a charge under 18 USC § 793. The specific factual disputes would be decided by the jury, as the trier of fact, but Trump definitely has the worse side of the argument.

Sure thing. Let's start with the statutes that Trump is being investigated under according to the search warrant. The investigation is based on three statues, 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071 , and 1519. Let's look at the text of each of them to answer your question. 18 U.S.C. §§ 793 (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or (b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or (c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or (d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2071 (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519 Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. So there you go. The three laws the government suspects Trump violated all have a intent component. Additionally, none of them require the documents to be classified, so even if he did declassify them, it is irrelevant to the case. The classification aspect is scandalous and leads the news stories, but it's actually not a part of the legal issues at hand. The media is absolutely terrible at reporting on the law. For Biden (or Pence) to be prosecuted, the government would have to make a showing of intent or gross negligence. Their defense will be that they did not personally handle the documents and were not aware of them. Unless there is evidence to the contrary aside from mere possession, they would win in court. Reasonable doubt would be a low bar for a defense attorney in these cases. Hillary's case was closer as the FBI found she was careless, but they did not believe they could sustain a conviction in court on gross negligence as the case law on these situations is mixed.

Ok, I get that you are unwilling or unable to understand the facts and the laws surrounding this, but just for anyone with an open mind who is wondering what the difference between the cases is: The second a president’s term expires, they lose the possessory right to any presidential documents whether or not they are classified. No matter what actions Trump took while he was still in office, at 12:01pm ET on January 20, 2021, his possession of any presidential documents or records was contrary to the law. However, as we have seen, there is leniency so long as the person acts in good faith to return the documents. Had Trump arrived at Mar A Lago and found the documents, immediately notified authorities, and turned them over, he’d be fine. This would be all over and there’d be no issue at all as far as the law is concerned. He did not notify authorities but instead, NARA realized he had some documents and reached out to get them. At this point, had Trump turned them over, he would be fine. In fact, if he had turned over all of the documents he knew of and then initiated a search to see if there were other documents and found more docs, he’d still face no legal jeopardy so long as he turned those new documents over. Instead, Trump refused to return the documents, signaling his intent to maintain possession of government documents that do not belong to him. This is the legal equivalent of someone accidentally walking out of a store without paying for something and when confronted about it, refusing to pay or turn it over. At this point, the government began negotiating with Trump’s team to get the documents. This is to prevent the government from getting the docs themselves. Had Trump turned them over here, he’d still probably be ok. But he didn’t. Instead, he sent some boxes of documents to the government and had his lawyers sign a letter falsely claiming that this represented all of the documents. As the government reviewed the provided documents, it became clear that some documents were still missing. So, we have someone who was illegally possessing government property, refused to turn it over, and then lied about turning it over. Only at this point, after almost a year of negotiating, when it became clear that they could not trust Trump’s team to comply, that the search warrant was executed. This is not a witch-hunt. Trump could have easily avoided this and he brought it down on himself. He has nobody to blame but himself.

I don’t understand why people on PPP just make up ***** about other posters. Maybe it’s a last ditch effort because their own arguments are asinine. Your insistence on not only missing the entire point, but then lying about what I believe, is childish. In any event, there’s a difference between appropriateness and criminality. It is abundantly clear that there are major issues with the handling of government documents, especially classified ones. While career civil service employees have tight controls, it appears that the controls for principles are gravely broken. Off the top of my head, we’ve had Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Mike Pence, Donald Trump, and most of the top advisors in the Trump administration violating the rules and laws around documents and records. There needs to be a serious look into how to prevent this in the future. But in the meantime, an evaluation of the law clearly shows that unless you can prove intent or willful negligence in a court of law, there will not be a charge. Intent is very easy to prove when someone knowingly refuses to return documents, lies about returning documents, and then sues to avoid having to return documents. It’s less so when there is no physical or testimonial evidence that they knew they had documents they shouldn’t have and did not turn them over anyway.

Nope. The issue is not returning the documents the moment they are discovered. The evidence shows Biden did and Trump didn’t. If that changes, it changes things. But so far, that’s the difference.

You should actually read the FBI’s report on Hillary and the deleted files. Not that you’d believe it since you seem to only believe things that fit you narrative, regardless of the truth. And once again, you would need to prove that Biden knew those other documents were there and intentionally did not return them. There remains zero evidence to support that. You can make assumptions and you can claim whatever you want, but so far there is nothing that could be introduced in court to show that Biden was aware of those documents and refused to turn them over. Remember when everyone here was complaining about the FBI taking stuff from Trump that wasn’t the documents? Some of that was his personal documents that were mixed in his desk drawer with the classified docs. The purpose of confiscating those is because they can show that Trump was still using the documents after he was president. If Biden had documents dated post presidency that he was personally using mixed in with the classified docs, that could be used to show that he knew about the documents and didn’t turn them in. But we don’t have that. Any defense attorney will be able to successfully argue with the evidence we have that Biden himself was unaware of the documents and there’s nothing we know of that would refute that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since you are still struggling to understand the differences in the cases, I made this handy chart for you: This is how the law works around these cases. It's may not be how you like it but it is how it is. You can keep saying Biden knew about the docs but so far there is ZERO admissible evidence to demonstrate that. As all of the people correctly criticizing Nancy Pelosi are pointing out: it's up to the prosecution to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove innocence. Based on what we know, Biden would walk if he was charged for the documents case. If Biden's column looked like Trump's, then he should be indicted too.

From what we know, the government would be unable to sustain a conviction against Biden. Any half decent defense attorney would win that case easily and a good one would win it before trial. Meanwhile, someone fresh out of law school who spends their evenings sniffing glue would be able to get a guilty verdict on the Trump case. If it wasn’t political, but instead was 100% just following the law, the only difference would be that Trump would have been indicted months ago.

It was good enough for the authorities. They believe that he wasn’t aware of them. Helps when you cooperate. Plus, if he was aware of them and the authorities weren’t, why turn them over at all?

Trump got raided solely because of Trump’s actions. If he had done what Hillary, Biden, and Pence did, this would all be behind him. I do not understand why that is so hard to grasp.

“who cares about obstruction of Justice” is certainly a take. And for the 1,000,000,000,000th time; what the GOP will do in response to this is IRRELEVANT. My god, how hard is it to understand that?

It also would matter on what the charges are and the evidence is. If prosecutors are able to prove that Joe Biden was actually personally involved with Hunter’s influence peddling and committed crimes as part of that, you would have some liberals upset and definitely some whataboutism but by and large they would be more upset at Biden than law enforcement. I wonder if Senator Franken wants to weigh in on whether or not Dems are generally ok with holding their own accountable.

No, I honestly wouldn’t care if any of them got indicted if they actually committed crimes. At this point, I’m almost hoping Hunter gets indicted.

Yeah, this is why they investigated it. I don’t understand what’s so confusing about this. Biden’s team finds documents, immediately notifies law enforcement. Biden’s team kicks off investigation and finds more documents. Biden’s team then has law enforcement take over lead on investigation. As far as we know, Biden’s team never disobeyed law enforcement, did not conceal anything, did not sue them, and their cooperation was apparently satisfactory because law enforcement did not file any motions against Biden’s team nor publicly comment or leak that Biden’s team was doing anything other than cooperating fully. If they find out that Biden has been personally using documents he knew to be classified, then that changes things. But there is so far no evidence in the public of that.