youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 8:02 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 12:57 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 5:05 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:22 pm
Youth, seems to me that you are saying that the act of taking and fact of possession is equivalent regardless of knowledge or intent?
So, equivalent between say Pence and Trump.
While I’m glad that arduous process of filing for a security clearance and the ongoing training has put the fear of god into you re taking and possession, I think the lawyers would all tell you that knowledge and intent to possess illegally matter a ton as elements of the crime, certainly of attaining a guilty jury verdict. And thus would factor into a prosecution decision.
And it seems quite evident that Pence’s and Trump’s actions were worlds different in that regard, and thus no prosecution of Pence. There’s little evidence of intentional taking much less hesitation in return as requested from Pence. Nor lying publicly about it, knowing it’s a lie. Then backtracking and claiming all were declassified, in his mind. So, knowing taking. And then hiding them, having others lie, even under subpoena lying and hiding. And ohh yeah then conspired to destroy evidence.
A mountain of difference, would you not agree?
Of course, those various additional elements and felonies, the criminal intent, need to be proven in court, but you agree that those elements don’t exist with Pence.?
Or should Pence be prosecuted?
Youth, are you ignoring this set of questions?
If so, why? If not, a gentle nudge to please address them.
I'd like to understand whether you agree with this logic or not, re Pence and Trump, and why.
Youth, another nudge.
Just seeing this.....you did not quote me, so it did not give me a notification; I have not been spending much time over here of late.
Yes I agree with you. We will likely never know 'this intent'. And like most of Trumps term, it was a fly by the seat of your pants term. We could speculate 'the why' til the cows come home, but not knowing what specific docs he had, it makes it that much harder.
My guess, he viewed it as yet another hit job in his direction, assumed he had the privilege of 'de-classifying' as POTUS, and there was precedent that others prior to him have done the same with docs, all in the name of a library or memoir post presidency: an attempt to think as he was. I read
The Fifth Risk, it's not like that administration had a full grasp on how everything works or the carryover staffing to advise with prudence.
Respectfully, I think you are confusing intentional taking and retention with what particular reason he wished to use them for.
And the clarity of proof of such.
In Pence case, apparently there is little evidence of intentional taking and no evidence of intentional retention.
Radically different situation with Trump. If it had merely been a matter of sloppy rushed packing or even some misunderstanding of what was proper, and Trump had returned the documents on request, no prosecution.
But as the Watergate adage goes, the cover up is worse than the crime. Now there’s tremendous clarity of intent to improperly retain, to deceive, to obstruct.
Legally, it never mattered whether documents were classified, as Trump’s counsel undoubtedly told him. They simply weren’t his, they are the property of the US government, we the people. Legally, it did matter that the information included national security information, but classification level did not matter, again, as Trump’s counsel undoubtedly also explained to him. Politically, and for history, it does matter that so many TS/SCI documents were included, but not to the legal case.
The ‘why’, the motive, for his refusal to comply with the law, the deceit, and obstruction is not a necessary element of the crime. Speculations run the spectrum, but they don’t matter. The deceit and obstruction overwhelms.