ACCCHTUALLY, when you get into black v white, its a clear cut equal protection argument.

Quote:

---

That's what Im' trying to say here.

---

I know what you are trying to say, and you are just wrong. Sorry if that bothers you and I don't mean to offend.

Now, if you want to change your welder analogy to include hiding documents responsive to a subpoena, then that is a different discussion.

Please see previous post regarding friendly advice.

Quote:

---

Under the PRA, the former POTUS welder was under conflicting Acts of Congress regarding whether he needed to return the plans.

---

When you boil this down, this sounds like a defense based in mistake of law which is only applicable in i the rarest of circumstances in a criminal case.

So yeah, if I was Trump I would for sure be arguing on that point.

Will trump plea bargain if the case looks strong? I doubt he wants to die in prison.

The Green Dragon said:

---

Will trump plea bargain if the case looks strong? I doubt he wants to die in prison.

---

Again. . .

Trump is not going to spend 1 second behind bars.

Quote:

---

And in this case the documents in welders possession were intertwined with personal items, attorney-client privilege covered items, and multitudes of items the officer of the US was demanding.

Instead of being specific, the officer of the US said give me everything and we will let you know what you can have back. That line may work for a welder, but is not practical (and in conflict with another law) if welder is a former POTUS.

---

I get that.

And if I was the judge I'd take that into consideration when it came time for sentencing.

Another problem I see here is that Trump and his people seem to have treated the DOJs demand like a traditional discovery request in a.civil case where you got some leeway to jimmy-job around and fight about it.

The DOJ didn't see it that way, and the law may not see it that way.

So far as the DOJ was concerned the law is that when we show up and ask for our stuff back you give it to us and failure to do so is a crime.

You can go down to the courthouse and file anything you want, but it doesn't change the fact that failure to re-deliver the documents on demand is everything the DOJ needs boxed up with a nice bow on it.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

All that matters with respect to the indictment and the law is that the government asked for the **** back and Trump willfully refused.

---

Yup.

"We want our ball back, and if you refuse, we're going to jail you for the rest of your life."

Pretty much sums it up.

Im Gipper said:

---

The Green Dragon said:

---

Will trump plea bargain if the case looks strong? I doubt he wants to die in prison.

---

Again. . .

Trump is not going to spend 1 second behind bars.

---

So he pleas?

Quote:

---

No offense, but whomever you are getting your information from, you need to stop doing so.

The relevant section literally starts off with "Whoever having unauthorized possession of,"

---

You are off base here because as soon as the DOJ asked for the materials back, authorized possession became unauthorized from that point forward.

Was Trump in authorised possession of the documents, sure.

But the moment the DOJ demanded return of the documents and Trump willfully failed to comply, Trump's possession of the documents became unauthorized from that point forward.

jrdaustin said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

All that matters with respect to the indictment and the law is that the government asked for the **** back and Trump willfully refused.

---

Yup.

"We want our ball back, and if you refuse, we're going to jail you for the rest of your life."

Pretty much sums it up.

---

I've come to the conclusion that it really is as simple as that.

And thats the point of the Welder analogy.

If this was anybody but Trump, their ass would be grass.

And by being obstinate about the whole thing Trump meandered off into a minefield and is now trying to find his way out.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

All that matters with respect to the indictment and the law is that the government asked for the **** back and Trump willfully refused.

---

Yup.

"We want our ball back, and if you refuse, we're going to jail you for the rest of your life."

Pretty much sums it up.

---

I've come to the conclusion that it really is as simple as that.

And thats the point of the Welder analogy.

If this was anybody but Trump, their ass would be grass.

And by being obstinate about the whole thing Trump meandered off into a minefield and is now trying to find his way out.

---

On that we can agree.

But at the end of the day it tells us much more about the upper echelons of DOJ & FBI than it does about Trump.

And that's not good.

The Green Dragon said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

The Green Dragon said:

---

Will trump plea bargain if the case looks strong? I doubt he wants to die in prison.

---

Again. . .

Trump is not going to spend 1 second behind bars.

---

So he pleas?

---

Could, but I highly doubt it.

My predictions (guesses) are he either gets the case dismissed on Rule 29 motion for acquittal before it goes to the jury (no appeal), pardoned by GOP president on 1/20/25, pardoned by Dem president before sentencing or is found not guilty by a jury,

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

No offense, but whomever you are getting your information from, you need to stop doing so.

The relevant section literally starts off with "Whoever having unauthorized possession of,"

---

You are off base here because as soon as the DOJ asked for the materials back, authorized possession became unauthorized from that point forward.

Was Trump in authorised possession of the documents, sure.

But the moment the DOJ demanded return of the documents and Trump willfully failed to comply, Trump's possession of the documents became unauthorized from that point forward.

---

Problem for the DOJ is that they cannot (or should not) determine all boxes in Trump's possession be determined to potentially have national defense information in it, without giving some description or specificity of what they are looking for.

They are relying on "documents with classified markings" being the specificity in regards to national defense information. Its why the warrant reads a bit oddly and not at all specific.

So its a "we demand all records from your time as POTUS" irrespective of the Presidential Records Act and irrespective of any other law, norm or precedent.

Trump and team tell them you cannot ask for all that. And the reply is "Espionage Act says you cannot have any national defense information that we want to have back." Trump asks for a list, they say well anything with classified markings has the potential to be national defense information.

If that sounds like a fair way to treat anyone much less a former POTUS who has the RIGHT and AUTHORITY under the PRA to go through and access those hundreds of boxes, is told to return them.

Then also charge him with a crime if he moved or went through boxes. Note that the DOJ is charging an attempt to conceal documents without evidence that there was an intent to conceal. Pretty legit.

Quote:

---

Now, if you want to change your welder analogy to include hiding documents responsive to a subpoena, then that is a different discussion.

---

You are off base here because that act occurred after the crime was committed.

Again, while true, thats something that the judge will have to consider on sentencing if it ever gets to that point.

My guess is they were looking for crossfire Hurricane documents that they were afraid Trump would use against FBI. They struck out on that so they decided to go ahead with this vague warrant.

Agreed on this warrant issue. Trump's #1 strategy should be to attack that warrant. If it goes beyond that he down in the weeds, real fast.

Im Gipper said:

---

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.

---

No offense, but whomever you are getting your information from, you need to stop doing so.

The relevant section literally starts off with "Whoever having unauthorized possession of,"

Welder was never in authorized possession of the documents at his home.

---

It doesn't matter if the welder (or Trump or anyone) ever was in authorized possession of the documents. What matters is whether the welder (or Trump or anyone) had possession of them when they were no longer authorized to.

If you believe Trump can raise reasonable doubt that he continued to be legally in possession of the documents, that's fine. That's for the defense to show at trial and doesn't mean the analogy is improper. The government's opinion, clearly, is that Trump was no longer legally possessing the documents.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Now, if you want to change your welder analogy to include hiding documents responsive to a subpoena, then that is a different discussion.

---

You are off base here because that act occurred after the crime was committed.

Again, while true, thats something that the judge will have to consider on sentencing if it ever gets to that point.

---

Now I see the issue.

You haven't even read the charges!!

Look at Counts 32-36.

Im Gipper said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Now, if you want to change your welder analogy to include hiding documents responsive to a subpoena, then that is a different discussion.

---

You are off base here because that act occurred after the crime was committed.

Again, while true, thats something that the judge will have to consider on sentencing if it ever gets to that point.

---

Now I see the issue.

You haven't even read the charges!!

Look at Counts 32-36.

---

If I understand what you're saying, I think you're off base. You're trying to make a distinction (whether it was ever proper for the person (welder/Trump/whoever) to have the documents at their house, that doesn't legally matter.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

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.

---

No offense, but whomever you are getting your information from, you need to stop doing so.

The relevant section literally starts off with "Whoever having unauthorized possession of,"

Welder was never in authorized possession of the documents at his home.

---

It doesn't matter if the welder (or Trump or anyone) ever was in authorized possession of the documents. What matters is whether the welder (or Trump or anyone) had possession of them when they were no longer authorized to.

If you believe Trump can overcome reasonable doubt that he continued to be legally in possession of the documents, that's fine. That's for the defense to show at trial and doesn't mean the analogy is improper. The government's opinion, clearly, is that Trump was no longer legally possessing the documents.

---

Ding ding. And being caught on tape admitting to it is pretty damming as well.

AggDogg61 said:

---

Another example that our country is falling apart. Let's Texit while we can.
Then maybe send in some Texas Rangers to free Trump.

---

If he is imprisoned in Florida, Florida DPS will take care of freeing him.

Im Gipper said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Now, if you want to change your welder analogy to include hiding documents responsive to a subpoena, then that is a different discussion.

---

You are off base here because that act occurred after the crime was committed.

Again, while true, thats something that the judge will have to consider on sentencing if it ever gets to that point.

---

Now I see the issue.

You haven't even read the charges!!

Look at Counts 32-36.

---

Investigation of a crime that was not a crime and was done under false pretenses SHOULD make those charges irrelevant. I know that they do not, but they should.

Else, the DOJ continues to be free to charge, raid and interrogate whomever they want with no under lying crime. And you are then prosecuted for lying about a crime that you did not commit or that was not a crime.

That's another banana republic level of bullshizzle.

Pretty much every case in this universe of cases that I can think of, which involves a U.S. citizen, at least, started with them having properly authorized access to the information.

They commit crimes when they walk out of the building with it, or make copies and post them on the internet, or keep them after they left their job, or offer to sell the information, or handed the info to someone not authorized to have it, or something along those lines.

Im Gipper said:

---

The Green Dragon said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

The Green Dragon said:

---

Will trump plea bargain if the case looks strong? I doubt he wants to die in prison.

---

Again. . .

Trump is not going to spend 1 second behind bars.

---

So he pleas?

---

Could, but I highly doubt it.

My predictions (guesses) are he either gets the case dismissed on Rule 29 motion for acquittal before it goes to the jury (no appeal), pardoned by GOP president on 1/20/25, pardoned by Dem president before sentencing or is found not guilty by a jury,

---

Winner

Im Gipper said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Now, if you want to change your welder analogy to include hiding documents responsive to a subpoena, then that is a different discussion.

---

You are off base here because that act occurred after the crime was committed.

Again, while true, thats something that the judge will have to consider on sentencing if it ever gets to that point.

---

Now I see the issue.

You haven't even read the charges!!

Look at Counts 32-36.

---

You still off base here.

I took the time to write up an analogy to learn you on the issue with this espionage act situation.

Namely, where the act of failing to return the documents on demand sinks the welder in this case.

I didn't put anything in the analogy about the welder trying to hide the documents or conspire with another to hide the documents, or anything like that.

So if you want to bring up something like that, make you own analogy or amend the welder analogy to include what happens after the welder tells the DOJ to pound sand and then we'll flesh it out.

But I see what you are saying but that's not the issue we are talking about here.

Quote:

---

I took the time to write up an analogy to learn you on the issue with this espionage act situation.

---

You should have spent more time because it was turrible.

Analogy is worth what you paid for it.

Im Gipper said:

---

The Green Dragon said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

The Green Dragon said:

---

Will trump plea bargain if the case looks strong? I doubt he wants to die in prison.

---

Again. . .

Trump is not going to spend 1 second behind bars.

---

So he pleas?

---

Could, but I highly doubt it.

My predictions (guesses) are he either gets the case dismissed on Rule 29 motion for acquittal before it goes to the jury (no appeal), pardoned by GOP president on 1/20/25, pardoned by Dem president before sentencing or is found not guilty by a jury,

---

large bet on Rule 29

Point is being made that there is no history of pressing for the prosecution of a former presidential candidate or current contender, clearly for the purposes of election manipulation and interference, and it is sound one. There has been plenty of opportunity to do something like this with many past candidates but nobody had the hubris to be do nakedly political with the justice system.

Charpie said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

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.

---

No offense, but whomever you are getting your information from, you need to stop doing so.

The relevant section literally starts off with "Whoever having unauthorized possession of,"

Welder was never in authorized possession of the documents at his home.

---

It doesn't matter if the welder (or Trump or anyone) ever was in authorized possession of the documents. What matters is whether the welder (or Trump or anyone) had possession of them when they were no longer authorized to.

If you believe Trump can overcome reasonable doubt that he continued to be legally in possession of the documents, that's fine. That's for the defense to show at trial and doesn't mean the analogy is improper. The government's opinion, clearly, is that Trump was no longer legally possessing the documents.

---

Ding ding. And being caught on tape admitting to it is pretty damming as well.

---

Except they don't have the document. There are a lot of folks here that don't want government of, by and for the people. So very strange.

Right.

There was an article in the Atlantic that stated that the government's plan B is in Jersey. The document might very well be at Bedminster, where the recording was made, and further charges may come from there.

Agreed It's banana republic **** we are looking at. The whole thing is a travesty and is a politicization of the justice system at the federal level. The unfortunate thing about this is that once that happens, you can't unring that bell.

Notwithstanding all that, the challenge is to sort through all this bs and call the balls and strikes as we see them.

Theres a half dozen opinions on how all this shakes out. It's unprecedented what we are seeing here, and that's the rub.

This situation is so ****ed that the consequence of being in this position are immeasurable,

A republican president may not fix any of this. We've opened a door now that cannot be closed and that's my concern with all this.

But i see what you are saying. We are throwing the baby out with the bathwater on all of this.

I just read the entire indictment again.

Interesting that there's little, if any concern that the documents were actually in any danger of being revealed to enemies of the State or getting out to the public. But that was never the point, was it?

The comments/statements made by NARA before the FBI investigation opened in March sure appears that this plan was hatched in late 2021, as NARA began setting the table for the investigation in January.

I'm not speaking to any legal defense of Trump. I'm just saying that the whole thing was a well planned mis-use of power for political purposes and is criminalizing actions that were yes, stupid and narcissistic; but, we all knew that about Trump early on.

But as you say, SMR, the bell now cannot be un-rung. We've entered a new, self destructive era in politics that eradicates any moral high ground we once had as we evaluated the actions of other governments around the world.

Regardless of what happenes to Trump, that much is assured.

https://t.co/DgAs6ACnPn pic.twitter.com/v85IBABpjb

— Rocky (@wavechaser2024) June 14, 2023

And it is all being done to impact the 2024 election. This allows the DOJ and Joe Biden to control the speed of the process for maximum impact.

Literal election interference.

Quote:

---

The comments/statements made by NARA before the FBI investigation sure appears that this plan was hatched in late 2021, and NARA began setting the table for the investigation in January.

---

I tend to agree with this.

Trump's behavior is so predictable that it was a cakewalk for his political opponents to set him up for something like this.

Trump reacted just as predicted and walked right into this mess.

The whole thing is unjust, but its hard sell that Trump didn't serve up a fastball down the middle.