Trump stole top secret nuclear docs - greatest security risk in US history - MORE TAPES!!!

[Doc Brown]

12 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

No way.  Like always with Trump, the simplest explanation is the most likely.  His personality is his greatest strength and his own worst enemy.

[Demongyz]

10 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

They can both be disgusting (I didn’t vote for either) and still have different legal exposure. 
 

I personally think a private citizen stealing government documents is pretty bad. 

In his defense, when he stole the documents he was the President.

[ChiGoose]

18 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

In his defense, when he stole the documents he was the President.

And when he was asked to return them by NARA, he was a private citizen. 
 

When he lied to NARA about having returned them all, he was a private citizen. 
 

The moment Joe Biden was sworn in, Trump lost any right to posses those documents and his possession of them was in violation of the law. 

[Demongyz]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

And when he was asked to return them by NARA, he was a private citizen. 
 

When he lied to NARA about having returned them all, he was a private citizen. 
 

The moment Joe Biden was sworn in, Trump lost any right to posses those documents and his possession of them was in violation of the law. 

Guess we will see when he goes to prison.

[ChiGoose]

Just now, Demongyz said:

Guess we will see when he goes to prison.

He’s clearly guilty. The question is whether or not the DoJ has the guts to do anything about it. 

[Demongyz]

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

He’s clearly guilty. The question is whether or not the DoJ has the guts to do anything about it. 

Right, lots of politicians are guilty of a lot of things.  Lots of bureaucrats are guilty of a lot of things.

DOJ doesn't do anything unless it is politically expedient to do it.  Right now Trump has announced a run for president and the country doesn't want him in power, but there is a very large contingent of Trumpers that will only vote for him.  This means no matter who the Dems run will win.  So, Trump won't be prosecuted unless the establishment decides he can win.

 

The government is as corrupt as can be and has been for years.

[ChiGoose]

17 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

Right, lots of politicians are guilty of a lot of things.  Lots of bureaucrats are guilty of a lot of things.

DOJ doesn't do anything unless it is politically expedient to do it.  Right now Trump has announced a run for president and the country doesn't want him in power, but there is a very large contingent of Trumpers that will only vote for him.  This means no matter who the Dems run will win.  So, Trump won't be prosecuted unless the establishment decides he can win.

 

The government is as corrupt as can be and has been for years.

 

Wrong.

[Demongyz]

5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Wrong.

Ok then.

[The Frankish Reich]

22 hours ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Well, that makes it completely ok. I mean if he said he just wanted to have them because he would miss them...

 

And if he says he totally wasn't going to sell them. I don't know why, but I believe him! I mean, he's never lied before.

Correct. “Ego and intransigence” is always a fine excuse. 
Remember: the whole classification scheme exists not because it would be unlawful to use secret government information for your personal economic gain - that’s already covered by other criminal laws. It exists because of the danger that allowing that information to be accessible to outsiders poses a grave danger to national security. “I took them out of a secured location and kept them at a resort hotel out of pure vanity and vanity alone” isn’t, to most normal Americans (not to mention to the law) really an excuse at all. It is an admission that you put your own childish self-aggrandizement over the security of the country. 

[Doc]

23 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

"the greatest security risk in US history"

 

 

 

Soooo … that means Trump WASN’T selling nuclear secrets to our enemies, right? Never Trump, hardest hit.

 

Interesting how we see this story from WaPo AFTER the midterm election. Granted, Trump was not on the ballot HOWEVER, plenty of candidates he endorsed were.

 

Sort of like the convenient timing around the Hunter Biden laptop story. Before the election, it was RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION then after the election, OOPS, it was a real story and there is likely something there but moving on.

 

Seeing this from WaPo a week after the midterms. Typical.

 

 

From WaPo:

 

That review has not found any apparent business advantage to the types of classified information in Trump’s possession, these people said. FBI interviews with witnesses so far, they said, also do not point to any nefarious effort by Trump to leverage, sell or use the government secrets. Instead, the former president seemed motivated by a more basic desire not to give up what he believed was his property, these people said.

 

No kidding.

 

The people familiar with the matter cautioned that the investigation is ongoing, that no final determinations have been made, and that it is possible additional information could emerge that changes investigators’ understanding of Trump’s motivations. But they said the evidence collected over a period of months indicates the primary explanation for potentially criminal conduct was Trump’s ego and intransigence.

 

Right.

 

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/11/15/wapo-quietly-admits-fbi-found-nothin-in-raid-of-trumps-home-conveniently-after-the-election/

 

Hmmmm...kinda like what I said about the Dems not wanting to indict him so he can run again in 2024.  I guess we'll see if/when they indict him.

[Big Blitz]

 

But the walls are closing in!!

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

On 11/15/2022 at 2:00 PM, ChiGoose said:

 

It doesn't matter for what purpose he took them, mere possession of them post-presidency is a crime.

Not true my corporate lawyer tell me all the time ‘intent matters’  which is exactly why that leak is material.

 

Of course he did it because his big fat orange but now slightly bronzer ego- like everything he’s done ever.  

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

On 11/15/2022 at 6:54 PM, ChiGoose said:

Sure thing!

 

There are two key differences between Hillary and Trump when it comes to possession of government documents. 
 

1. At the time, Hillary was a government employee with the appropriate security clearance to view the information. Trump was a private citizen with no security clearance. 
 

2. The confidential information on Hillary’s server appeared to reach there unintentionally. The classification markings were generally way down on the email chains and it would be hard to overcome a defense of her not knowing they were there. Trump was told by NARA that he had no right to the documents and his lawyers signed documents saying he had returned all of the documents when he really hadn’t. Intent is very easy to infer there. 
 

The DoJ found that while Hillary lacked intent, she was recklessly careless. However, there have only been a handful of cases in history in which the DoJ secured a guilty verdict in a case like this on gross negligence. All of those cases are essentially things like throwing documents in a dumpster instead of shredding them or accidentally taking documents and leaving them in your buddy’s office desk drawer while you go out partying. 

As a government employee with appropriate clearance, Hillary had the right to access the information but how she did it was improper. 
 

As a private citizen with no government clearance (presidents don’t actually get security clearance), Trump had no possessory right to the documents. 
 

It would be near impossible for the DoJ to win a guilty verdict against Hillary given the facts. 
 

It should be a slam dunk to get one against Trump. 

See Hilary Re: intent 

Quote

In July, FBI director James Comey announced that the FBI investigation had concluded that Clinton had been "extremely careless" but recommended that no charges be filed because Clinton did not act with criminal intent, the historical standard for pursuing prosecution.[9]

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy

[Doc]

6 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

See Hilary Re: intent 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy

 

Bingo.  And why it's been a nothingburger from the beginning.  And is even less now that they want him to run and muck things up for DeSantis.

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Bingo.  And why it's been a nothingburger from the beginning.  And is even less now that they want him to run and muck things up for DeSantis.

No, he had whar he shouldn't of had. He is busted red handed. 

 

You wanted Britney Greiner to suffer in a Putin prison for a crime, but want Trump free to hurt America

 

 

Sad 

[ChiGoose]

6 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Not true my corporate lawyer tell me all the time ‘intent matters’  which is exactly why that leak is material.

 

Of course he did it because his big fat orange but now slightly bronzer ego- like everything he’s done ever.  

 

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. His intent to remove the documents matters; what is intent was to do with the documents is not relevant to 18 U.S. Code § 2071, which is one of the statutes from the search warrant.

 

Here is the text of the statute:

Quote

(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.

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by ChiGoose

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

No, he had whar he shouldn't of had. He is busted red handed. 

 

You wanted Britney Greiner to suffer in a Putin prison for a crime, but want Trump free to hurt America

 

 

Sad 

 

Nothing will happen to him.  As for Griner, I feel bad for her making a mistake taking drugs to Russia.  Joke should absolutely be doing more to get her released.

[Tiberius]

13 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Nothing will happen to him.  As for Griner, I feel bad for her making a mistake taking drugs to Russia.  Joke should absolutely be doing more to get her released.

Trump broke the law and endangered national security. He is guilty 

[ChiGoose]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Trump broke the law and endangered national security. He is guilty 

This is true but the question remains if the DoJ has the balls to do anything about it. 

[Doc]

26 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Trump broke the law and endangered national security. He is guilty 

 

Yeah but he didn't intend to.  So he skates.

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah but he didn't intend to.  So he skates.

Bull sh it. Incarcerate! 

[ChiGoose]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

[Tiberius]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

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. 

[ChiGoose]

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]

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. 
 

 

[ChiGoose]

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]

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

[Sundancer]

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]

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?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

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]

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]

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.