I am literally laughing over the notion you think you understand theses laws better than Smith. None of your legal takes are correct.
But that defense only works so far as having the documents originally on his possession, not toTrump’s efforts to hide and conceal and lie about them after the fact.
Is your theory really that because Trump decided not to prosecute Hilary, he should be forever protected? Even after he campaigned explicitly on his promise to the People that he would always protect the sensitive papers of this Country and prosecute to the fullest extent those that didn’t? And again, at the expense of ad nauseam repetition, he was not prosecuted for having the documents at inception. Doesn’t this “Hilary defense” cease to exist at some point in the chain? Like when the government ent asked that he return the documents, and in response he sent his 35+/- documents back saying, “here ya go, here’s everything”? If not then, what about when he was told there’s a bunch of stuff missing, please look again — and he told them that he did so and had nothing? If not then, what about when he was subpoenaed for the documents, and in response he moved them, concealed them, told his lawyer responding to the subpoena that he had nothing, and swore that he has diligently searched and came up with nothing? If not then, what about when a search warrant was executed, and more — but still not all— of the documents were found? If not then, what about when the government found dozens of unsealed boxes, some which contained the sensitive information, recklessly stored in rooms, including one room with a commercial photocopier? If not then, what about despite all of the above,Trump still campaigned publicly, loudly, and repeatedly that this was “a witch hunt” and that he did nothing wrong? If not then, WHEN would it be enough for you to agree that the Hilary Defense no longer applies?!
Not that you are anywhere nearly correct here, but if Trump proves he's being unfairly prosecuted, then he will get a free pass. Go for it since his attorneys will never even sniff that as a valid defense. LOL
Correct, but it’s unlikely there won’t be at least 2 or 3 Trump voters on the jury who will remember it. Especially once they read the indictment.
That your contention is that Trump jurors are therefore positively corrupt, the judge must automatically be certain none are seated. Works for me.
You can’t call jurors who haven’t been selected yet corrupt just because they voted for Trump. There is not a way they will be able to root out bias from the jury. Especially, if Cannon is overseeing it. In fact, she’ll probably defer to Trump’s team on that more than the prosecution since he’s the defendant and the government won’t want to be seen as stacking the deck against a former President/leading presidential candidate of opposition party. Don’t be surprised if there’s like 7 or 8 Trump voters on that jury. There are no guarantees, however.
You wrote two posts above: "Correct, but it’s unlikely there won’t be at least 2 or 3 Trump voters on the jury who will remember it. Especially once they read the indictment." If that is true, that is a corrupt juror. Any juror that considers political party in this case is corrupt. So yes, absolutely according to your condidtions that would be a corrupt juror.
I can already see the excuses now. "Corrupt jury...blah blah blah...Corrupt judge...blah blah blah..." Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?
Reminder. You were the one that called for jurors to be corrupt. Completely hypocritical on your part to incorrectly claim others, by your assumption, will complain when you already called for it. SMH
If they had it their way, their idea of blind justice is a President who hates Trump appointing an Attorney General who hates Trump who appointed an overzealous Special Counsel whose wife worked on an Obama film indicting Trump in a court with a judge not appointed by Trump comprised of a jury without Trump supporters. It's only "impartial justice" if the entire process is decided by Democrats. Makes me sick.
He's also completely ignoring the obstruction charges which carry higher penalties. This stuff is complicated and you can't do 15 minutes of google research, especially with questionable sources, and get a handle on it. It shows. The mere fact someone is suggesting the Clinton sock drawer case is controlling in this situation evidences a lack of a base understanding of how this works.
Not to mention the way that a few posters have so valiantly attempted to suck the thread into a "but Hillary" vortex.
Here's a simple explainer from a former US Attorney of why the Clinton socks drawer case isn't relevant to Trump's case
I wonder why the same DOJ released text messages from Trump but are refusing to release audio recordings of Joe and Hunter Biden? If those tapes are released, it will sink Biden, because he has lied to the media about even knowing his son worked for Burisma and what he did there. Media is corrupt, but they still hate being lied to. And speaking of inference, I think it's pretty clear Biden knew of Hunter's dealings in Ukraine as why else would be withholding a billion dollars from Ukraine if they didn't fire a prosecutor? What father doesn't know what type of work his son is doing? If for nothing else, to be clear of conflict of interest as Vice President. So, I guess perhaps the media should already know they've been lied to and that Biden has a long history of telling big lies to the media, but if the recordings are released, it will be undeniable and they will lose any shred of journalistic integrity they had if they don't acknowledge being lied to by Biden.
Where have you seen that the DOJ has tapes of the Bidens? All I've seen is that 3 years ago an informant said they exist but I haven't seen any confirmation that the tapes have been found.
The Presidential Records Act actually gives the president the authority to decide what he can and cannot take from the White House, not the other way around. Also, the Presidential Records Act is not a criminal statute. It's a civil statute. They are charging Trump under the Espionage Act, which will require them to prove he had ill intent to do harm to the United States by maintaining the documents. Obstruction charges are feckless if there wasn't an underlying crime to begin with. Many of you may not realize it, but you're admitting this isn't a slam dunk case when you continuously cite random US attorneys, etc to back up your position. If you're so sure he's guilty, make some popcorn, sit back and enjoy the show. I see many plausible scenarios where he will be found not guilty.
I've posted this link before. You are wrong when it comes what the PRA does when it comes to Presidential Records. Here's what the PRA actually says: Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office. The President doesn't have any authority on what he can or cannot take from the White House when it comes to the documents created during his/her time in office. Furthermore, Trump lost all authority when Biden took the oath of office. In addition, the Espionage Act does not require intent to use the information to be charge under the law. Here's what the act says: (e)Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over 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 to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or … In addition, intent to use the intel to harm the US isn't necessary if the risk of the intel being used to harm the US is high. For example, having nuclear capabilities docs and US vulnerability docs on a ballroom stage in Mar-a-Lago where known spied have been caught on the premises. Trump may have never wanted to do anything with the docs, but having highly classified docs that could damage national security in unsecure areas where spies have been caught is a serious issue. Trump may or may not be a spy for foreign countries. But that doesn't mean he can't be charged under the Espionage Act.
