I had to tell a few of my defendant clients that saying someone else who was not arrested or prosecuted for committing the same acts was not a defense.
Do you ever get drunk with fellow lawyers and laugh your asses off about all the stupid things your clients say? If I were a lawyer, I'd be doing that at the end of every week.
I had to tell a few of my defendant clients that saying someone else who was not arrested or prosecuted for committing the same acts was not a defense.
It might be if you were arrested for falsifying a background check for a firearm purchase if you live in the same state where Hunter bought his. Over 4 years without a resolution ?
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 8, 2023 - 8:31pm
Steely_D wrote:
Standard whataboutism. Hillary, Obama, Biden. Trump gets a pass on his horrible behavior and incompetence governance because * waves arms wildly * all that other stuff that everyone else did that you're not looking at. Which is not an exemption for his incompetent and treasonous behavior. Instead, it behooves him to rise above that horrible behavior of his predecessors since he's the best at everything.
I had to tell a few of my defendant clients that saying someone else was not arrested or prosecuted for committing the same acts was not a defense.
Let's stop pushing this false equivalence BS about Biden/Pence and Trump. No one believes it.
Standard whataboutism. Hillary, Obama, Biden. Trump gets a pass on his horrible behavior and incompetence governance because * waves arms wildly * all that other stuff that everyone else did that you're not looking at. Which is not an exemption for his incompetent and treasonous behavior. Instead, it behooves him to rise above that horrible behavior of his predecessors since he's the best at everything.
Kurtster wrote:. Willfully would more apply to how the documents were gathered in the first place. I'm sorry but I firmly believe you're flat-out guessing on that matter. Even if you had a good point about the matter of Trump not being involved in throwing documents into boxes he "wilfully retained" them by refusing to return them when repeatedly asked to do so. He was told he had govt. documents. He was told he had to return them. He was told that he had not declassified certain documents in his possession. Even if he had, they were still the property of the government. He refused to turn them over and tried to use deception to hold onto some of them. Let's stop pushing this false equivalence BS about Biden/Pence and Trump. No one believes it.
Actually, this is what H Clinton should have been charged with for all of her unlawful personal possession of the very types of documents mentioned on her home server, of which she destroyed subpoenaed documents and destroyed devices rather than turn them over. Her server was also hacked by unfriendlies. She would have gone away forever.
Funny how it was Hillary who conjured up the whole Russia, Russia, Russia hoax in order to distract from this as well as the hack of the DNC servers. OBTW, paper copies of the contents of the DNC's servers is in no way the last word as you stated earlier. If the actual drives were taken and looked at, digital fingerprints of the hackers could be found as well as recovery of deleted material as we have seen in the case of H Biden. Trust but verify ... But you never liked that guy, so I see why you go the way you go.
Willfully would more apply to how the documents were gathered in the first place.
I'm sorry but I firmly believe you're flat-out guessing on that matter. Even if you had a good point about the matter of Trump not being involved in throwing documents into boxes he "wilfully retained" them by refusing to return them when repeatedly asked to do so.
He was told he had govt. documents. He was told he had to return them. He was told that he had not declassified certain documents in his possession. Even if he had, they were still the property of the government. He refused to turn them over and tried to use deception to hold onto some of them.
Let's stop pushing this false equivalence BS about Biden/Pence and Trump. No one believes it.
Willfully would more apply to how the documents were gathered in the first place.
I'm sorry but I firmly believe you're flat-out guessing on that matter. Even if you had a good point about the matter of Trump not being involved in throwing documents into boxes he "wilfully retained" them by refusing to return them when repeatedly asked to do so.
He was told he had govt. documents. He was told he had to return them. He was told that he had not declassified certain documents in his possession. Even if he had, they were still the property of the government. He refused to turn them over and tried to use deception to hold onto some of them.
Let's stop pushing this false equivalence BS about Biden/Pence and Trump. No one believes it.
Trump has repeatedly and flagrantly violated multiple laws. He has no good excuse for holding onto the documents especially after he was told that he had to return them by the govt and his own lawyers.
âWhen youâre a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."
If this being the case, Biden's situation would be even worse than Trump's. Doesn't matter if Biden helped to gather his up, he never had the right to possess any of his outside of an official secure government location in the first place. And Biden had much more than Trump, scattered here, there and everywhere. And unsecured.
:popcorn:
The last sentence may be the work around that gives Biden a pass on his stuff, though. Biden is untouchable anyway, ipso facto ...
As the NY Post pointed out, every President since Reagan has retained documents outside of government facilities. Mike Pence had documents after leaving office just like Biden and he's not being charged with anything..
So apparently it's not uncommon for high-level govt officials to have govt documents after leaving office. The big difference between Joe and Don is that Joe cooperated fully with government officials in returning documents while Don lied and delayed and stonewalled and tried to hide documents.
As someone pointed out, "wilfully" is a key word on considering Section 793. Also key to 793 charges is the notion that the individual holding the documents tried to pass information contained in those documents to an individual/s who didn't have authorization to learn that info. The recorded conversation of Trump talking about an invasion plan for Iran that JCoS Chairman Milley supposedly drew up may be the trigger evidence for 793 charges. Milley's predecessor not Milley actually had the plans created at Trump's order. It's not clear to me that Trump actually had those plans when he had that recorded conversation.
The number and classification levels of the documents in question isn't directly relevant to 793 charges. DOJ used 793 to circumvent Trump's fantasy claims that he'd declassified all the documents found in his possession.
To the best of my weary recollection, Trump had many times more documents post-office than Biden. I think Joe had 30-40 while Don had 300+. And Trump's documents in many cases just as unsecured as Joe's.
And for those keeping score, IIRC Joe did not have documents with the highest security classification. Donnie did.
Let's stop with this fantasy crap that Biden is untouchable. Try to understand, Kurt, that Trump has repeatedly and flagrantly violated multiple laws. He has no good excuse for holding onto the documents especially after he was told that he had to return them by the govt and his own lawyers. Also as has been pointed out, Trump knew and followed declassification procedures while he was
President. IIRC he went through the correct procedure to formally declassify Crossfire Hurricane documents right before the end of his term. No magical thinking there.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 8, 2023 - 6:56pm
kurtster wrote:
Willfully would more apply to how the documents were gathered in the first place. My understanding is that WH staff sloppily packed up his stuff in a hurry outside of normal protocols and shipped the stuff to Trump. Documents and possessions were mixed with each other showing no organized packing method. My understanding is that Trump had zero involvement in this part of the move. While he had the documents Trump didn't "gather" anything which is an important part of the code.
These are process crimes I am guessing.
Willfully applies to Trumpâs retention of the documents at MAL.
If this being the case, Biden's situation would be even worse than Trump's. Doesn't matter if Biden helped to gather his up, he never had the right to possess any of his outside of an official secure government location in the first place. And Biden had much more than Trump, scattered here, there and everywhere. And unsecured. :popcorn: The last sentence may be the work around that gives Biden a pass on his stuff, though.
Willfully is an element of the offense. The investigation into Pence and his possession of documents already has been dismissed.
Willfully would more apply to how the documents were gathered in the first place. My understanding is that WH staff sloppily packed up his stuff in a hurry outside of normal protocols and shipped the stuff to Trump. Documents and possessions were mixed with each other showing no organized packing method. My understanding is that Trump had zero involvement in this part of the move. While he had the documents Trump didn't "gather" anything which is an important part of the code.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jun 8, 2023 - 6:23pm
kurtster wrote:
If this being the case, Biden's situation would be even worse than Trump's. Doesn't matter if Biden helped to gather his up, he never had the right to possess any of his outside of an official secure government location in the first place. And Biden had much more than Trump, scattered here, there and everywhere. And unsecured.
:popcorn:
The last sentence may be the work around that gives Biden a pass on his stuff, though.
Willfully is an element of the offense.
The investigation into Pence and his possession of documents already has been dismissed.
The Independent has learned that prosecutors are prepared to ask grand jurors to vote on charges as early as Thursday
The use of Section 793, which does not make reference to classified information, is understood to be a strategic decision by prosecutors that has been made to short-circuit Mr Trump’s ability to claim that he used his authority as president to declassify documents he removed from the White House and kept at his Palm Beach, Florida property long after his term expired on 20 January 2021.
That section of US criminal law is written in a way that could encompass Mr Trump’s conduct even if he was authorised to possess the information as president because it states that anyone who “lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document ...relating to the national defence,” and “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” can be punished by as many as 10 years in prison.
If this being the case, Biden's situation would be even worse than Trump's. Doesn't matter if Biden helped to gather his up, he never had the right to possess any of his outside of an official secure government location in the first place. And Biden had much more than Trump, scattered here, there and everywhere. And unsecured.
:popcorn:
The last sentence may be the work around that gives Biden a pass on his stuff, though. Biden is untouchable anyway, ipso facto ...
The Independent has learned that prosecutors are prepared to ask grand jurors to vote on charges as early as Thursday
The Department of Justice is preparing to ask a Washington, DC grand jury to indict former president Donald Trump for violating the Espionage Act and for obstruction of justice as soon as Thursday, adding further weight to the legal baggage facing Mr Trump as he campaigns for his partyâs nomination in next yearâs presidential election.
The Independent has learned that prosecutors are ready to ask grand jurors to approve an indictment against Mr Trump for violating a portion of the US criminal code known as Section 793, which prohibits âgathering, transmitting or losingâ any âinformation respecting the national defenceâ.
The use of Section 793, which does not make reference to classified information, is understood to be a strategic decision by prosecutors that has been made to short-circuit Mr Trumpâs ability to claim that he used his authority as president to declassify documents he removed from the White House and kept at his Palm Beach, Florida property long after his term expired on 20 January 2021.
That section of US criminal law is written in a way that could encompass Mr Trumpâs conduct even if he was authorised to possess the information as president because it states that anyone who âlawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document ...relating to the national defence,â and âwillfully 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 itâ can be punished by as many as 10 years in prison.
It is understood that prosecutors intend to ask grand jurors to vote on the indictment on Thursday, but that vote could be delayed as much as a week until the next meeting of the grand jury to allow for a complete presentation of evidence, or to allow investigators to gather more evidence for presentation if necessary.
A separate grand jury that is meeting in Florida has also been hearing evidence in the documents investigation. That grand jury was empaneled in part to overcome legal issues posed by the fact that some of the crimes allegedly committed by Mr Trump took place in that jurisdiction, not in Washington. Under federal law, prosecutors must bring charges against federal defendants in the jurisdiction where the crimes took place.
Even if grand jurors vote to return an indictment against the ex-president this week, it is likely that those charges would remain sealed until both the Washington and Florida grand juries complete their work.
