A Deeply Fractured US

[Brad Sallows]

You’re struggling with the key concept of ‘intent’. The vast legal distinction between the two cases has been gone over repeatedly. “Of crap we found some stuff we need to give back” is very different from “Deny we have this stuff, lie to investigators, hide what we can, and then when they search and find it pretend it’s personal property I’m entitled to”. The two fact sets are, uh… pretty dissimilar.

"Intent" doesn't matter in the classified documents cases, with respect to criminal charges for possessing stuff that isn't permitted. Intent and cooperation (with investigators) might be mitigating factors for sentencing. People keep referring to Biden's cooperation as if it matters to his guilt. The case against Biden is clear cut - he has the stuff, he's had some of it for a long time, he was not entitled to have any of it, he never had any power to declassify it, his intentions for retaining it are irrelevant. The prosecution decision hinged on the state of his mind now and how that would play out in court. All that can be said about "intent" is that it certainly isn't "oh crap" as in "I made a mistake"; the material that was provided to his ghostwriter didn't get there by itself or by accident or carelessness.

Smith's case is not the fanciful one. The untried legal theories are on the defence side, particularly as to whether the president has the authority to declassify documents and retain them on what amounts to his say-so.

 

[Brad Sallows]

In Trumps own words he had it, and admitted showing it to folks who had no business to see it.

Same as Biden and his ghostwriter.

[Add and as to this: "Forgot to return and then returned when found" - people, let that line of argument go. Biden knew what he had and knew what he was providing to Zwontizer.]

 

[lenaitch]

"Intent" doesn't matter in the classified documents cases, with respect to criminal charges for possessing stuff that isn't permitted.

I don't know which count you are referring to but many of the USC sections cited in the 37-charge indictment use the terms "knowingly" and "willingly", both of which are benchmarks for intent under our system and, I assume, theirs as well.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You don't steal unintentionally remove papers from a SCIF without knowing your doing it or legal authority to do so. You don't keep them in a box in the garage improperly store them, in three different states and numerous locations, including spaces paid for by Red China, without knowing you're doing it and lacking the legal authority to possess them. And you don't admit on tape that you were downstairs and found classified docs, that are illegal to possess, then give/ read them to your ghost writer. Hur says he didn't charge because Biden's mental condition would not result in convictions. Biden and his administration says he's sharp as a tack. Settle it by charging him and letting the chips fall where they may. He's either fit to be POTUS or fit for a drool cup. He can't be both.

 

[brihard]

You don't steal unintentionally remove papers from a SCIF without knowing your doing it or legal authority to do so. You don't keep them in a box in the garage improperly store them, in three different states and numerous locations, including spaces paid for by Red China, without knowing you're doing it and lacking the legal authority to possess them. And you don't admit on tape that you were downstairs and found classified docs, that are illegal to possess, then give/ read them to your ghost writer. Hur says he didn't charge because Biden's mental condition would not result in convictions. Biden and his administration says he's sharp as a tack. Settle it by charging him and letting the chips fall where they may. He's either fit to be POTUS or fit for a drool cup. He can't be both.

By all means charge him and let it play out, if the grounds exist, and if he is made chargeable by impeachment or being voted out.

I’m just glad you’ve come around to recognizing the inherent and troubling criminality of abusing access to and retention of classified documents, and that it’s in the national interest to prosecute that where the evidence supports it, even if the subject of indictment is a senior political figure. As long as you’re fine with applying that principle regardless of the name and party attached, I don’t think anyone else has an issue with it either.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

By all means charge him and let it play out, if the grounds exist, and if he is made chargeable by impeachment or being voted out.

I’m just glad you’ve come around to recognizing the inherent and troubling criminality of abusing access to and retention of classified documents, and that it’s in the national interest to prosecute that where the evidence supports it, even if the subject of indictment is a senior political figure. As long as you’re fine with applying that principle regardless of the name and party attached, I don’t think anyone else has an issue with it either.

Likely because I don't have a severe case of TDS.

 

[QV]

There is great interest, glee even, in seeing Trump charged. And a very blasé attitude with everything Biden. The bias is glaring.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I don't know which count you are referring to but many of the USC sections cited in the 37-charge indictment use the terms "knowingly" and "willingly", both of which are benchmarks for intent under our system and, I assume, theirs as well.

I wasn't thinking of "intent" as "not by accident", but I see how that applies. I can't imagine trying to argue that a senior politician in his prime couldn't read markings or otherwise know that something was classified, or imagine a scenario in which someone is compelled to remove documents. Even if "aides" removed the material from his offices to his garage, there are still some which he had to remove from some other place to his offices. No-one could plausibly claim complete separation from the chain of custody needed to get from "secure" to "my digs".

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It doesn't matter who moved what. It was illegally possessed. If he hadn't stole them in the first place, nobody would have had to move them anywhere.

As a Senator/Vice President he didn't have the authority that Clinton, Bush, Obama or Trump had as POTUS. Any classified docs Biden had, came into his possession illegally. And when he personally took them into possession, he knew he was breaking the law intentionally.

 

[brihard]

Likely because I don't have a severe case of TDS.

You consider to frame anyone wanting to see Trump held accountable as being “deranged”. That greatly undermines your credibility when you’re coming into discussions where others are trying to work with objective facts and to discuss things based on good faith and sound law.

Based on your shift in tone on prosecution for mishandling classified documents, and based on the body of evidence that’s now public: do you now believe those who wish to see Trump prosecuted on the classified docs case have a valid position to take based on the actual evidence and the probable cause that establishes, and that should be tested in court? Or are we all still suffering from “derangement”?

 

[KevinB]

It doesn't matter who moved what. It was illegally possessed. If he hadn't stole them in the first place, nobody would have had to move them anywhere.

As a Senator/Vice President he didn't have the authority that Clinton, Bush, Obama or Trump had as POTUS. Any classified docs Biden had, came into his possession illegally. And when he personally took them into possession, he knew he was breaking the law intentionally.

Senators, Rep’s, and the VP regularly get classified information. Just like a President they are responsible for their handling of documents in their possession.

As one said before both parties candidates are terrible and both probably should be disqualified from office.

However given what President Biden had versus former President Trump had, and what each have admitted to disclosing, I believe Trump’s malfeasance is significantly worse.

 

[OceanBonfire]

The son is carrying a lot psychological scars but at least he and his mother left:

Oath Keepers' son emerges from traumatic childhood to tell his own story in a long shot election bid

The eldest son of one of America's most infamous seditionists is building a new life since breaking from his father's control.

apnews.com

 

[dimsum]

The son is carrying a lot psychological scars but at least he and his mother left:

Oath Keepers' son emerges from traumatic childhood to tell his own story in a long shot election bid

The eldest son of one of America's most infamous seditionists is building a new life since breaking from his father's control.

apnews.com

Good for them to leave, and him to fight back the best way he could.

 

[brihard]

The son is carrying a lot psychological scars but at least he and his mother left:

Oath Keepers' son emerges from traumatic childhood to tell his own story in a long shot election bid

The eldest son of one of America's most infamous seditionists is building a new life since breaking from his father's control.

apnews.com

Wow. Good on him, that shows character.

 

[OldSolduer]

Wow. Good on him, that shows character.

Oath Keepers - from what I have read in the last few minutes they seem to be almost like Nazis.....is that a fair assessment?

Whatever they are they need to be stopped.

One more thing - for a nation that separated church and state in 1776 or whatever year it seems that religion - specifically anti abortionists - still rears up a lot.

Back you your regularly scheduled programming...

 

[brihard]

Oath Keepers - from what I have read in the last few minutes they seem to be almost like Nazis.....is that a fair assessment?

Whatever they are they need to be stopped.

One more thing - for a nation that separated church and state in 1776 or whatever year it seems that religion - specifically anti abortionists - still rears up a lot.

Back you your regularly scheduled programming...

I don’t know about ‘Nazi’, but certainly far-right seditionists. My understanding is that the Jan 6th seditious conspiracy convictions and imprisonments have likely broken the back of the most centralized part of the group- but the Oathkeepers still have a fairly prominent ideological position, even if organizationally they’re fractured.

 

[dimsum]

for a nation that separated church and state in 1776 or whatever year

 

[OldSolduer]

I know that never really happened.

 

[OldSolduer]

I don’t know about ‘Nazi’, but certainly far-right seditionists. My understanding is that the Jan 6th seditious conspiracy convictions and imprisonments have likely broken the back of the most centralized part of the group- but the Oathkeepers still have a fairly prominent ideological position, even if organizationally they’re fractured.

Herein lies the issue - the ideology. People can be killed but the ideology is extremely difficult to eradicate.

 

[dimsum]

I know that never really happened.

Hell, the actual motto of the US is “In God We Trust”, which replaced “E pluribus unum” (“out of many, one”) in 1956.