I had lunch today with Bill Barr.

[Earl]

ROFLMAO. Statute of limitations applies for when they came into his possession.

Statute Of Limitation Is Not An Automatic Bar To Prosecution — It’s An Affirmative Defense



It’s natural to think that once the statute of limitations has run out a prosecutor would not be able to indict someone and then convict a defendant at trial. But that assumption would be wrong.



Despite the expiration of a statute of limitation for a particular crime, the government can still indict you, take you to trial, convict you, and sentence you to prison.
https://www.tpatrialattorneys.com/statute-of-limitations-federal-crimes/

 

[Jarod]

You still have the issue of how they came into his possession. He is the only memember of his household that had access to them as a Senator.

You have evidence only members of his household had access to his house?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No it is an ONGOING crime for him to keep them in an insecure facility. Sorry. If someone embezzles for years the statute applies to the last date that they embezzled. The statue for Biden won't expire till 2028 which 5 years after the classified documents were returned.

ROFLMAO. Care to tell us which statute you think even remotely says what you just claimed is a crime?

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - requires removal to be a crime
18 U.S. Code § 798 - requires knowingly and willfully disclosing to another person to be a crime
18 U.S.C. § 794 - requires intent to give to a foreign government to become a crime
18 U.S.C. § 793 - makes it a crime to not return it when you find you have it. (You have to prove knowledge.)
18 U.S.C. § 2071 - requires proof that the person willfully concealed the documents.

 

[Jarod]

He dis lie under oath and obstructed justice by tell others to lie.

He did?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Statute Of Limitation Is Not An Automatic Bar To Prosecution — It’s An Affirmative Defense



It’s natural to think that once the statute of limitations has run out a prosecutor would not be able to indict someone and then convict a defendant at trial. But that assumption would be wrong.



Despite the expiration of a statute of limitation for a particular crime, the government can still indict you, take you to trial, convict you, and sentence you to prison.
https://www.tpatrialattorneys.com/statute-of-limitations-federal-crimes/

Read the rest of the story -
The statute of limitation is what is known as an affirmative defense which means the defense must raise the issue and move to dismiss the indictment as barred by the expiration of time. If the defense fails to raise the statute of limitations issue as a defense before or during the trial, then the defense is waived, and a conviction may stand.i

What decent defense lawyer is going to fail to raise the statute of limitations?

What court is going to allow a prosecution to go forward if the statute of limitations has expired and the issue had been raised by the defense?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

then define 'criminal' for us. is it someone who breaks the law? or just someone who was charged with breaking the law? or someone who was convicted of breaking the law?

Is someone a "criminal" because they are accused of a crime that there is no legal way they could have committed the crime?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Is someone a "criminal" because they are accused of a crime that there is no legal way they could have committed the crime?

it happens many times a year to very innocent people. People who do not have the political clout like others who were exonerated by complicit law enforcement

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

it happens many times a year to very innocent people. People who do not have the political clout like others who were exonerated by complicit law enforcement

And here you are attempting to do that very same thing. Accuse someone of a crime when you have no evidence.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And here you are attempting to do that very same thing. Accuse someone of a crime when you have no evidence.

he had classified material in an unsecured location, correct? and FYI, I believe trump committed that same crime, so don't go there.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

he had classified material in an unsecured location, correct? and FYI, I believe trump committed that same crime, so don't go there.

So tell us which law makes it a crime to have classified information you don't know you have.
That is what I keep asking and no one has yet informed me of such a law.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

he had classified material in an unsecured location, correct? and FYI, I believe trump committed that same crime, so don't go there.

The legal problem for Trump is not that he had classified materials but that he didn't return them when he was informed he had them.
By not returning him after being informed he had them he met the standard of willfully and with intent retaining the classified documents.

 

[ExpressLane]

The legal problem for Trump is not that he had classified materials but that he didn't return them when he was informed he had them.
By not returning him after being informed he had them he met the standard of willfully and with intent retaining the classified documents.

They were declassified. He declassified them when he declassified everything pertaining to the Russiagate scam

 

[ExpressLane]

So tell us which law makes it a crime to have classified information you don't know you have.
That is what I keep asking and no one has yet informed me of such a law.

When you willfully smuggle it out of the SCIF you commit a felony. Now you tell me how Biden got it out of a SCIF accidentally. BAM you have been informed!

(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

 

[ExpressLane]

He did?

He did.

Some of the steps he took included suggesting to Lewinsky that she file a false affidavit to misdirect the investigation, encouraging her to use cover stories, concealing gifts he had given her, and attempting to help her find gainful employment to try to influence her testimony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

 

[PostmodernProphet]

ROFLMAO. Care to tell us which statute you think even remotely says what you just claimed is a crime?

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - requires removal to be a crime
18 U.S. Code § 798 - requires knowingly and willfully disclosing to another person to be a crime
18 U.S.C. § 794 - requires intent to give to a foreign government to become a crime
18 U.S.C. § 793 - makes it a crime to not return it when you find you have it. (You have to prove knowledge.)
18 U.S.C. § 2071 - requires proof that the person willfully concealed the documents.

the one you want to use against Trump......

 

[Grokmaster]

Interesting guy, said he really liked trumps policies but, “wow what an asshole”.

I don’t agree with him on a lot, but he was refreshingly, honest for a Washington insider. I was impressed by that.

He said he doesn’t think they can get him on anything related to January 6, but he is in bad trouble on the classified documents.

So Biden is in REAL TROUBLE over docs he illegally possessed since he was a Senator, etc.

 

[Nordberg]

So Biden is in REAL TROUBLE over docs he illegally possessed since he was a Senator, etc.

So you do not grok the differences, even yet. Biden and Pence found the classified documents and immediately returned them and cooperated with the FBI. They stepped aside and watched the FBI search anywhere they wanted. That is not what daffy Donald did. he kept hiding them. He lied to the FBI. He copied the classified docs. Trump acted and still acts as a thief. The other 2 cooperated as any person who was guilty of misplacing documents would.

 

[Jarod]

So Biden is in REAL TROUBLE over docs he illegally possessed since he was a Senator, etc.

Did Biden lie to investigators that he had already turned them over?

 

[serendipity]

I'm mildly curious, how many others were at this lunch?

 

[Earl]

I'm mildly curious, how many others were at this lunch?

It’s not likely that Bill Barr would sit down with a group that included the ambulance chaser.