The Walls be Closing

[Kemp]

Trump fans absolutely never defend what Trump does. Literally never.

It's always a case of whataboutism.

Yeah, he's committed a lot of crimes but.......

The Trumpers will open investigations into Biden and we'll see what comes of it. We'll shake our heads about it, but since we're not in a cult, we'll want him gone if he's convicted of a felony, unlike Trump's cult members.

It's funny that the supposedly macho Trump keeps ducking and taking the 5th while Hillary testified for about 12 hours in front of Congress.

And they call us snowflakes.

Give us some more whataboutism Doc and your pal the emoji guy.

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Nope?  LOL!  That's exactly what I said. 

 

So you don't care about other people illegally in possession of classified material they had no business having since they can't declassify it (unlike Trump) and which could have fallen into the wrong hands...your issue is he didn't return it fast enough.  Got it. 

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. 

[BillsFanNC]

Go get a high level security clearance. 

 

Take some classified docs home with you.

 

"Discover them" later and return them immediately to appropriate government authorities.

 

Watch events unfold that ultimately leads to you spending substantial time behind bars.

Edited April 1, 2023 by BillsFanNC

[JaCrispy]

3 hours ago, Wacka said:

Where is the" made documents available to crackhead son and the hookers  he picket up" line?

Crack is wack!

 

Edited April 1, 2023 by JaCrispy

[Doc]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

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. 

 

Yes we know his intent was to keep the documents he felt he was entitled to, because as President, he could declassify what he wanted.  That was the heart of the dispute and the materials were kept under lock and key after he was told to do so.  Then they unprecedentedly raided his home just 2 months later to get them back.  Notice we haven't heard a thing about the sensitive information they allegedly contained.  Do you ask yourself "why" or are you still naive and that the world is filled with sunshine and rainbows where your party is concerned?

 

And tell me, what is the intent when someone deletes 30,000 emails after being told not to do so?  Or has more classified documents in his garage he goes into frequently over 2 months after being found to have them in another place?  Yeah, you're real objective.

Edited April 1, 2023 by Doc

[ChiGoose]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Yes we know his intent was to keep the documents he felt he was entitled to, because as President, he could declassify what he wanted.  That was the heart of the dispute and the materials were kept under lock and key after he was told to do so.  Then they unprecedentedly raided his home just 2 months later to get them back.  Notice we haven't heard a thing about the sensitive information they allegedly contained.  Do you ask yourself "why" or are you still naive and that the world is filled with sunshine and rainbows where your party is concerned?

 

And tell me, what is the intent when someone deletes 30,000 emails after being told not to do so?  Or has more classified documents in his garage he goes into frequently over 2 months after being found to have them in another place?  Yeah, you're real objective.

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.

Edited April 1, 2023 by ChiGoose

[Doc]

The law is that you cannot be in possession of classified documents after leaving the government. Show me where it says that it’s OK to have them  as long as you return them when they ask.

[ChiGoose]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

Show me where it says that it’s OK to have them  as long as you return them when they ask.

 

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.

Edited April 2, 2023 by ChiGoose

[Doc]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

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.

 

The crux of it all is 793 and there is no chance to prove that, just like there wasn't in the other cases.  Without that, it's purely partisan politics whining over not giving the material back fast enough, if you can't prove he intended to use them for nefarious purposes.  And there is no time frame specified to give the materials back and Trump/his team will argue they were still negotiating in what they thought was good faith, after securing the materials as requested.  So again, if the Dems want to play a political game, the Repubs will do the same and impeach Joke (not sure why you keep talking about Joke being prosecuted when I've repeatedly said that as a sitting President he can't be) for willfully and gross negligently having materials in his garage, among other places, that were wholly insecure.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Doc

[BillStime]

18 minutes ago, Doc said:

intended to use them for nefarious purposes. 

This *will* come back to haunt you.

 

18 minutes ago, Doc said:

whining

48 hours and counting - you won’t stop Mista Independent 

 

19 minutes ago, Doc said:

still negotiating in what they thought was good faith

Are you kidding? The most corrupt POTUS in our lifetime obstructing like he has always done?

 

21 minutes ago, Doc said:

impeach Joke

Is this a threat? If you got something run with it… 

 

22 minutes ago, Doc said:

wholly insecure

Ped-o-Largo and faux country club - totes secure

 

 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

Without that, it's purely partisan politics whining over not giving the material back fast enough, if you can't prove he intended to use them for nefarious purposes.  And there is no time frame specified to give the materials back and Trump/his team will argue they were still negotiating in what they thought was good faith, after securing the materials as requested.  

 

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:

1. Had lawful possession of the documents
2. Had reason to believe either:
   1. That the documents could be used to the injury of the United States; OR
   2. That the documents could be used to the advantage of any foreign nation
3. Either:
   1. Willfully communicates or delivers it to someone not entitle to receive it; OR
   2. 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. 

 

Edited April 2, 2023 by ChiGoose

[Doc]

7 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

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:

1. Had lawful possession of the documents
2. Had reason to believe either:
   1. That the documents could be used to the injury of the United States; OR
   2. That the documents could be used to the advantage of any foreign nation
3. Either:
   1. Willfully communicates or delivers it to someone not entitle to receive it; OR
   2. 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.

 

No chance.  But like I said, go for it and get Joke impeached.

[Kemp]

19 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Yes we know his intent was to keep the documents he felt he was entitled to, because as President, he could declassify what he wanted.  That was the heart of the dispute and the materials were kept under lock and key after he was told to do so.  Then they unprecedentedly raided his home just 2 months later to get them back.  Notice we haven't heard a thing about the sensitive information they allegedly contained.  Do you ask yourself "why" or are you still naive and that the world is filled with sunshine and rainbows where your party is concerned?

 

And tell me, what is the intent when someone deletes 30,000 emails after being told not to do so?  Or has more classified documents in his garage he goes into frequently over 2 months after being found to have them in another place?  Yeah, you're real objective.

 

You sprung a new one here worthy of Trump, himself.

Yes, there is a process whereby a siutting President can declassify documents. Saying you have done so is not how it works. There's an official process.

 

From the American Bar Association:

"In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point: “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said".

"Some secrets, such as information related to nuclear weapons, are handled separately under a specific statutory scheme that Congress has adopted under the Atomic Energy Act. Those secrets cannot be automatically declassified by the president alone and require, by law, extensive consultation with executive branch agencies".

Simply put, a President cannot say he declassified documents without telling anyone and if there are any documents in this case involving nuclear weapons, he is in far more trouble than any of us can currently imagine.

All that said, you are free to live in the fantasyland your cult leader has created for you. 

[Doc]

10 minutes ago, Kemp said:

You sprung a new one here worthy of Trump, himself.

Yes, there is a process whereby a siutting President can declassify documents. Saying you have done so is not how it works. There's an official process.

 

From the American Bar Association:

"In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point: “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said".

"Some secrets, such as information related to nuclear weapons, are handled separately under a specific statutory scheme that Congress has adopted under the Atomic Energy Act. Those secrets cannot be automatically declassified by the president alone and require, by law, extensive consultation with executive branch agencies".

Simply put, a President cannot say he declassified documents without telling anyone and if there are any documents in this case involving nuclear weapons, he is in far more trouble than any of us can currently imagine.

All that said, you are free to live in the fantasyland your cult leader has created for you. 

 

As above, and with the other cases, and as I've been saying all along, good luck proving intent. 

Edited April 2, 2023 by Doc

[Kemp]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

As above, and with the other cases, good luck proving intent. 

 

Wait a second. 

You believe Trump made a mistake? An honest error of some sort? That will be his defense?

Hopefully for you, his lawyers are a helluva lot smarter than you, but considering who some of them have been so far, you might be onto something. You do know that ignorance of a law is not a defense that can work? 

Granted, Trump is a total moron, but claiming your client is a moron is probably not a sound legal strategy

And where is intent specified in what I posted from the American Bar Association? 

[Doc]

9 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Wait a second.

You believe Trump made a mistake? An honest error of some sort? That will be his defense?

Hopefully for you, his lawyers are a helluva lot smarter than you, but considering who some of them have been so far, you might be onto something. You do know that ignorance of a law is not a defense that can work? 

Granted, Trump is a total moron, but claiming your client is a moron is probably not a sound legal strategy

And where is intent specified in what I posted from the American Bar Association? 

 

Again his contention is that he believed he could declassify material.  I'm sure you'll disagree, but geniuses like you bought that Hilly deleted emails about Chelsea's wedding and believe that Joke being a moron and not knowing he had documents all over the place is a valid excuse.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Doc

[ChiGoose]

10 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Again his contention is that he believed he could declassify material.  I'm sure you'll disagree, but geniuses like you bought that Hilly deleted emails about Chelsea's wedding and believe that Joke being a moron and not knowing he had documents all over the place is a valid excuse.

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. 

[Doc]

Just now, ChiGoose said:

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. 

 

Sure it matters.  Who cares about unclassified documents?  Classified ones are the ones that can harm the US/help a foreign power.  Again this is a partisan witchhunt that will be met with a partisan impeachment and I urge Dems to pursue this.  It should work out as well as that dumbass Bragg indicting Trump thinking it would hurt him.  Trump has really broken you all.

[ChiGoose]

14 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Sure it matters.  Who cares about unclassified documents?  Classified ones are the ones that can harm the US/help a foreign power.  Again this is a partisan witchhunt that will be met with a partisan impeachment and I urge Dems to pursue this.  It should work out as well as that dumbass Bragg indicting Trump thinking it would hurt him.  Trump has really broken you all.

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. 

[Doc]

9 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

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. 

 

I care about intent (which again is what they'll have to prove).  You all just care just about trying to get him anyway you can.  The Dems have done more to tear the country apart than any foreign adversary could ever hope to do, all because you can't stand to see anyone but a Dem in Office, especially one that beat someone you're sure was going to win, so you had to invent reasons for her failure.  The question is just how far down are you willing to go?

[Warcodered]

46 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Sure it matters.  Who cares about unclassified documents?  Classified ones are the ones that can harm the US/help a foreign power.  Again this is a partisan witchhunt that will be met with a partisan impeachment and I urge Dems to pursue this.  It should work out as well as that dumbass Bragg indicting Trump thinking it would hurt him.  Trump has really broken you all.

🙄

 

It is amusing watching run into this wall over and over again of having it explained how you're wrong, only for you to come back with nuh uh, and we'll impeach him.

 

Which the impeach him thing is funny because Trump is actively being investigated for this now, meanwhile no articles of impeachment, it's almost as if that's not a thing that's going to happen.

[Doc]

Just now, Warcodered said:

🙄

 

It is amusing watching run into this wall over and over again of having it explained how you're wrong, only for you to come back with nuh uh, and we'll impeach him.

 

Which the impeach him thing is funny because Trump is actively being investigated for this now, meanwhile no articles of impeachment, it's almost as if that's not a thing that's going to happen.

 

He's been actively investigated for lots of things and nothing ever sticks.  Again he's either the greatest criminal mastermind or you all are just simps.

[ChiGoose]

22 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

He's been actively investigated for lots of things and nothing ever sticks.  Again he's either the greatest criminal mastermind or you all are just simps.

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

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

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

 

Sure I do, when it comes to the average person.  But certain people get treated differently and then no one knows how it works except those tipping the scale.

[ChiGoose]

36 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Sure I do, when it comes to the average person.  But certain people get treated differently and then no one knows how it works except those tipping the scale.

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. 

[Kemp]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

 

As above, and with the other cases, and as I've been saying all along, good luck proving intent. 

 

I enjoy that you're sticking with the prosecution having to prove Trump is a total moron in order to be found Not Guilty. Perhaps if he wins he can spend his final days in a mental institution.

[BillStime]

No way

 

 

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

No way

 

 

This would explain a lot if it’s true. 

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

This would explain a lot if it’s true. 

 

C'mon...

 

...and DR is crying about "norms" (all of a sudden) no longer apply... f'n delusional.

 

 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

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. 

 

Mueller said that even if Trump weren't President, he wouldn't indict him on collusion, just obstruction. So the only avenue was a political impeachment, which they didn't even attempt, because Mueller said that nothing Trump did prevented him from doing his job. 

 

As for a shadowy Democrat cabal, what does the Stormy Daniels case tell you?  Everyone punted on it for 6 years, even Bragg initially (seeing 2 ADA's resign over it) to the point it reached the SoL.  Then 2 years later he indicts. 

 

45 minutes ago, Kemp said:

I enjoy that you're sticking with the prosecution having to prove Trump is a total moron in order to be found Not Guilty. Perhaps if he wins he can spend his final days in a mental institution.

 

Again talk to me about Joke and the documents in his garage.  Seems to me that "I'm a moron" works for you there.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Doc

[ChiGoose]

18 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Mueller said that even if Trump weren't President, he wouldn't indict him on collusion, just obstruction. So the only avenue was a political impeachment, which they didn't even attempt, because Mueller said that nothing Trump did prevented him from doing his job. 

 

As for a shadowy Democrat cabal, what does the Stormy Daniels case tell you?  Everyone punted on it for 6 years, even Bragg initially (seeing 2 ADA's resign over it) to the point it reached the SoL.  Then 2 years later he indicts. 

 

 

Again talk to me about Joke and the documents in his garage.  Seems to me that "I'm a moron" works for you there.

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

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

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

 

Coordination/collusion, doesn't matter.  Call it what you will.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Doc

[Kemp]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

No way

 

 

 

In the world of Trump, I constantly think I can't be surprised, anymore and yet......

If this is true, Barr committed a felony. 

The hits keep coming. 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Coordination/collusion, doesn't matter.  Call it what you will.

Neither. And it matters tremendously. 
 

Conspiracy is the word you’re looking for. Very different than collusion. 

[BillStime]

28 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

In the world of Trump, I constantly think I can't be surprised, anymore and yet......

If this is true, Barr committed a felony. 

The hits keep coming. 

But but but we were told Trump would drain the swamp not add to it 

 

On 5/16/2022 at 1:16 PM, BillsFanNC said:

I expect the swamp to remain extra swampy and do everything in their power to protect one of the own.

 

[Doc]

6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Neither. And it matters tremendously. 
 

Conspiracy is the word you’re looking for. Very different than collusion. 

 

Semantics.  The terms were used interchangeably and you cannot conspire without colluding.  But for good measure, Google "Russian conspiracy" and "Russian collusion" and see which generates more hits.

[ChiGoose]

10 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Semantics.  The terms were used interchangeably and you cannot conspire without colluding.  But for good measure, Google "Russian conspiracy" and "Russian collusion" and see which generates more hits.

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?

[Doc]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

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?

 

Meaning what term was used most often to describe what Mueller was doing.  You're the first person I've heard used "conspiracy," maybe ever but at least in 5 years.

[BillsFanNC]

The entire Russia narrative was made up out of whole cloth. Arguing with commies who still think it's actually real is pointless.

[Kemp]

5 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Again his contention is that he believed he could declassify material.  I'm sure you'll disagree, but geniuses like you bought that Hilly deleted emails about Chelsea's wedding and believe that Joke being a moron and not knowing he had documents all over the place is a valid excuse.

 

You believe that courts will rule against the law?

If Trump lucks into a Trump  judge like the one who was later overruled, it could happen, but I think the pendulum has swung from Teflon Don to easy pickings. I could be wrong, but it's the first time I've had such confidence.

What makes me even more confident is lstening to how the arguments supporting Trump from people like yourself have evolved from "He's innocent" to "What about blah blah blah?"