Donald Trump and due process

T. A. Gardner said:
That makes ZERO difference. Possession is sufficient for charging someone.
Click to expand...

No you are wrong and stupid as it is the entire difference.

You can walk out of a store with some of their sale items in your cart unpaid for and when confronted, that you did not pay for them and thus do not own them, give them back, and they can choose to not have you charged.

You can do the same and when confronted refuse to give them back, lie to them that you even have them and try to block them until they forcibly take them back and they can choose to then have you chargted.


Thread after thread you keep making this stupid asinine argument, because you are dumb, that these situations must be treated the same due to the 'taking of the stuff' when in reality, when initial intent cannot be proven in either case, it is the willful defiance and obstruction that will get you charged.


We CANNOT prove the intent of the person who took the 'stuff' which often leads to them being given the benefit of the doubt. We can PROVE the intent to obstruct and the attempt to keep stolen stuff, which also speaks to the original theft.


That is the defining difference. THAT is why Trump needs to be charged and Pence does not.
 
BidenPresident said:
The real injustice would have been not to indict him

So serious are these allegations that not to have charged Mr Trump would have been to single him out for special treatment. Had Mr Trump acknowledged his mistake and returned all the files, it is hard to see how there would have been any prosecution. As it is, Bill Barr, Mr Trump’s former attorney-general, told Fox News that the indictment is “very, very damning” and concluded that “if even half of it is true, then he’s toast.”

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2...eting-cloud&utm_term=6/13/2023&utm_id=1634166
Click to expand...


The government’s position was that Congress had decided that the president and the president alone decides what is a presidential record and what isn’t. He may take with him whatever records he chooses at the end of his term.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-sock-drawer-and-trumps-indictment-documents-pra-personal-files-13986b28
 
QP! said:
Except you are lying.

None of them refused to give back Gov't doc's for over a year and swore out statements they had nothing left.

That is the singular difference that is the crux of the crime. And the crime matters. It is not what is similar, it is what is different and that is the crime.
Click to expand...

They did not have the presidential records act

J
udge Amy Berman Jackson agreed: “Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office,” she held, “it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records.”

Judge Jackson added that “the PRA contains no provision obligating or even permitting the Archivist to assume control over records that the President ‘categorized’ and ‘filed separately’ as personal records. At the conclusion of the President’s term, the Archivist only ‘assumes responsibility for the Presidential records.’ . . . PRA does not confer any mandatory or even discretionary authority on the Archivist to classify records. Under the statute, this responsibility is left solely to the President.”
Click to expand...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/clinto...ictment-documents-pra-personal-files-13986b28
 
QP! said:
No you are wrong and stupid as it is the entire difference.

You can walk out of a store with some of their sale items in your cart unpaid for and when confronted, that you did not pay for them and thus do not own them, give them back, and they can choose to not have you charged.
Click to expand...

You can do the same and when confronted refuse to give them back, lie to them that you even have them and try to block them until they forcibly take them back and they can choose to then have you chargted.


Thread after thread you keep making this stupid asinine argument, because you are dumb, that these situations must be treated the same due to the 'taking of the stuff' when in reality, when initial intent cannot be proven in either case, it is the willful defiance and obstruction that will get you charged.


We CANNOT prove the intent of the person who took the 'stuff' which often leads to them being given the benefit of the doubt. We can PROVE the intent to obstruct and the attempt to keep stolen stuff, which also speaks to the original theft.


That is the defining difference. THAT is why Trump needs to be charged and Pence does not.[/QUOTE]

False analogy. Do you think that officer in Florida could just give the documents he had back? No way, he was going to be charged either way.

Retired Air Force intelligence officer had 'hundreds' of classified documents in his Florida home including Top Secret briefs on the NSA's capabilities, feds say
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ndreds-classified-documents-Florida-home.html

Did this sailor who turned over everything immediately get off?

US ​​Navy sailor jailed for taking photos of classified areas of nuclear submarine
Kristian Saucier pleaded guilty in May to ‘foolish mistake’ of unauthorized detention of defense information
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...otos-of-classified-areas-of-nuclear-submarine

In his case, his lawyers applied the "Hillary defense" but the judge ruled that essentially Rules for thee, but not for she...

Only the 'Little People' and enemies of the Deep State get charged. You're an insider and connected, you walk.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
...

False analogy. Do you think that officer in Florida could just give the documents he had back? No way, he was going to be charged either way.

Retired Air Force intelligence officer had 'hundreds' of classified documents in his Florida home including Top Secret briefs on the NSA's capabilities, feds say
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ndreds-classified-documents-Florida-home.html

Did this sailor who turned over everything immediately get off?

US ​​Navy sailor jailed for taking photos of classified areas of nuclear submarine
Kristian Saucier pleaded guilty in May to ‘foolish mistake’ of unauthorized detention of defense information
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...otos-of-classified-areas-of-nuclear-submarine

In his case, his lawyers applied the "Hillary defense" but the judge ruled that essentially Rules for thee, but not for she...

Only the 'Little People' and enemies of the Deep State get charged. You're an insider and connected, you walk.
Click to expand...

Again you are showing how stupid you are.

What you are arguing against is prosecutorial discretion, especially as it is used at the top ranks of government.


it is fine if you believe no such discretion SHOULD exist but it DOES exist.

Pence is proof of that when contrasted with your example.

You are not here screaming 'Pence needs to be charged'. Why not? The answer is because you are a partisan hack.

When Bidens independant Trump appointed Federal prosecutor and Special counsel finds that no charges should be done against Biden, you will cry that is unfair as if your view should over ride a Trump appointee who does this for a living.

Again why? Why are you not complaining about bias and Pence not being charged when he did not even have anyone independant look into it and you are already crying about Biden despite Garland putting a Trump guy to do the investigation?


it is because you are dumb partisan hack who is Trumpderp.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The exact same thing could be said of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Mike Pence, and a plethora of other top politicians, yet they aren't facing indictment.

They are no different than this guy who just got convicted.

TAMPA, Fla. -- A former U.S. Air Force intelligence officer was sentenced Thursday to three years in federal prison for keeping classified documents at his home and other unauthorized locations.

Robert Birchum, 55, was sentenced in Tampa federal court, according to court records. He pleaded guilty in February to unlawfully possessing and retaining classified documents relating to the national defense of the United States. Birchum was also fined $25,000.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/retired-air-force-officer-gets-3-years-prison-99775033

If he's guilty, then they're guilty. Trump isn't the only one that should be on trial for this sort of charge.
Click to expand...
Read the Horowitz report.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
She should be indicted for illegally using a personal server, circumventing a whole raft of federal laws on records keeping, having classified information that wasn't properly secured, etc. She did all of that and more, and did it knowingly with the intent to sidestep federal law.
Click to expand...
Read the Horowitz report
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top