Are we being pushed into another Civil War?

The problem with prosecuting cases involving classified docs that involve national security is finding docs in the "goldilocks zone." Which are docs dangerous enough to show the perp shouldn't have held on to them. But not so dangerous that they can't be revealed to the jury. If there are docs in this zone in the Trump case, they are the ones, and only ones that should be revealed.

As for the other cases, like Biden and Pence, if the DOJ states between full cooperation from both individuals, and the fact that the docs weren't a serious security risk, than no reason to divulge exactly what docs were.

Last, there doesn't need to be proof of harm. Just potential for harm. Just having names of foreign agents that are supposed to be top secret is enough, whether or not they are currently living or dead.

 

Realistically, it was all part of the same scheme to overthrow the election. The goal on 1/6 was to sow chaos.

I have no doubt Trump fully intended for that chaos to happen, indeed he even said as much - days in advance: “it’s going to be wild”.

If you just look at his comments in a vacuum during the deranged 1/6 speech, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth (as he typically does). This would make a stand-alone “incitement to riot” charge a bit difficult. The government could show his “I’ll march with you to the capital” or “fight like hell” or “you’re not going to have a country anymore” type comments, and the defense could show a “now, go in peace” type comment. However as we are not idiots, we are not forced to look at any of Trumps actions or comments in a vacuum. We can look at them in totality. The inescapable fact is Trump had a singular agenda to illegally overthrow the election, and 1/6 was apparently just one of several criminal endeavors towards this goal. The 1/6 events were not a fluke or accident. He (and his deranged acolytes) spread their online lies and called their minions to be there on that particular day - the exact date and time the election was being ceremonially certified by congress. For what purpose? The only pushback explanation I’ve ever seen from MAGA as to this amazingly coincidental rally, is that Trump had the “free speech” right to protest. That would be true in almost all circumstances, but when it’s part of an overall criminal scheme to overthrow an election, it is no longer mere protest nor is it necessarily protected speech. It is part of criminal scheme. Maybe a haphazard criminal scheme, but a scheme nonetheless. The fact that he’s brazen about it or does it in the open doesn’t make it less of a crime, though it’s seemingly been an effective strategy… in a bizarre way it shows his base he’s “a fighter”.

 

18 USC 793

(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

 

Here's a simple explanation of the Espionage Act:

The Espionage Act of 1917 prohibited obtaining information, recording pictures, or copying descriptions of any information relating to the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information may be used for the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.​

 

Just about the only defendants who willfully retained NDI when asked to return it were the Rosenbergs. I'm ok with Trump meeting the same fate.

 

Like legally attesting that you had returned all the docs, having your assistant move them around to hide them, holding onto them for over a year when asked to give them back, that kind of failure to return them?

 

This would seem to cover it:

Therefore, Title 18 U.S.C. 1924 makes it a federal crime to knowingly remove classified documents or materials from their designated locations without authorization or retain them in an unauthorized area.

 

In order to prevent civil war, we shouldn't put criminals in jail?

 

“It’s going to be wild” could many anything in the contexts of a protest. They will never get him on inciting a riot. Too much plausible deniability. However, it’s pretty hard to explain fake electors and calling state officials to ask them to “find me votes.” It’s pretty hard to explain asking your VP to not certify the Senate vote. If Smith is shrewd (which is very questionable given previous failed adventures against high profile politicians), he’ll stick to those items, unless he has a smoking gun on the riot we are not aware of.

 

We already did. It isn't our fault he is too blind to receive the message.

 

Since you like to practice law via Google, here ya go … Criminal Cases

And here’s an article to explain in easy-to-read words to help explain the concept of our judicial system, even when there is no human that might have suffered a direct loss based on a crime (and you should read it due to your total misunderstanding of criminal law):

https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/15461-protecting-the-victims-of-victimless-crime-sep

Obviously there are crimes with victims, like rape victims. And equally obvious, at least to most people, there are crimes that are “victimless,” which as the article above explains is a misnomer. But regardless, only the State prosecutes the crime, and can do so whether there is victim or not, and even when a victim chooses not to move forward.

 

I'm back! Have you read any of the OP's posts?

 

They never admitted to having it. Trump was caught red-handed, with the documents.

 

Ok, since no one understands, let's try to break this down:

I don't think this can be definitively stated as true given that we don't know what's in the pending indictment, but you say to ignore this in the next paragraph anyway.

So in this hypothetical, we're assuming that Trump did commit a crime.

Ok, we'll ignore this part in the hypothetical since we're already assuming that Trump did commit a crime.

This is a lot of assumptions, but ok 200,000 angry armed people.

A lot of assumptions and leaps in logic here that we'll have 200,000 angry armed people confronting 5,000 unarmed people, which will result in some of the 5,000 being shot or killed, but there's a big hole here. The confrontation wouldn't be solely between the angry Trump supporters and the ANTIFA baristas, it would be between the police and the angry Trump supporters. If a scenario like this started to unfold, there would be a heavy police presence including SWAT and everything else they have at their disposal. Just like with Jan 6th, anyone involved in any sort of violence would become wanted criminals. Anyone involved in shooting or killing someone is looking at a lengthy prison sentence up to life in prison. Keep in mind that many of Trump's most diehard supporters have been witnessing people being sentenced to jail time for their role in Jan 6th. Don't you think that may be a deterrent to things escalating out of control here?

But the main question is if this if even a remote possibility worth factoring into the decision to indict Trump. As others have pointed out, there was no violence the first two times Trump was indicted so why should we expect anything different the third (or fourth) time, let alone something of this magnitude? This is far too many "what ifs" to factor into the decision to charge Trump which I think is the ultimate question - assuming Trump did commit a crime, should we decline to prosecute him because of the possibility of it starting an armed rebellion? To that, I would say no. The possibility is so remote that it's not even worth considering.

Again, as pointed out, Trump already was voted out at the ballot box. Rather than the hypothetical of 200,000 people taking up arms for Trump, it's a much more real possibility that (1) Trump will try to incite his followers to violence if he loses the election again since his ego will not allow him to process the fact that he lost or (2) Trump wins and refuses to leave office when his 2nd term is up which does throw us into a constitutional crisis. That is no less far fetched than the scenario of a civil war erupting because Trump was indicted again.

Trump isn't going to learn his lesson or go away if he isn't held accountable here. From this point forward, he's going to be focused solely on revenge regardless of how the indictments and trials unfold. I'm sorry but this just isn't a compelling case to not indict Trump if he did in fact commit a crime.