╌>

Trump Whodunnit: Prosecutors admit key evidence in document case has been tampered with

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  3 weeks ago  •  209 comments

By:   John Solomon (Just The News)

Trump Whodunnit: Prosecutors admit key evidence in document case has been tampered with
Legal experts call revelation a "serious violation" as Jack Smith's team admits it also misled court.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


In a stunning admission, Special Counsel Jack Smith's team is admitting that key evidence in former President Donald Trump's classified documents criminal case was altered or manipulated since it was seized by the FBI, and that prosecutors misled the court about it for a period of time.

Legal experts told Just the News the revelation could prove to be a serious problem for prosecutors and a violation of court rules to preserve evidence in the state it was seized.

In a new filing Friday, Smith's team said that the order of documents in some of the boxes of memos that were seized by the FBI from Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate was altered or jumbled, leaving two different chronologies: one that was digitally scanned and another the physical order in the boxes.

"Since the boxes were seized and stored, appropriate personnel have had access to the boxes for several reasons, including to comply with orders issued by this Court in the civil proceedings noted above, for investigative purposes, and to facilitate the defendants' review of the boxes," Smith's team wrote in a new court filing to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon.

"There are some boxes where the order of items within that box is not the same as in the associated scans," the prosecutors wrote.

Smith's team in a footnote also conceded it had misled the court about the problem by previously declaring that the evidence had remained in the exact state it had been seized.

"The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court," the footnote said.

You can read the filing here:

File gov.uscourts.flsd_.648653.522.0.pdf

The organization of the documents in storage boxes at Mar-a-Lago is likely to be an important part of Trump's defense. His team is expected to argue the documents were stored in the White House in chronological order on the days that Trump received them, and that staff simply boxed them up and sent them to his home without him accessing them or knowing they contained classified information.

Smith's team tried to downplay the problem and argued it's not a reason for a delay in Trump's case.

But several legal experts told Just the News the court filing essentially is an admission of evidence tampering, and could be problematic.

"Prosecutors and investigators should never tamper with or alter evidence in their possession, including the order of documents in a box because one never knows what may become relevant or crucial to a court or jury later in a case," Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz said.

Prominent defense attorney Tim Parlatore, who worked on Trump's team earlier in the classified documents case but no longer is involved, said "this admission is stunning on multiple levels."

He said the revelation "reinforces the incompetence" of prosecutors "in conducting basic criminal investigations and prosecutions that I observed when I was on the team.

"But at a deeper level, the loss of specific document locations is a destruction of exculpatory evidence," he added. "I went through all of the boxes at NARA and the document order was important because it was clear to us that the boxes had been untouched since leaving the White House.

"For prosecutors who are trying to prove that the defendants knowingly possessed these documents to then destroy the evidence that would undermine that claim is a very serious violation," he added.

Smith's team tried to downplay the problem, offering several explanations for how the documents and their order could've been scrambled since the government took possession of the boxes.

"There are several possible explanations, including the above-described instances in which the boxes were accessed, as well as the size and shape of certain items in the boxes possibly leading to movement of items," the prosecutors wrote. "For example, the boxes contain items smaller than standard paper such as index cards, books, and stationary, which shift easily when the boxes are carried, especially because many of the boxes are not full."

The alteration of evidence has been an issue in earlier political scandals and prosecutions in Washington.

Erasure of an 18 1/2 minute segment of Richard Nixon's White House tapes became a very important aspect of the Watergate scandal.

The Iran-Contra scandal exploded during the Reagan years with the revelation that documents were shredded before they could be obtained by investigators.

The Hillary Clinton classified email scandal became more complicated in 2015 with the revelation that her team used a "Bleach Bit" program to erase emails on her secret computer server and had email devices destroyed.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

No shit!

I think these "prosecutors" are about to face a lot of problems.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

Unbelievable stupidity on the part of the prosecution because there is no reason whatsoever that the documents could not easily have been replaced in their original order after scanning them.  On the other hand, as long as the same documents are placed in the same boxes from which they were removed and they can prove that the scans are in the original order of the documents, what's the big deal?  The big deal is that the defence is going to use the fact to cast doubt among the jury, and to convict, the words "beyond a reasonable doubt" can lead to acquittal if not met, but is the doubt reasonable in this case?  Let the games begin.  I think everyone knows I love watching the movies, but this is even better than a movie. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1    3 weeks ago
The big deal is that the defence is going to use the fact to cast doubt among the jury, and to convict, the words "beyond a reasonable doubt" can lead to acquittal if not met, but is the doubt reasonable in this case? 

This case may never get off the ground before the election. If it can't be used to defeat Trump it will be dropped.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

I hope it is not dropped.

What is most important here is to hold Trump accountable for his outrageous actions as PotUS.

He set a horrible precedent that we all know will be (and has been already) used by other dishonest politicians to push the envelope even further.   We can already see the effect of having Trump set the terrible example that serial lying (even outrageous lying) can be an effective technique for the (large) portion of the electorate that (inexplicably) believes what a politician tells them.

Those who genuinely believe in the rule of law would want justice —would want this historically bad behavior to be properly dealt with using our judicial process.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.3  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.2    3 weeks ago
Those who genuinely believe in the rule of law would want justice

.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

Restoring the "rule of law" will be a top priority for the next Republican administration.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    3 weeks ago

If Trump wins, we are very likely to see an actual abuse of the justice system.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
1.1.6  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    3 weeks ago
If Trump wins, we are very likely to see an actual abuse of the justice system.

You mean more than the current administration?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  goose is back @1.1.6    3 weeks ago
You mean more than the current administration?

Great question.

The replies may prove interesting, unless they are just the usual condemnation of Trump and defense of Biden.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @1.1.6    3 weeks ago
You mean more than the current administration?

More than any administration in our history.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

It would be a nice thing if America PROVED that no man is above the law in its exalted nation.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
1.1.10  goose is back  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.1    2 weeks ago
documents could not easily have been replaced in their original order after scanning them

It's possible that the documents never existed, and they were planted by the FBI. So, you can see why they wound up out of order.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

Why float conspiracy theories?   Do you actually believe that what you supposed is likely to be the case?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  goose is back @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

That's fucking ridiculous.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
1.1.13  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.11    2 weeks ago
Why float conspiracy theories?

I've already witnessed "Russian Collusion", Hunter laptop Russian disinformation, Covid came from a natural source, the President has no authority to dismiss student loans, just to name a few. This administration is so corrupt, nothing would surprise me. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @1.1.13    2 weeks ago

That is no reason to support conspiracy theories.  

Actually, there is no good reason to support any conspiracy theory.

A far better approach is to wait until there is decent evidence and keep extrapolation to a minimum.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
1.1.15  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.14    2 weeks ago
That is no reason to support conspiracy theories. 

I would normally agree with you but, more conspiracy theories have come true than haven't.  

A far better approach is to wait until there is decent evidence 

Do you think that has been the case in the past seven years given just the few that I have mentioned?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  goose is back @1.1.15    2 weeks ago
Do you think that has been the case in the past seven years given just the few that I have mentioned?

No, the left swallowed and pushed the whole Russia shit for years and even convinced 50 former 'intelligence' officials to lie about it.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
1.1.17  goose is back  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.16    2 weeks ago
even convinced 50 former 'intelligence' officials

I don't think there was any convincing, they just said, "here sign this to get Trump" 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

continued actual abuse of the justice system ...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @1.1.15    2 weeks ago
I would normally agree with you but, more conspiracy theories have come true than haven't.  

Not even remotely close to reality.   I recommend you strike that rebuttal from your portfolio.

Do you think that has been the case in the past seven years given just the few that I have mentioned?
  • "Russian Collusion" turned out to be false so this is an example of a conspiracy theory that did not turn out to be true (countering your own point)
  • Hunter laptop Russian disinformation - be more specific - what is the conspiracy theory you see that turned out to be true?
  • Covid came from a natural source - not resolved.   The common conspiracy theory is that COVID-19 was intentional.   Regardless, this is not a good example of a conspiracy theory that came true.
  • President has no authority to dismiss student loans - that is the case - it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a matter of law

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Trump is still trying to get off on technicalities. Its all he has. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
2.1  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago
Trump is still trying to get off on technicalities. Its all he has. 

Depends upon what the definition of 'is' is.  What's wrong with Trump utilizing a Clinton defense?  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.2  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago

Tampering with evidence is not a "technicality".

Will you ever admit these leftist shit show trials for what they are; and hold the Democrat prosecutors and judges to any legal standards?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2    3 weeks ago

This is not tampering.  Do more then read headlines (or just accept what Trump states).   Some items are out of order.   Get a grip.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.1    3 weeks ago
This is not tampering.

So would say Judge Swango.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.3  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.1    3 weeks ago
This is not tampering.

Of course, those that support Biden would say this.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @2.2.3    3 weeks ago

Make a fact-based, logical argument that there was evidence tampering — that means changing the evidence to benefit the prosecution.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.5  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.4    3 weeks ago
Make a fact-based, logical argument that there was evidence tampering

Where did I say there was or [wasn't?deleted][]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @2.2.5    3 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.7  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.6    3 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @2.2.7    3 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2    3 weeks ago
Will you ever admit these leftist shit show trials for what they are; and hold the Democrat prosecutors and judges to any legal standards?

Surely you jest!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.4  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago

"His team is expected to argue the documents were stored in the White House in chronological order on the days that Trump received them, and that staff simply boxed them up and sent them to his home without him accessing them or knowing they contained classified information."

Which is the likely explanation. Who knows what kind of mischief the Biden FBI could do by violating chain of evidence rules and procedures? Tampering with what could be exculpatory evidence is not a "technicality"

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.1  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @2.4    3 weeks ago

If someone changed evidence to improve the government's case then that would be wrong and would warrant a full investigation.

If this is (and this is what it seems to be) nothing more than sloppiness in the handling of the evidence and there is no change in the strength of the case, then it is a difference without a distinction.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.4.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.1    3 weeks ago

As someone famous once said: "I'll wait for the facts to come in."

In the meantime, I have my coffee as I await the arrival of a disbarred, serial perjurer to arrive and eventually takes an oath to tell the truth.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.4.3  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.4.2    3 weeks ago
I await the arrival of a disbarred, serial perjurer to arrive and eventually takes an oath to tell the truth.

who has already served time for the crime and whose story has already been corroborated by the previous witnesses, which includes the boo hoo hoo WH bimbo du jour. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.4.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @2.4.3    3 weeks ago

And he now has to explain why Trump was wrong to follow his advice.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.5  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.4.2    3 weeks ago
"I'll wait for the facts to come in."

Will you?   

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.6  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.4.4    3 weeks ago

Trump has shown that he imposes rules on his attorneys.   Even to the point of hobbling their ability to defend him.   What makes you think that Trump passively listened to Cohen as if this was all Cohen's idea?

And, even still, if Trump did engage in such an unusual practice (for him), he still willingly engaged in the deception at the heart of this case.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.4.7  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.5    3 weeks ago
"I'll wait for the facts to come in."

Seemed pretty clear to me.

Did you think he meant something else but chose to write that instead?

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
2.4.8  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.5    3 weeks ago

Of course he won't. His mind is made and set. No amount of evidence will persuade him otherwise. After all, he thinks that Trump is the Law & Order. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.4.9  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2.4.3    3 weeks ago

I didn't see Hicks' performance.  Is it possible she took lessons from that other bimbo who posted that video from her kitchen?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.4.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @2.4.9    2 weeks ago

Are you talking about AOC and her not knowing what a garbage disposal was videoed in her kitchen? Yeah that was the shits.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.4.11  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.4.2    2 weeks ago

daily dump

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago
technicalities.

Technicalities were only reserved for Bill Ayers and Daniel Ellsberg.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
3  Hallux    3 weeks ago

Another day, another palpable gnashing of teeth ... another grunting of "we got 'em this time". Move over Shari Lewis, thar's a new never-ending song.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @3    3 weeks ago

Sentence first, verdict afterwards.

(the Queen of Hearts / Alice in Wonderland)

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @3    3 weeks ago

LOL!  Awesome!  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4  TᵢG    3 weeks ago
Questionable Reasoning:  Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating:  FAR   RIGHT
Factual Reporting:  MIXED
Country:  USA
Press Freedom Rank:   MOSTLY FREE
Media Type:  Website
Traffic/Popularity:  High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating:  LOW CREDIBILITY

We need more balance to take much of this seriously.  

Maybe it would be better to just read what Smith's team filed:  

Since the boxes were seized and stored, appropriate personnel have had access to the boxes
for several reasons, including to comply with orders issued by this Court in the civil proceedings
noted above, for investigative purposes, and to facilitate the defendants’ review of the boxes. The
inventories and scans created during the civil proceedings were later produced in discovery in this
criminal case. Because these inventories and scans were created close in time to the seizure of the
documents, they are the best evidence available of the order the documents were in when seized.
That said, there are some boxes where the order of items within that box is not the same as in the
associated scans.3


There are several possible explanations, including the above-described
instances in which the boxes were accessed, as well as the size and shape of certain items in the
boxes possibly leading to movement of items. For example, the boxes contain items smaller than
standard paper such as index cards, books, and stationary, which shift easily when the boxes are
carried, especially because many of the boxes are not full. Regardless of the explanation, as
discussed below, where precisely within a box a classified document was stored at Mar-a-Lago
does not bear in any way on Nauta’s ability to file a CIPA Section 5 notice. 

Nowadays one should presume a media source is spinning and should instead dig deeper.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4.1  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @4    3 weeks ago

Smith's "team" isn't trustworthy; and isn't a reliable source. They have proven it repeatedly.

The fact they are allowed to get away with it is a testimony of how fucked up our legal system is.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1    3 weeks ago
Smith's "team" isn't trustworthy; and isn't a reliable source. They have proven it repeatedly.

The GOP loyalist responses nowadays are utterly predictable.   Any little hiccup (this is absurdly minor) is exaggerated.   

What a total mess Trump has made out of the GOP.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.2  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.1    3 weeks ago
The GOP loyalist responses nowadays are utterly predictable. 

And so are the dimwit responses from Bidenistas. What's your point?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

The gop is now the gqp, falling for/floating any conspiracy out there, or believing ANYTHING the former 'president' says.  It's laughable.  Projection.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1    3 weeks ago
Smith's "team" isn't trustworthy; and isn't a reliable source. They have proven it repeatedly.

Trump's "team" isn't trustworthy; and isn't a reliable source. They have proven it repeatedly.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @4    3 weeks ago

That doesn't disprove anything.

Two things:

1) until you disprove it, it is evidence tampering.

2) the Trump haters still refuse to accept facts.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2    3 weeks ago

You can't say Trump is innocent, so you endlessly complain about the process in the hope he can get off on technicalities. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2    3 weeks ago

What facts have the gop/gqp/maga/theformer'president' EVER provided?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.3  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.1    3 weeks ago
ou can't say Trump is innocent, so you endlessly complain about the process in the hope he can get off on technicalities. 

You can't say he is guilty as no jury has made that decision. Your opinions and the fact that mean tweets and he beat your queen in 2016 is not a legitimate means of declaring guilty.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.1    3 weeks ago

The former 'president' will be found guilty on all counts due to the mountains of evidence against the traitor.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.1    3 weeks ago

He's such a scummy cockroach, how can anyone support it?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @4.2.3    3 weeks ago
mean tweets

mean tweets is the least of trump's mental and psychological and ethical dysfunction

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2    3 weeks ago
until you disprove it, it is evidence tampering.

The exact opposite of how reality works.   It is the claim that must be proved (or evidenced);.

the Trump haters still refuse to accept facts.

A fact is that which is supported by evidence.   It is not a fact to extrapolate a minor situation into malicious intent.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.8  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.6    3 weeks ago

So you are still pissed that he beat your queen.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @4.2.8    3 weeks ago

Seems to be the case.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.2.10  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.1    3 weeks ago

And you can't prove that Trump is guilty of anything. If Trump is guilty of having classified documents in his possession, then so is Biden.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.2.11  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.7    3 weeks ago
"It is not a fact to extrapolate a minor situation into malicious intent."

And yet you are attempting to do that repeatedly with Trump. Can you prove that Trump even knew there were classified materials in those boxes when they were shipped to Mar-A-Lago?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.2.12  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @4.2.3    3 weeks ago
You can't say he is guilty as no jury has made that decision.

The radicalized right wing has been calling Hillary a criminal for decades, no jury conviction required but we do it to trump and all the sudden you're offended? LMFAO! 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2.11    3 weeks ago
Can you prove that Trump even knew there were classified materials in those boxes when they were shipped to Mar-A-Lago?

Trump admitted that he had classified documents!!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.14  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2.10    3 weeks ago
If Trump is guilty of having classified documents in his possession, then so is Biden.

Biden, Pence and Trump all had classified documents in their possession.   All were in violation of the PRA.

The difference is that Trump did not cooperate in the return of the documents and went further to obstruct the return.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.2.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.14    3 weeks ago
he difference is that Trump did not cooperate in the return of the documents and went further to obstruct the return.

CLinton, Biden etc all violated the Espionage Act.  That they "cooperated" is not a defense to the crime.  It's an argument for leniency come punishment. It's a double standard to charge Trump for crimes they allowed Biden and Clinton to walk on. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.15    3 weeks ago

The espionage act requires willful intent.   

How is it that you cannot see the difference between Biden / Pence and Trump?    All three violated the PRA.   But only Trump engaged in obstruction and did not cooperate in the safe return.   Trump's obstruction (stalling, lying, moving documents, etc.) is what caused him to be indicted.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.2.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.16    3 weeks ago
he espionage act requires willful intent.   

No it doesn't. But  also feel free to read the special counsel's statement admitting Biden willfully retained classified documents. 

   But only Trump engaged in obstruction 

Which is fine. The issue is why Biden, Clinton and Pence aren't charged with felony violations of Espionage Act Violations if Trump is. Post crime cooperation isn't a get out jail free card (not to mention  Clinton engaged in obstructive acts as well) 

mp's obstruction (stalling, lying, moving documents, etc.) is what caused him to be indicted.

That's obstruction and a separate crime. That's doesn't matter under the Espionage Act. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.18  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.17    3 weeks ago
No it doesn't.

You need to read up on the espionage act.

The issue is why Biden, Clinton and Pence aren't charged with felony violations of Espionage Act Violations if Trump is. 

Because the circumstances matter.   Intent matters.   Cooperation matters.   In general, behavior matters.   On top of that, not every infraction will meet the threshold to bring a trial.   

If Trump had cooperated in the return of the documents, he would not have been indicted.    The willful intent would have been there, but his cooperation would almost certainly cause the threshold to NOT be met.   The documents would have been secured and the public would likely not even know about it.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.2.19  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.16    3 weeks ago
 "But only Trump engaged in obstruction and did not cooperate in the safe return.   Trump's obstruction (stalling, lying, moving documents, etc.) is what caused him to be indicted."

Your opinion only, and a blindly partisan one at that. We'll have to see what can be proven in a court of law.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.20  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2.19    3 weeks ago

Explain, specifically, how that is blind partisanship.    (You cannot do so.)

Further, this is not my opinion, it is established fact.    Only Trump obstructed, Biden and Pence cooperated.   Fact.

I have yet to see you do anything but deny (sans argument, sans evidence) every allegation against Trump.   

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.2.21  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.20    3 weeks ago

Exactly, running a red light and vehicular manslaughter are both violations of criminal statutes, but are incomparable...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.16    3 weeks ago
The espionage act requires willful intent. 

Intent to do what exactly?

Take and keep documents?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.23  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.15    3 weeks ago

There have been lots of accusations made against Trump in the last few years.  Tell us which one or ones you think he is actually innocent of. And when I say innocent I mean in the sense that he didnt do the deed, not that he hasnt been convicted yet. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.23    3 weeks ago
Tell us which one or ones you think he is actually innocent of. And when I say innocent I mean in the sense that he didnt do the deed, not that he hasnt been convicted yet.

if one chooses to use your rather loose 'definition', Biden is guilty because he has been accused and not convicted yet.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.25  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.24    3 weeks ago
Biden is guilty because he has been accused and not convicted yet.

And because of that, leftists think he should be given the death penalty.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.26  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.22    3 weeks ago
Intent to do what exactly?

Willfully retain and obstruct return of the documents.   

You need to read up on what is going on here.    Here is what Trump is charged with in the documents case:

  • 18 USC § 793(e)
  • 18 USC § 1512(k)
  • 18 USC § 1512(b)(2)(4)
  • 18 USC § 1512(c)(1)
  • 18 USC § 1519
  • 18 USC § 1001(a)(1)
  • 18 USC § 1001(a)(2)
  • 18 USC § 2

I have routinely summarized this on this site and the most succinct summary which explains why Trump was indicted and Biden / Pence were not indicted is that Trump willfully retained and obstructed the return of the documents.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.27  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.24    3 weeks ago

You are dodging the question (defending Trump).   

Is there any allegation in the documents case and the Jan 6 case that you believe has merit?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.28  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.26    3 weeks ago

So they both wilfully retained documents.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.29  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.27    3 weeks ago

I wasn't asked a question so obviously you are inventing me dodging or defending Trump.

That's not honest.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.28    3 weeks ago

The both did not willfully retain AND obstruct the return.

Again, Texan, you are ignoring the critical reason why Trump was indicted and Biden/Pence were NOT indicted.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.31  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.29    3 weeks ago

Is there any allegation in the documents case and the Jan 6 case that you believe has merit?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.32  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.30    3 weeks ago

I didnt say they did.

please read my post, it clearly says they both retained them.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.33  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.32    3 weeks ago

Do you understand that only Trump willfully obstructed the safe return of the documents?

Yes or no?

That is the critical difference and that is what crossed the threshold into an indictment.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.34  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.30    3 weeks ago

Again, you are ignoring the fact you invented something and assigned it to me, while falsely accusing me of things I didn't do or say.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.35  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.33    3 weeks ago
Do you understand that only Trump willfully obstructed the safe return of the documents?

Yes, something I haven't even mentioned or disputed. why argue something I am not?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.36  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.35    3 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.37  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.33    3 weeks ago
Do you understand that only Trump willfully obstructed the safe return of the documents?

Only blind partisans believe that holding boxes of classified documents, many of them stolen from SCIFs and holding said documents for up to 40 years stashed in different places around the country does not constitute obstruction.

Can you explain why the records office knew of Trump holding documents only a few months after leaving office, but did not know Biden had them for up to 40 years until he "voluntarily" gave them back, but only after he had Mara Largo raided?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.38  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.2.37    3 weeks ago
Only blind partisans believe that holding boxes of classified documents, many of them stolen from SCIFs and holding said documents for up to 40 years stashed in different places around the country does not constitute obstruction.

You clearly do not understand the concept of obstruction.

Can you explain why the records office knew of Trump holding documents only a few months after leaving office, but did not know Biden had them for up to 40 years until he "voluntarily" gave them back, but only after he had Mara Largo raided?

No, can you?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.39  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.35    3 weeks ago

Then you understand Trump was indicted and Biden / Pence was not because Trump willfully obstructed the safe return of the documents.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.40  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.38    3 weeks ago
You clearly do not understand the concept of obstruction.

Um, stealing documents and holding them for 40 years is obstructing their safe return.

What part of that do you not understand?

"No, can you?"

Based on current politics, if Trump was a D, not a word would have been said...much less have his home raided by the person he is running against.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.41  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.39    3 weeks ago

Again, arguing something I haven't disputed.

Why?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.42  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.41    3 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.43  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.2.40    3 weeks ago
Um, stealing documents and holding them for 40 years is obstructing their safe return.

No, obstruction is counteracting the efforts of authorities to secure the documents.

Based on current politics, if Trump was a D, not a word would have been said...much less have his home raided by the person he is running against.

Of course ... conspiracy theory.   The world protects the Ds and abuses the Rs.   Get a grip.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.44  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.43    3 weeks ago
No, obstruction is counteracting the efforts of authorities to secure the documents.

Get a clue. That is your opinion but only partially true. Going into a SCIF to read documents, then walk out with them stuffed in your underwear and socks is obstructing their return to the rightful storage space.

"Of course ... conspiracy theory.'

Probably, but stories in "the onion" about democrats seem to come true more and more every day.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.45  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @4.2.44    3 weeks ago
obstruction
noun
  [ U ]
ie, preventing documents from being returned to their proper storage (my addition for effect and proof of my claim)
 
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.46  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.20    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.47  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.30    3 weeks ago

Biden also didn't instruct anyone to destroy evidence like the former 'president'

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.48  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.38    3 weeks ago

Biden had Mar-A-Lardo raided???????????????????????????????????????????????

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.49  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.2.44    3 weeks ago

Obstruction here has a legal definition.   Do some research on the actual charges:

  • 18 USC § 793(e)
  • 18 USC § 1512(k)
  • 18 USC § 1512(b)(2)(4)
  • 18 USC § 1512(c)(1)
  • 18 USC § 1519
  • 18 USC § 1001(a)(1)
  • 18 USC § 1001(a)(2)
  • 18 USC § 2

You pulling out a dictionary illustrates that you have no idea what is going on with this indictment.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.50  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.49    3 weeks ago
Do some research on the actual charges:

All made by a TDS driven prosecutor in a TDS driven DOJ where the president is interfering with the 2024 election by having his only rival in a courthouse and not out campaigning, This could have been done 3 years ago but then it would not affect the election, so we had to wait until just recently. Everyone with a brain cell also understands that if Trump did not run, there would be no charges.

"Pulling out a dictionary illustrates that you have no idea what is going on with this indictment."

Hilarious coming from someone that has used dictionaries to try and convince people there is a difference between traitor and treason, throwing in a little sedition for fun.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.2.51  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.20    3 weeks ago
"I have yet to see you do anything but deny (sans argument, sans evidence) every allegation against Trump"

Accusations are not evidence. Trump has not been found guilty of any crime up to now and he probably won't be. And you continue to deny or ignore Biden's wrongdoings, claiming there is no evidence of it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.52  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.2.50    3 weeks ago

Amazing how much confusion lies in the comments you pen.

When making a point about the colloquial use of a word, the dictionary is the correct choice for the usage definition.   So when arguing that the word traitor applies to Trump in an extralegal sense, the dictionary IS where you go.   When arguing about whether Trump is legally a traitor, one must instead turn to law.

Here we are speaking of obstruction in the legal sense and in the specific context of returning (or not) classified documents that have been requested by NARA, et. al.   Thus since this is all legal, the law is the correct source for definition.

When speaking about legal concepts, running to a dictionary to look up a word is naive (and entirely wrong).   Should be embarrassing too.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.53  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.52    3 weeks ago

Thank you for your opinion, but we find this matter to be closed.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.54  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2.51    3 weeks ago

Strawman.   

Is this all you have to offer, Greg, a strawman argument?

I have never claimed that Trump has been found guilty.   Do you not understand the difference between an allegation and a finding of guilt??

And where do I deny wrongdoing by Biden?   On allegations of wrongdoing, I seek sound evidence.   So when someone alleges that Biden raped his daughter (for example) I need some rather sound evidence.   Or when someone alleges Biden took bribes, don't you think we first should have some real evidence from all the GOP investigations?    Evidence matters, right?       

Do better than make up bullshit based on a naive stereotype.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.2.55  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.26    3 weeks ago
"Willfully retain and obstruct return of the documents."      
What proof is there of intent to obstruct?

He was working with the authorities on how and when to return the documents, then some nitwit thought it would get negative headlines for Trump if the Biden's DOJ had the FBI raid Mar-a-Lago with drawn guns.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.56  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @4.2.53    3 weeks ago

Indeed.   And one can only hope that you learned something.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.57  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2.55    3 weeks ago
He was working with the authorities on how and when to return the documents, then some nitwit thought it would get negative headlines for Trump if the Biden's DOJ had the FBI raid Mar-a-Lago with drawn guns

How on Earth is this delusional fantasy evidence (much less proof) of Biden obstructing?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.2.58  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.57    3 weeks ago

Have a nice rest of the day.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.2.59  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.18    3 weeks ago
ou need to read up on the espionage act.

Do you know what the word gross negligence means?

ecause the circumstances matter.   Intent matters.   Cooperation matters

you are conflating with abandon. . Cooperation after the crimes  mattes for obstruction. It doesn't matter for the espionage act crime Biden committed. 

operated in the return of the documents, he would not have been indicted

Yes, he wouldn't have committed obstruction so it would be silly to indict him for it. That has nothing to do with whether he violated the espionage act. 

e willful intent would have been there, but his cooperation would almost certainly cause the threshold to NOT be met. 

You are making up standards that have no basis in reality. Please cite the statutory  authority for your claim. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.60  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2.58    3 weeks ago

Greg, next time you attempt a debate, come loaded with facts and logic.   Mere claims are a waste of time, and ridiculous claims are counter-productive (for you).

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.61  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.59    3 weeks ago
Do you know what the word gross negligence means?

Do you understand the concept of a legal threshold before bringing a case to trial?

Yeah, it screws up your argument so of course you pretend it is a made up concept, yet we all know that prosecutors do not indict everyone on every technical infraction of the law.   They will typically act on cases where there is a strong likelihood that they will prevail.

It is naive and absurd for you to suggest that any PotUS, VP, Senator, etc. would be immediately indicted if they have illegal possession of documents.   It takes more than that, and both Pence and Biden did NOT cross that line.   Trump crossed the line in a big way with his blatant obstruction ... delay tactics, lying, moving documents around, etc.   

Had Trump merely cooperated, he would have not been held to a strict technical treatment of the law.   The classified documents would have been returned and it would likely have never even reached the news cycle.

Trump brought this on himself with his outrageous and unusual behavior.   And you are defending him.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.62  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.32    3 weeks ago
please read my post, it clearly says they both retained them.

But only ONE matters.  Who cares of the other person had them LONG BEFORE he was authorized to or that he kept them FOR YEARS in various unsecured locations.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.63  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.62    3 weeks ago
Who cares of the other person had them LONG BEFORE he was authorized to or that he kept them FOR YEARS in various unsecured locations.

The answer to your question is right there in the law.   

The law does not impose a time limit on possession of classified material.    

But it does care about obstruction (delay tactics, misrepresentation, hiding documents, etc.).

That is the difference.  The law itself.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.64  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.62    3 weeks ago
But only ONE matters.  Who cares of the other person had them LONG BEFORE he was authorized to or that he kept them FOR YEARS in various unsecured locations.

I think the real problem is being ignored here.

What kind of system do we have that allows classified documents to be out of the person who is supposed to be safeguarding them control for years or in some cases, decades? 

ALL of the documents in question that BOTH Trump and Biden had should have been returned promptly instead of stuck in a closet or garage.  The LAW is a complete and utter ass IF the "goal" was to safeguard classified info, as it has FAILED miserably.

Congress needs to pass a better law and whoever is in charge of the docs should have some authority to retrieve docs which are taken and held for no apparent reason.

I really can't believe that people are simply ignoring all of this and instead merely focusing on one thing and one thing only--Trump didn't return the docs when asked.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.65  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.63    3 weeks ago

Then the LAW is an ass and Congress should change it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.2.66  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.61    3 weeks ago
o you understand the concept of a legal threshold before bringing a case to trial?

Yes.  You don't.  The statute explicitly uses "gross negligence" as the threshold.

it screws up your argument so of

Lol. You are spinning because you know I'm right.  Keep waiving your hands and trying to distract, but you know you are wrong. 

. would be immediately indicted if they have illegal possession of documents

That's literally the point of the classified system.  Illegal possession is a crime. The hint is in the word "illegal" 

Had Trump merely cooperated, he would have not been held to a strict technical treatment of the law.

If Trump had cooperated, he wouldn't have been indicted for obstruction. He's also  been indicted for the breaking the same espionage  law Clinton and Biden did. Those are separate crimes.  

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.2.67  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.64    3 weeks ago
What kind of system do we have that allows classified documents to be out of the person who is supposed to be safeguarding them control for years or in some cases, decades? 

That's why they have scans. 

ALL of the documents in question that BOTH Trump and Biden had should have been returned promptly instead of stuck in a closet or garage.  The LAW is a complete and utter ass IF the "goal" was to safeguard classified info, as it has FAILED miserably.

The people tasked with keeping that system have said it's impossible to keep track of everything. Congress should change the law, but it's they who are the worst offenders, so you know they aren't going to put themselves at risk of future charges.

I really can't believe that people are simply ignoring all of this and instead merely focusing on one thing and one thing only--Trump didn't return the docs when asked.

Yeah... there's absolutely no difference between something being stuffed in storage and something being stuff in storage, shown to people who aren't cleared to see it and hiding it when asked to return it. Those things are exactly the same! /s

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.68  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @4.2.67    3 weeks ago
Yeah... there's absolutely no difference between something being stuffed in storage and something being stuff in storage, shown to people who aren't cleared to see it and hiding it when asked to return it. Those things are exactly the same! /s

You can keep the snark, I never insinuated that the two things were the same, in fact, I didn't say one word about anyone else except the two who checked the docs out.

We have no idea if anyone saw docs stored here and there in multiple places by both men. We have no way of knowing if the people who moved the docs had clearance or if they saw the docs.

My main concern is a system that allows classified docs to go missing for decades in some cases and NOBODY knows about it.

I felt that was pretty clear in my post, but I understand how hyper-partisanship can blind some to facts,

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.69  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.66    3 weeks ago
The statute explicitly uses "gross negligence" as the threshold.

A reasonable person could take that term to mean failure to return classified documents in a timely manner.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.70  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @4.2.67    3 weeks ago
That's why they have scans. 

Wow. Scans. Working swell, aren't they?

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.2.71  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.68    3 weeks ago
My main concern is a system that allows classified docs to go missing for decades in some cases and NOBODY knows about it.

Looks like there is a bill in Congress that's largely being ignored...It's still in the Judiciary Committee. It was written by Rep Darrin LaHood (D) about a year ago.

Specifically, the bill authorizes the Department of Justice to bring a civil action in U.S. district court and provides for a civil penalty of up to $500,000 per violation for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.72  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @4.2.71    3 weeks ago

So Congress CAN fix this mess IF it chooses to.

That is precisely what I am asking it to do.

The present system is a clusterfuck of a mess.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.2.73  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.72    3 weeks ago
So Congress CAN fix this mess IF it chooses to.

'IF it choose to' 

That is precisely what I am asking it to do.

You and everyone else.

The present system is a clusterfuck of a mess.

It's been a mess for decades and they haven't fixed it yet. The one bill looks dead in committee and the they all seem more concerned with partisan bullshit during an election year than governing.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.2.74  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.70    3 weeks ago
Wow. Scans. Working swell, aren't they?

Why wouldn't they? It's the reason for them in the first place. How would anyone know the actual documents were out of order if they didn't have the scans?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.75  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @4.2.73    3 weeks ago
You and everyone else.

No, not everyone else. I don't see where anyone but me is addressing the real problem, most are just bitching, as usual, about Trump.

But that is partisans doing the bitching, as usual.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
4.2.76  George  replied to  evilone @4.2.71    3 weeks ago
It was written by Rep Darrin LaHood (D) about a year ago.

Actually it was written and introduced by Quigley, LaHood is the only cosponsor for some reason. Maybe none of the other members of Quigly's party think it is important enough?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.77  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.66    3 weeks ago
You don't. 

I explained this to you.   It is ridiculous for you to pretend that prosecutors will bring charges for every technical violation of the law.   That is not how our system works nor has it ever worked that way.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.2.78  evilone  replied to  George @4.2.76    3 weeks ago
Actually it was written and introduced by Quigley,

Thanks for the fix. I read the wrong line...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.79  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.63    3 weeks ago
The answer to your question is right there in the law.   

I don't know what question you are referring to.  I never ask one.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.80  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.69    3 weeks ago

Yes and reasonable people do.   Biden was grossly negligent.  No question.  He had the documents and he should have known that he had them.

Just like Trump knew he had the documents and failed to return them.   That could have been seen as gross negligence too.

But prosecutors do not indict someone merely because they technically violated the law.   They consider the cases, the infractions, all the circumstances and then decide if there is enough there to warrant a criminal indictment.    There is a threshold for issuing an indictment.

If Trump had simply returned the documents, he would not have been indicted.   Trump brought this on himself.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.81  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.79    3 weeks ago
I don't know what question you are referring to.

This:

Jeremy @4.2.63 ☞ Who cares of the other person had them LONG BEFORE he was authorized to or that he kept them FOR YEARS in various unsecured locations.

If we correct your typing we have:  "Who cares if the other person had them LONG BEFORE he was authorized to or that he kept them FOR YEARS in various unsecured locations?"

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.82  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.64    3 weeks ago
ALL of the documents in question that BOTH Trump and Biden had should have been returned promptly instead of stuck in a closet or garage. 

I agree 100%  The goal of the law is solid.  The enforcement is pure trash.  Its nothing more than selective prosecution.  

Congress needs to pass a better law and whoever is in charge of the docs should have some authority to retrieve docs which are taken and held for no apparent reason.

The problem is that partisan actions have taken over what should be a cut and dry policy.  

I really can't believe that people are simply ignoring all of this and instead merely focusing on one thing and one thing only--Trump didn't return the docs when asked.

That's what happens when peoples hurt feelings get involved.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.83  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.80    3 weeks ago
Yes and reasonable people do.   Biden was grossly negligent.  No question.  He had the documents and he should have known that he had them.

I guess there is a lack of reasonable people here then based on the number of posts defending Biden and constantly comparing his actions to Trump's.

But nice to see someone admit that Biden was wrong.

Just like Trump knew he had the documents and failed to return them.   That could have been seen as gross negligence too

See post 4.2.64, I already made that point. 

If Trump had simply returned the documents, he would not have been indicted.   Trump brought this on himself.

Again, not something I have discussed.

My focus is on the system in place that allows these types of abuses. I will let others bitch and moan about what Biden did and what Trump did. It will do nothing at all to further any discussion or ever result in changes to a failed system.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.84  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.81    3 weeks ago
f we correct your typing we have:

There was nothing to correct.  There was no question asked.  You can stop twisting what I say to fit what YOU want me to say.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.85  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.82    3 weeks ago
That's what happens when peoples hurt feelings get involved.

Partisans are going to focus on Trump or Biden no matter what. It is tiring to say the least. The comparisons are endless ramblings in defense of one or the other of the clowns.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.86  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.83    3 weeks ago
I guess there is a lack of reasonable people here then based on the number of posts defending Biden and constantly comparing his actions to Trump's.

Pay attention to the details.   Don't just gloss over everything and summarize as 'Biden did bad' or 'Trump did bad'.   The details matter.   The nuances matter.   The law and adjudication is not a mechanical process.   Judgment is always involved.   The circumstances make a major difference in how wrongdoings are handled.

I have not seen anyone on this site claim that Biden was not wrong to possess old classified documents.   Where do you see that?   What you should see are people noting the difference between the Biden / Pence circumstances and their behavior and the circumstances and behavior of Trump.

It is easy to see why Trump was indicted and the other two were not.   But to do so, one must put aside partisan bias and think critically.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.87  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.85    3 weeks ago
Partisans are going to focus on Trump or Biden no matter what.

Like saying both were wrong but only claiming that ONE should have returned the documents.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.88  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.84    3 weeks ago

The question you asked is right in front of you.   This blatant denial is bizarre.   You asked a question and are now denying you even asked the question.  

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.89  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.87    3 weeks ago
Like saying both were wrong but only claiming that ONE should have returned the documents.

Who says that?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.90  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.86    3 weeks ago
Pay attention to the details.   Don't just gloss over everything and summarize as 'Biden did bad' or 'Trump did bad'.   The details matter.   The nuances matter.   The law and adjudication is not a mechanical process.   Judgment is always involved.   The circumstances make a major difference in how wrongdoings are handled.

Pay attention to what I actually write. I didn't gloss over anything, I told it like it is.  You keep focusing on the individuals while I am concerned about a fucked-up system that allows and actually encourages such abuses.

I have not seen anyone on this site claim that Biden did not wrong by possessing old classified documents.   Where do you see that?

Why are you attempting to argue something I didn't write? This tactic isn't working well.

It is easy to see why Trump was indicted and the other two were not.   But to do so, one must put aside partisan bias and think critically.

Again, arguing something I haven't claimed. 

Why do you persist in this tactic?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.91  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.89    3 weeks ago

You in 4.2.80

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.92  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.88    3 weeks ago
The question you asked is right in front of you.   This blatant denial is bizarre.

Again, you can stop twisting what I say any time now.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.93  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.90    3 weeks ago

The same tired old bullshit every time you cannot produce a rebuttal.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.94  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.84    3 weeks ago

It has been pointed out on these very forums that a ? denotes a question, lack of one denotes a statement.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.95  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.91    3 weeks ago

Where do I state that Biden should have NOT returned the documents?

Where do I ever suggest that ONLY Trump should return the documents?

Where do you get this crap?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.96  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.94    3 weeks ago

Are you sure that is how forums work.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.97  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.93    3 weeks ago

I am sorry I won't accept your arguments about things I have never said.

But I will be pointing it out when you employ that tactic of arguing what I haven't said while pretending I said it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.98  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.96    3 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.99  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.93    3 weeks ago
The same tired old bullshit every time you cannot produce a rebuttal. 

Why would I attempt to rebut your argument of things I haven't said? That would give credibility to your argument of things I haven't said, and I refuse to encourage such nonsense.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.100  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.95    3 weeks ago
 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.101  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.94    3 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.2.102  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @4.2.40    2 weeks ago
Um, stealing documents and holding them for 40 years is obstructing their safe return.

Wait, you accuse Biden of not even knowing what day of the week it is, then turn around and say he held these documents willfully for 40 years? 

Make up your mind would ya?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.2.103  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.102    2 weeks ago
Wait, you accuse Biden of not even knowing what day of the week it is
Show proof I have said this. Let me help you. I have \never said this. You failed at that "gotcha".

And I am also correct. He knew he had these documents, especially the ones in his home and in his garage. He knew he was not supposed to have these documents...and he knew he stole them.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
4.2.104  George  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.102    2 weeks ago

So you are saying Biden has been senile for 40 years and didn’t know he had them? Wow!

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.3  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @4    3 weeks ago
Maybe it would be better to just read what Smith's team filed:

I keep telling people to read the actual facts and rebut them (for any given issue), but partisan populists just love their confirmation bias.

Things getting shuffled out of order in a box that also has in order scans is not evidence tampering. It's not even close. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  evilone @4.3    3 weeks ago

Those who defend Trump have nothing to work with.   Thus we see any tiny little thing absurdly exaggerated.    And when there are no little things to exaggerate, the whole cloth fabrications are used.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.3.2  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.1    2 weeks ago

party loyalty trumps patriotism...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.3.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @4.3.2    2 weeks ago

Exactly, you internalize that more than many here.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.3.4  devangelical  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.3.3    2 weeks ago

good news, it's looking like I'll have the opportunity to work thru some of those issues on 11/6/24...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.5  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @4.3.4    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

How dare people say Trump wants to put his "enemies" in prison ? 

------------------------------------------

GMvx1jOXIAAfFge?format=jpg&name=small

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 weeks ago

PROJECTION

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @5    3 weeks ago
How dare people say Trump wants to put his "enemies" in prison ?

And here we have the Biden Administration trying to do just that and you are silent.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2    2 weeks ago

Donald Trump vows to lock up political enemies if he returns to White House

Ok, show us a direct quote of Biden saying he would do the same thing....ready.

Go. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @5.2.1    2 weeks ago

Don't need a direct quote.  Just look at whats going on now.  Democrats are doing it now.  

It's also cute that somebody you all claim is a habitual liar, you suddenly believe.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.2.3  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.2    2 weeks ago
Just look at whats going on now.

I see the grass growing....

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6  Texan1211    3 weeks ago

I wish we had someone competent in charge of classified documents.

Save a lot of mess and bloviating.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
7  Jeremy Retired in NC    3 weeks ago
Special Counsel Jack Smith's team is admitting that key evidence in former President Donald Trump's classified documents criminal case was altered or manipulated since it was seized by the FBI, and that prosecutors misled the court about it for a period of time.

Tampering with evidence is trend with the "Get Trump" prosecutors and supporters.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8  Just Jim NC TttH    2 weeks ago

And jack’s documents case just got postponed indefinitely. . Meaning prolly never. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8    2 weeks ago

Why is this funny?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.1  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @8.1    2 weeks ago

Let me help Jim.

Because the attempt at election interference is crumbling before our eyes.....and yours.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @8.1.1    2 weeks ago

You think that it is okay for Trump to obstruct the return of classified documents by engaging in delay tactics for months, lying about them, moving them to different locations, trying to change security camera footage, etc.?

The rule of law does not matter to you?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @8.1    2 weeks ago

Cuz it’s a shit show “we got him even though there are others” and fuck that obstruction bullshit clear enough?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.2    2 weeks ago

Where did he say that? jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.3    2 weeks ago
Cuz it’s a shit show “we got him even though there are others” and fuck that obstruction bullshit clear enough?

Yes, it is clear that  you do not care that Trump obstructed the safe return of the documents.    If Trump did it, it is okay with you.   Fuck that rule of law bullshit too.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.4    2 weeks ago

If someone does not care that Trump obstructed the safe return of the documents then they do not care about the rule of law ... at least when it involves Trump.

This much used tactic of pretending to not see the consequences of words just makes the person employing the tactic look ridiculous.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
8.1.7  GregTx  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.3    2 weeks ago

But this was the bestest most legitimate chance to actually get that bastard darnit....

jrSmiley_29_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
8.1.8  George  replied to  GregTx @8.1.7    2 weeks ago

I wonder if all the posters who supported all the Judges decisions that went against Trump will support this judges decision or will we be surprised by hypocrisy?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.2    2 weeks ago

Next they'll be telling you that the J6 rioters were tourists and Trump didnt act to stop the riot because he fell asleep from working too hard investigating voter fraud. 

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
8.1.10  GregTx  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.9    2 weeks ago

How's that case going btw?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.9    2 weeks ago

It is never a surprise when a Trump supporter takes the position that Trump has done nothing wrong and that all his legal troubles are fabricated cases without any merit.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  GregTx @8.1.10    2 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
8.1.13  GregTx  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.12    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.6    2 weeks ago

Look. Obstructed or not, anyone could have seen Biden’s docs. In the fucking garage and never looked? He knew the damned things were there until the shit hit the fan with Trump and Pence. Due diligence was NOT followed for 40 fucking years in Biden’s case. So why the rush all of a sudden. Because Trump plain and simple. 

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
8.1.15  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.11    2 weeks ago

You know what else is never a surprise? When a Biden supporter takes the stance that Biden has done nothing wrong and that all his problems and bad polling are fabricated by opposition without any merit. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.14    2 weeks ago

You are ignoring the law and pretending that duration makes a legal difference.   It does not.   

Biden certainly could be considered grossly negligent but the fact that he did cooperate in the safe return of the documents plays heavily in his favor.   

Trump, in contrast, knowingly and willfully refused to cooperate.   This was after he had been asked to return the documents.   He then knowingly and willfully obstructed NARA, DoJ, and the FBI in their attempts to safely return the documents.   That is blatantly criminal.

If Trump had returned the documents as Biden and Pence did, he would not have been indicted.   He needlessly brought this on himself because he apparently believes he is about the law.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @8.1.15    2 weeks ago

That is a "I know you are but what am I" platitude.   

Since you replied to my comment, it is natural to assume that you think I believe Biden has done nothing wrong, etc.   If that is the case then you have not paid any attention to what I have been writing on this forum.

Either that, or you are intentionally being dishonest.

Which is it?

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
8.1.18  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.16    2 weeks ago
Biden certainly could be considered grossly negligent but the fact that he did cooperate in the safe return of the documents plays heavily in his favor.

Huh? I wonder if he would have been so cooperative if he had been impeached all those years ago when he had first started collecting them? BTW, I agree that he could be considered grossly negligent. 

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
8.1.19  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.17    2 weeks ago

No, I've paid attention to what you've wrote. What do you find dishonest about my post?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @8.1.18    2 weeks ago
I wonder if he would have been so cooperative if he had been impeached all those years ago when he had first started collecting them?

That is strange.   Most rational human beings would be cooperative.   If a politician knows that his holding of classified documents is both illegal and known, he will naturally do whatever he can to quickly return the documents and reduce the damage.   This would be at the very least a selfish move to help save face.   But on top of that it is actually the right thing to do.

It is strange, if not bizarre, for a politician to not only refuse to cooperate in the safe return of the documents but actually engage in obstruction to prevent their safe return.   What kind of a nut does that?    Not only is that counterproductive and will only end poorly for the obstructor, but it is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

Trump's behavior was bizarrely abnormal.   To think that Biden (or anyone else) would be prone to act that way regardless of past problems does not jive with even a basic understanding of logic and human nature.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
8.1.21  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.20    2 weeks ago

Okay

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1.22  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.16    2 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.23  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.22    2 weeks ago
Please refrain from commenting to me. 

I can name three or four people here who I wish that line would work on. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
8.1.24  Right Down the Center  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1.22    2 weeks ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
8.1.25  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.23    2 weeks ago

Ditto

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1.26  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Right Down the Center @8.1.24    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.5    2 weeks ago

JFC.  The defense of the indefensible is fucking unreal

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.2  MrFrost  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8    2 weeks ago

And jack’s documents case just got postponed indefinitely. . Meaning prolly never.

Trump appointed right wing extremist judge, what did you expect? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  MrFrost @8.2    2 weeks ago

Tissue?

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
8.2.2  GregTx  replied to  MrFrost @8.2    2 weeks ago

Extremist judge? How so?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
8.2.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  GregTx @8.2.2    2 weeks ago

She's not allowing the left to pull their bullshit.  You know, like prosecuting somebody for mishandling classified material when the prosecution ADMITS to mishandling classified material.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @8.2    2 weeks ago

Bought and paid for just like ginni, I mean clarence.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
8.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.1    2 weeks ago
Tissue?

Ask Murchen, he has tons. 

 
 

Who is online