Politics Thread

Printable View

06-13-2023, 08:50 PM
STL_XUfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I’ll respect your opinion on this when Bill, Hillary and Biden are indicted. Are they above the law? Apparently Legal precedent doesn’t matter.

Honestly if your ever agreed with me, I would have to rethink my opinion. The level of confidently incorrect bull shit you spew about the law is comical.

The difference between the Biden, Pence, Bill and Hillary vs Trump facts are obvious. There is a shit load of classified information that is shared at all levels of government, from the president, vice president, Secretary of State, all the way down to low level government contractors. (In my opinion way too much is unnecessarily classified). In the former cases, when classified information was discovered, they cooperated and turned it over. In the later case he lied about it, obstructed attempts to recover it, and unlawfully shared it with no authority to do so.

He has been charged with a violation of 18 usc 793(e) which provides: “(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“

So, did Trump posses it? Yes
Was he authorized to possess it? This is his best defense, but seems unlikely.
Did he attempt to deliver to someone unauthorized to see it? Yes, on tape doing it
Did he know he couldn’t? Yes, once again on tape.
Did he willfully retain it? Yes
Did he refuse to return it when demanded? Yes

Trump made it a campaign promise to prosecute Hillary and had 4 years of control over the DOJ and couldn’t make the case. My guess is that all they have is the bull shit conspiracy theories you peddle in on the deep edges of Twitter, and not real evidence to make a case.
06-13-2023, 08:54 PM
STL_XUfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

And for the record. I am not a lawyer.

That aside. I want to know who was at the golf club in NJ and what the purpose of the meeting and also who recorded it (if the tape exists). Also, I’d like to know if NJ is a two way consent State when it comes to recordings. That can cause problems for the recorder.

I’m not a lawyer and no one is paying me to do this so I’ll stop.

First, you not being a lawyer is pretty obvious.

Second, Trump was sitting for an interview for Mark Meadows book. Saying off the record before sharing the classified information may protect it from being published by a journalist, but doesn’t protect you from being prosecuted by a prosecutor.
06-13-2023, 09:04 PM
Strange Brew

Quote:

Originally Posted by STL_XUfan

Honestly if your ever agreed with me, I would have to rethink my opinion. The level of confidently incorrect bull shit you spew about the law is comical.

The difference between the Biden, Pence, Bill and Hillary vs Trump facts are obvious. There is a shit load of classified information that is shared at all levels of government, from the president, vice president, Secretary of State, all the way down to low level government contractors. (In my opinion way too much is unnecessarily classified). In the former cases, when classified information was discovered, they cooperated and turned it over. In the later case he lied about it, obstructed attempts to recover it, and unlawfully shared it with no authority to do so.

He has been charged with a violation of 18 usc 793(e) which provides: “[FONT="](e)[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT][FONT="]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“

So, did Trump posses it? Yes
Was he authorized to possess it? This is his best defense, but seems unlikely.
Did he attempt to deliver to someone unauthorized to see it? Yes, on tape doing it
Did he know he couldn’t? Yes, once again on tape.
Did he willfully retain it? Yes
Did he refuse to return it when demanded? Yes

Trump made it a campaign promise to prosecute Hillary and had 4 years of control over the DOJ and couldn’t make the case. My guess is that all they have is the bull shit conspiracy theories you peddle in on the deep edges of Twitter, and not real evidence to make a case.

[/FONT]

Amazingly we agree too much is classified.

And we agree on his right to possess it is the matter at hand.

Now, tell me the role of precedent and how it applies here. If you can’t this is clearly selective prosecution.
06-13-2023, 09:11 PM
Strange Brew

Quote:

Originally Posted by STL_XUfan

First, you not being a lawyer is pretty obvious.

Second, Trump was sitting for an interview for Mark Meadows book. Saying off the record before sharing the classified information may protect it from being published by a journalist, but doesn’t protect you from being prosecuted by a prosecutor.

And when and how did you know this before today? Seems like these leaks could taint a jury pool. Do you agree Counselor?
06-13-2023, 09:30 PM
STL_XUfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

And when and how did you know this before today? Seems like these leaks could taint a jury pool. Do you agree Counselor?

You didn’t seem to know it, so out of a jury pool of a few million I am sure they can find 12 others that didn’t either.

Also, it appears that the AG has been frustratingly closed lips, instead it is the press putting together the tea leaves.
06-13-2023, 09:34 PM
Strange Brew

Quote:

Originally Posted by STL_XUfan

You didn’t seem to know it, so out of a jury pool of a few million I am sure they can find 12 others that didn’t either.

Also, it appears that the AG has been frustratingly closed lips, instead it is the press putting together the tea leaves.

This will be a very interesting case for sure which I find it amazing how sloppily the indictment was written. Seemed a bit rushed…
06-13-2023, 09:41 PM
STL_XUfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

This will be a very interesting case for sure which I find it amazing how sloppily the indictment was written. Seemed a bit rushed…

What are you even talking about. That indictment was written tight enough that even Bill Barr said if half was true Trump is toast? It is clear you don’t read pleadings for a living, cause this basically nailed the jury instructions on any potential trial.
06-14-2023, 06:02 AM
UCGRAD4X

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulxu

I think it would serve this conversation well if everyone actually read the indictment.

It's not that long. https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...fied-documents

Then you'd understand that as a private citizen he isn't "allowed to keep." Even if he wants some memorabilia, highly classified documents don't fit that bill and he isn't allowed to have them in his possession, let alone show them to others.

And when his attorneys are told "what happens if we just don't respond at all, or don't play ball with them"...that doesn't sound at all like they were "negotiating the return of the documents."

Read the indictment.

That sounds more like asking than telling.

It sounds as if a lot of this amounts to arrogance and stupidity.

Espionage?
06-14-2023, 06:43 AM
paulxu

Quote:

Originally Posted by UCGRAD4X

That sounds more like asking than telling.

It sounds as if a lot of this amounts to arrogance and stupidity.

Espionage?

Quote:

For example, a retired Air Force officer, Robert Birchum, was sentenced earlier this month to three years in federal prison for keeping classified material at his Florida home. Birchum was charged under the same portion of federal law that prosecutors have accused Trump of violating – the Espionage Act.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/13/polit...ers/index.html

Quote:

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document.... 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

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...edition=prelim

You'd think that the senior senator from my state, who is an attorney, has practiced law, and was in the JAG corps for years would understand this.
Apparently not.
06-14-2023, 08:12 AM
xubrew

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I just started and the prosecutor indicted TRUMP not Donald J Trump. While DJT was identified the author did not specify Donald J Trump would henceforth be known as TRUMP or the Defendant.

That’s just sad and I hope that is not the real document.

Why it’s sad is because legally no such person known as TRUMP exists unless they are indicting his brand.

And for the record. I am not a lawyer.

That aside. I want to know who was at the golf club in NJ and what the purpose of the meeting and also who recorded it (if the tape exists). Also, I’d like to know if NJ is a two way consent State when it comes to recordings. That can cause problems for the recorder.

I’m not a lawyer and no one is paying me to do this so I’ll stop.

Yeah, you not being a lawyer is pretty clear. Prosecutors are not who indict. That would be done by a grand jury.