GeorgiAg said:
Lying repeatedly to government agencies, willfully hiding documents and ignoring a subpoena for confidential and top secret documents is not a "civil matter". Orange Man Bad.
LMCane said:
Oh please!
Do you get out of a traffic ticket because literally 35 other cars were also speeding in front of you?
ask most Americans if they are THE ONLY ONES who get charged- when other people are committing the exact same crimes.
just because some people get charged- does NOT mean the law should not be applied.
if you don't pay your taxes- does that mean I don't have to pay my taxes?
Republicans/conservatives used to believe in law and order and the rule of law. but not when it comes to defending Trump.
You need to catch up on the thread. Trump is NOT BEING CHARGED with revealing or giving this national security information to someone not allowed to receive it.MouthBQ98 said:
Trump might well beat the espionage act part of the charges as I'm not seeing anything that makes it clear someone known not to be allowed to to possess national security information actually received it as defined by the law.
If you read the 2nd article, you will see Dersh never actually says "equal protection under the law argument also a win for Trump." Why doesn't he say that? Because he knows it is an EXTREME longshot. Any person telling you otherwise does not know the law on selective prosecution.ctag02 said:Found two articles from Dershowitz that speak to what you're referencing:Bryanisbest said:
I've heard 6 legal experts on TV plus Aggiehawg that all say that the presidential record act first, followed if necessary by Atty client privilege rule, followed by inability to prove intent will prevent conviction of Trump. Dershowitz adds that equal protection under law argument also will win for Trump.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: The DOJ's Indictment Against Trump Is Strong, But Will It Be Enough To Take Him Down?
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: What If Both Trump And His Prosecutors Are Guilty?
This.Logos Stick said:LMCane said:
Oh please!
Do you get out of a traffic ticket because literally 35 other cars were also speeding in front of you?
ask most Americans if they are THE ONLY ONES who get charged- when other people are committing the exact same crimes.
just because some people get charged- does NOT mean the law should not be applied.
if you don't pay your taxes- does that mean I don't have to pay my taxes?
Republicans/conservatives used to believe in law and order and the rule of law. but not when it comes to defending Trump.
That's a terrible analogy. It's based on fate and the fact of time and space. The officer can only pull one person over.
A better analogy would be that my car has a GOP sticker, the other 35 cars have a Democrat party sticker and the cop singled me out because of that sticker.
I would add that many of the supporters of this indictment who are touting the "no one is above the law" narrative inexplicably expect that to resonate in a current environment where:fka ftc said:
All the laws aside, the trial is occurring now and will likely never see an actual courtroom with Trump as the defendant.
Team Biden / Trump Haterz have their shiny bauble of a federal indictment of Trump by an independent Biden DOJ and a super-independent prosecutor in Smith. All the evidence shows that Trump committed at least 4 forms of Treason and Nauta was is co-conspirator who worked to ensure evil Trump was able to shuffle papers with Nuclear codes around his bathrooms, storage closets, Barron's pron collection and Melania's panty drawers. In their world, Trump was guilty the moment he went down the escalator.
Team Trump can see clearly this is unjust application of the law violating his equal protection under the law as guaranteed in the 14th amendment. There is no mention of "selective prosecution" nor "prosecutorial discretion" in the US Constitution. Regardless, those concepts cannot result in discriminatory prosecution - this has been adjudicated repeatedly. Trump was following the process of previous POTUS's in sorting through the records of HIS presidency, as provided for and specifically allowed under the PRA. He is the victim of a weaponized DOJ who, at the direction of Biden and WH counsel, developed a strategy to turn a civil PRA dispute into a "trump"ed charge under the 100 yo Espionage Act rarely used and misapplied in this instance.
No one is objective on this. You fall into either of the categories above. Keep in mind only one team is supported by the US Constitution and our concepts of justice, rights and equal treatments. The other team is the stuff of banana republics.
Pretty sure anyone who knowingly and actively destroyed evidence, including systemic and permanent erasure of servers, emails, and the physical destruction of electronic devices to impede a federal investigation who did not flee the country and is not the former Secretary of State for the United States would have found themselves in a federal prison months ago for these alleged crimes.TXAggie2011 said:
Anyone who did not flee the country and is not the former President of the United States would have found themselves in a federal prison months ago for these alleged crimes. The whole "equal protection" and "prosecutorial discretion" arguments are based on treating him differently because of his unique status. It is really quite a dissonant argument.
Good post. The bolded part is starting to blink at me as the off ramp for Biden and friends and why I think they are more than happy to have drawn Judge Cannon.ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
Interesting watching "mainstream" legal press and more partisan pundits across the spectrum on this.
No one knows where this is going to go exactly but the expectation is that we'll see some firey briefing and potentially get a look under the hood about the process and procedure of how the DOJ got to the point they're at.
The farther left the pundit, the more their stories contain 2 basic points (1) this is a slam dunk case and trump is toast and (2) the judge is biased and should have to refuse herself.
But a lot of actual white collar practitioners have commented that there are some very serious issues underlying the process and procedure that will likely lead to extensive briefing and appeals long before this ever gets to trial (if it ever gets to trial).
Further to the right, the commentators are astounded that this happened in the first place and have all sorts of theories about how this gets killed off.
Really? That's a pretty bold statement.TXAggie2011 said:
Anyone who did not flee the country and is not the former President of the United States would have found themselves in a federal prison months ago for these alleged crimes. The whole "equal protection" and "prosecutorial discretion" arguments are based on treating him differently because of his unique status. It is really quite a dissonant argument.
Im Gipper said:
Any thing Judge Cannon does in this case is going to either be (1) absolute proof she is biased, bought and paid for by Trump, and ignoring the law to help him; or (2) absolute proof she doesn't understand Con Law, has been compromised, promised a spot on 11th Circuit, and helping the Deep State.
If John Brennan or Jim Clapper took classified documents when they left their government posts, were asked and told several times to give them back, and did not, and moreso, said they did give them back, then I would predict both gentlemen would have a real and serious problem on their hands.jrdaustin said:Really? That's a pretty bold statement.TXAggie2011 said:
Anyone who did not flee the country and is not the former President of the United States would have found themselves in a federal prison months ago for these alleged crimes. The whole "equal protection" and "prosecutorial discretion" arguments are based on treating him differently because of his unique status. It is really quite a dissonant argument.
Take Brennan & Clapper. Do you really think that they have had no access to classified docs? That no one shares any information with them?
The problem is, we don't really know. There's absolutely no curiosity on the part of the Government to find out.
And that's just two individuals at top of mind. There are thousands of individuals who had classification status that may no longer have them, yet they still have contacts that do.
Was Welder moonlighting at POTUS during this time? Because that seems like an important distinction here.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Thought exercise for you people:
Welder is employed by General Dynamics in Groton, CT.
Welder has access to drawings, schematics, metallurgical analysis for the US submarine fleet that he used during the course of his employment.
Welders contract ends. On his last day he packs up his equipment, roll cart and job box. He takes it home and puts it in his garage.
Two years later the DOJ shows up at his door.
DOJ alleges that Welder took some government property including drawings, schematics and other information that was considered 'defense information' within the meaning of the Espionage Act.
DOJ demands return of this property.
Welder says no.
[crime committed here]
Welder hires lawyers and tells the DOJ to **** off, see you in court.
DOJ gets a warrant to seize property from Welders garage and executes warrant.
DOJ finds schematics and drawings withing the items seized from Welders garage.
DOJ arrests Welder.
DOJ indicts Welder for violation of the Espionage Act for failure to return 'defense information' to the government, on demand.
[you are here]
Now replace Welder with Trump.
Welders garage with Mara Lago
General Dynamics with The White House. and
Defense Information with the contents of Trump's boxes.
It's really that simple, imo. And thats as basic an explanation as possible without getting distracted by the fact that Trump is involved in this case.
And welder was one of multiple welders who took equipment, roll cart and job box home. But this specific welder was the only one who's door the DOJ showed up at.fka ftc said:Was Welder moonlighting at POTUS during this time? Because that seems like an important distinction here.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Thought exercise for you people:
Welder is employed by General Dynamics in Groton, CT.
Welder has access to drawings, schematics, metallurgical analysis for the US submarine fleet that he used during the course of his employment.
Welders contract ends. On his last day he packs up his equipment, roll cart and job box. He takes it home and puts it in his garage.
Two years later the DOJ shows up at his door.
DOJ alleges that Welder took some government property including drawings, schematics and other information that was considered 'defense information' within the meaning of the Espionage Act.
DOJ demands return of this property.
Welder says no.
[crime committed here]
Welder hires lawyers and tells the DOJ to **** off, see you in court.
DOJ gets a warrant to seize property from Welders garage and executes warrant.
DOJ finds schematics and drawings withing the items seized from Welders garage.
DOJ arrests Welder.
DOJ indicts Welder for violation of the Espionage Act for failure to return 'defense information' to the government, on demand.
[you are here]
Now replace Welder with Trump.
Welders garage with Mara Lago
General Dynamics with The White House. and
Defense Information with the contents of Trump's boxes.
It's really that simple, imo. And thats as basic an explanation as possible without getting distracted by the fact that Trump is involved in this case.
I doesn't matter whether the Welder was at one time legally in possession of the documents.Im Gipper said:
No offense, but this analogy fails fairly miserably.
The welder has no argument that he was legally in possession of those documents.
No offense, but whomever you are getting your information from, you need to stop doing so.Quote:
I doesn't matter whether the Welder was at one time legally in possession of the documents.
The only thing that matters is that Welder had possession of the documents, and Welder failed surrender the documents to an officer of the United States, on demand.
Under the PRA, the former POTUS welder was under conflicting Acts of Congress regarding whether he needed to return the plans.Stat Monitor Repairman said:I doesn't matter whether the Welder was at one time legally in possession of the documents.Im Gipper said:
No offense, but this analogy fails fairly miserably.
The welder has no argument that he was legally in possession of those documents.
The only thing that matters is that Welder had possession of the documents, and Welder failed surrender the documents to an officer of the United States, on demand.
Quote:
(d)Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
This is the whataboutism defense.Quote:
And welder was one of multiple welders who took equipment, roll cart and job box home. But this specific welder was the only one who's door the DOJ showed up at.
And he was black. All the others were white.
An argument that he was in legal possession of the documents is irrelevant.Im Gipper said:
No offense, but this analogy fails fairly miserably.
The welder has no argument that he was legally in possession of those documents.
