Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, especially when it comes to anything regarding Trump.The problem is that those lawyers are not honest.
If that's true, then every president before Trump needs to be prosecuted first.
Again, precedent counts, even if you really hate the latest former president.
That sounds like you're inventing a new crime for Trump, which has been the hallmark of the Crossfire Hurricane Operation and the investigations it gave birth do.IF there are any Presidents that took classified or national defense information when their term of office expired and failed to return it upon official notification by U.S. Government officials able to receive such information and/or were in illegal possession of government property that falls under the Presidential Act of 1978.
Unlike the DNC/DOJ/FBI, I don't have the ability to abuse that power, because I don't have that power.By all means go ahead and provide probable cause, get a subpoena and/or search warrant and have at it.
WW
Clinton and Obama are both hiding documents right now in their presidential libraries, which the people are entitled to see. I'm not sure I see the difference betweent that and Trump keeping them at his Mar-a-Lago office.
Just out of curiousity, what was Trump's criminal intent in keeping the documents? What crime did he intend to further by having them?
That in no way excuses the doj, or anyone leaking information that might be privileged, or part of an investigation.Maybe he should have given back all the government documents when asked and not stored personal documents, legal correspondence, medical file, etc, in that basement office with government documents, classified, secret and top secret government documents, instead of holding back and having his lawyers lie to the government, about what was still there, claiming incorrectly that all had been returned. Sometime, deny, deny, deny, does not help you in the long run. Go figure.
Item a is a subsection of what I quoted, Simp.You copied the wrong section. I said item a.
Any physical documents with classification markings, along with any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located, as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes
Try reading more carefully next time.
Then a new standard was invented for Hillary who certainly willfully retained the documents but DNC/DOJ/FBI declined prosecution due to no intent.Criminal intent isn't a condition under 18 USC 793(e), unlike some other laws. The standard cited by the DOJ in court documents is "willfully retained".
WW
Everything listed in subsection a meets the criteria of what you quoted. That’s why it’s a subsection.Item a is a subsection of what I quoted, Simp.
If they do not meet the criteria of what I quoted your section doesn't come into play.
Too bad you have zero critical thinking skills
Sorry. It’s not (f). It (d).So, it is section (e), not section (f) as you said in the other post. For (e) to apply, Trump would have to have unauthorized possession of documents. He was authorized by himself as president, and by representatives of the next president who inspected his storage of those documents.
EDIT: Sorry, it was Marener who said section (f), not you.
Sounds like you're both guessing, though.
(f) would require that he gave the documents to a bad actor or had them stolen and not reported the theft.
The lawyers at the DoJ know this, which is why they are not going to indict him, ever.
Page 52. Trump’s lawyers said they turned over everything for the subpoena.I would assume it would be, I haven't seen the statute.
If it is illegal and Trump did that, where's the indictment? That seems pretty cut-and-dried, the way you put it.
What exactly did Trump say that was a lie? Do you have the link?
Sounds like Trump's lawyers might be in trouble then. Assuming the bogus warrant doesn't get tossed out and all evidence supressed, which is the most likely outcome.Page 52. Trump’s lawyers said they turned over everything for the subpoena.
They didn’t.
The reporting coming out indicates that Trump knew what he had. The lawyer who signed that document is indeed in serious trouble, which is why they may be very interested in telling investigators what was going on.Sounds like Trump's lawyers might be in trouble then. Assuming the bogus warrant doesn't get tossed out and all evidence supressed, which is the most likely outcome.
Sadly for the TDS folk, the very messy filing system, or non-filing system, that Trump used to store his declassified documents, mean that no criminal intent could every be proved by his not knowing what documents he had and didn't have.
But, it did allow the DOJ to get off some really clever snark about it. Hopefully that is enough for them, since that is all they ever get for their efforts.
Sorry, I rattled off all those comments without even looking at the document you linked. One moment . . .
Here's is what the "Trump's Lawyer" in your linked document said:
View attachment 707850
So, no one is in trouble. Whoever wrote that hedged it twice, to avoid being legally responsible in case it turned out to not be correct. That's what I mean about Trump being able to afford much smarter lawyers than the DOJ could ever hope to hire.
But suppose the DOJ decides to go after the signer of this document. Who they gonna call?
View attachment 707853
Oh yeah! Mr. Redacted has got some 'splainin' to do!
Y'alls willingness to rely on heavily redacted documents is probably the most humorous part of this entire Mar-a-Lago debacle, aside from the numerous memes about the FBI agents and Melania's clothes. You get that they redact what they don't want you to know, right? I mean at least that much is clear to you?
Who does that reporting come from that knows what Trump knew? Please name names and position.The reporting coming out indicates that Trump knew what he had.
How, if they hedge their statement twice, could they be in trouble?The lawyer who signed that document is indeed in serious trouble, which is why they may be very interested in telling investigators what was going on.
Actually the attacks of Trump rely increasingly on a lot we don't know.There’s a lot we don’t know here. The defense of Trump relies on increasingly hard to believe claims.
Yes. I saw that also, and like you thought Hmmmm. They mentioned a few of what was not recovered, but as a security man, more interested in what they did not mention. Could be some cool stuff and could be anywhere.I think Donny may be way ahead of you.
Remember the headline a couple of days ago that said "there's more"?
Well.... there's more.
Which immediately leads me (as a security type) to wonder, why didn't Donny keep the "more" in the same place as the "rest"?
Hm...
DOJ has leaked off and on in every administration back as far as I can remember or been accused of it, just like the FBI, various white house staff (Donny's making the book of the month club) and other agencies. Does not make it right, but does not shock anybody that has been around.That in no way excuses the doj, or anyone leaking information that might be privileged, or part of an investigation.
Of course, it hurts trump, so you are all for it....go figure...
And maybe the DOJ needs to worry about actual problems plaguing Americans as Rome continues to burn to the ground.Maybe he should have given back all the government documents when asked and not stored personal documents, legal correspondence, medical file, etc, in that basement office with government documents, classified, secret and top secret government documents, instead of holding back and having his lawyers lie to the government, about what was still there, claiming incorrectly that all had been returned. Sometime, deny, deny, deny, does not help you in the long run. Go figure.
Maybe they have time for both. They have about 35,000 people. Most tied up on other things, than Donny stealing documents and getting lawyers to lie about it.And maybe the DOJ needs to worry about actual problems plaguing Americans as Rome continues to burn to the ground.
No, it doesn't. You are a moron.Everything listed in subsection a meets the criteria of what you quoted. That’s why it’s a subsection.
The reporting coming out indicates that Trump knew what he had.The reporting coming out indicates that Trump knew what he had. The lawyer who signed that document is indeed in serious trouble, which is why they may be very interested in telling investigators what was going on.
There’s a lot we don’t know here. The defense of Trump relies on increasingly hard to believe claims.
