This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ElwoodBlues · M
The Jack Smith 37 count indictment of Trump shows overwhelming evidence of his guilt on numerous federal felony counts. If he had any brains he would be plea-bargaining now. On the other hand, if he had any brains, he would never have tried to hide from NARA the fact that he had possession of all those top secret documents.
NY Times had a nice explainer of the major charges against Trump.
NY Times had a nice explainer of the major charges against Trump.
Unauthorized retention of national security documents
[Elwood note: this is where the 1917 Espionage Act comes in. Note classification status is irrelevant to the Espionage Act. ]
It is a crime to retain national security documents without authorization and to fail to deliver them to a government official entitled to take custody of them.
To win a conviction, prosecutors would have to show that Mr. Trump knew he was still in possession of the documents after leaving the White House and failed to comply when the government asked him to return them and then subpoenaed him.
Each such charged document would be a separate offense, so it is possible that prosecutors have brought as many as five counts of this offense by citing five different records. A conviction would be theoretically subject to 10 years in prison for each count, although defendants in other Espionage Act cases have received significantly less than the maximum.
To obtain a conviction, prosecutors would also have to prove to the jury that the documents related to the national defense, that they were closely held and that their disclosure could harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary.
Although Mr. Trump has claimed — without evidence — that he declassified all the files he took to Mar-a-Lago, prosecutors would not technically need to prove that they were still classified because the Espionage Act predates the classification system and does not refer to it as an element.
Conspiracy Charges
It is a crime to agree with another person to break a law. Prosecutors would need to show that Mr. Trump and some other person had a meeting of the minds about committing a specific crime and that one of them took some step toward that goal. The penalty can be up to five years.
Obstruction
It is a crime to conceal records to obstruct an official effort. Prosecutors would need to show several things, including that Mr. Trump knew he still had files that were subject to the efforts by the National Archives and Records Administration to take custody of presidential records. They would also need to be able to demonstrate that he willfully defied the Justice Department’s subpoena for files marked as classified, and that he intentionally caused his subordinates to fail to turn them all over while leading officials to believe they had complied. The penalty is up to 20 years per offense.
False statement
It is a crime to make a false statement to a law enforcement officer about a fact material to the officer’s investigation. Such crimes carry a penalty of up to five years per offense...
[Elwood note: this is where the 1917 Espionage Act comes in. Note classification status is irrelevant to the Espionage Act. ]
It is a crime to retain national security documents without authorization and to fail to deliver them to a government official entitled to take custody of them.
To win a conviction, prosecutors would have to show that Mr. Trump knew he was still in possession of the documents after leaving the White House and failed to comply when the government asked him to return them and then subpoenaed him.
Each such charged document would be a separate offense, so it is possible that prosecutors have brought as many as five counts of this offense by citing five different records. A conviction would be theoretically subject to 10 years in prison for each count, although defendants in other Espionage Act cases have received significantly less than the maximum.
To obtain a conviction, prosecutors would also have to prove to the jury that the documents related to the national defense, that they were closely held and that their disclosure could harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary.
Although Mr. Trump has claimed — without evidence — that he declassified all the files he took to Mar-a-Lago, prosecutors would not technically need to prove that they were still classified because the Espionage Act predates the classification system and does not refer to it as an element.
Conspiracy Charges
It is a crime to agree with another person to break a law. Prosecutors would need to show that Mr. Trump and some other person had a meeting of the minds about committing a specific crime and that one of them took some step toward that goal. The penalty can be up to five years.
Obstruction
It is a crime to conceal records to obstruct an official effort. Prosecutors would need to show several things, including that Mr. Trump knew he still had files that were subject to the efforts by the National Archives and Records Administration to take custody of presidential records. They would also need to be able to demonstrate that he willfully defied the Justice Department’s subpoena for files marked as classified, and that he intentionally caused his subordinates to fail to turn them all over while leading officials to believe they had complied. The penalty is up to 20 years per offense.
False statement
It is a crime to make a false statement to a law enforcement officer about a fact material to the officer’s investigation. Such crimes carry a penalty of up to five years per offense...
This message was deleted by its author.
This message was deleted by its author.
ElwoodBlues · M
@MarmeeMarch You didn't cite the whole Espionage Act either, did you? Please allow me to draw your attention to 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.
The relevant text is "... or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; ..."
Gosh, it turns out Special Counsel Jack Smith and his legal team know more about the application of 18 U.S. Code § 793 than you and I know.
The relevant text is "... or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; ..."
Carrying a 10-year possible sentence, it prohibits people from, among other things, unauthorized possession of national defense-related documents that are willfully retained and not delivered to the government officer or employee entitled to receive them.
In Trump’s potential case, the National Archives and Records Administration was entitled to receive the records Trump kept at Mar-a-Lago and failed to deliver. That section of the Espionage Act wouldn't require Trump, for example, to share the documents with a foreign government in order to be charged.
In Trump’s potential case, the National Archives and Records Administration was entitled to receive the records Trump kept at Mar-a-Lago and failed to deliver. That section of the Espionage Act wouldn't require Trump, for example, to share the documents with a foreign government in order to be charged.
Gosh, it turns out Special Counsel Jack Smith and his legal team know more about the application of 18 U.S. Code § 793 than you and I know.
This message was deleted by its author.
This message was deleted by its author.
ElwoodBlues · M
@MarmeeMarch Read the actual indictment. They've documented how Trump had his valet Walt Nauta move boxes out of a storeroom, then had his attorney Corcoran search the storeroom and report to NARA that there were no additional documents. There's lots more documentation of moving boxes and communications with his lawyers and texts between staffers in the indictment.
All that moving and hiding constitutes sufficient evidence of intent. Courts have been wrestling with intent questions for hundreds of years and they've established standards for proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not a riddle to lawyers or judges.
All that moving and hiding constitutes sufficient evidence of intent. Courts have been wrestling with intent questions for hundreds of years and they've established standards for proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not a riddle to lawyers or judges.
This message was deleted by its author.
ElwoodBlues · M
@MarmeeMarch Your red quote is from subsection (a) of 18 U.S. Code §793. Look closely. Each of the subsections is joined by "or" conjunctions. That means that if the conditions for any of the subsections of the Espionage Act are met, the Act has been violated.
You might also wanna look at subsection (f) about removal from proper place of custody, such as flying some secret docs to Trump's Bedford NJ golf course and waving them under the noses of folks while bragging about them. That law is filled with "or" conditions, and I'm confident you understand how a logical "or" operates.
Gosh, it turns out Special Counsel Jack Smith and his legal team know more about the application of 18 U.S. Code § 793 than you and I know. Who'd a thunk it???
You might also wanna look at subsection (f) about removal from proper place of custody, such as flying some secret docs to Trump's Bedford NJ golf course and waving them under the noses of folks while bragging about them. That law is filled with "or" conditions, and I'm confident you understand how a logical "or" operates.
Gosh, it turns out Special Counsel Jack Smith and his legal team know more about the application of 18 U.S. Code § 793 than you and I know. Who'd a thunk it???
This message was deleted by its author.
ElwoodBlues · M
@MarmeeMarch Well then at least quote the proper subsection!
I already explained to you about the evidence against Trump regarding "national defense-related documents that are willfully retained and not delivered to the government officer or employee entitled to receive them."
Solid evidence says Trump willfully retained the top secret docs. The same solid evidence says he obstructed justice while doing so. Did you know Jack Smith has a 97% conviction rate? He didn't achieve that by being sloppy about either assembling evidence or filing charges.
I already explained to you about the evidence against Trump regarding "national defense-related documents that are willfully retained and not delivered to the government officer or employee entitled to receive them."
But proving intent to do any / all of that - well it's just going to be hard to do.
The courts assume Congress doesn't pass laws with conditions that are impossible to fulfill. The courts have established standards for proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not a riddle to lawyers or judges.Solid evidence says Trump willfully retained the top secret docs. The same solid evidence says he obstructed justice while doing so. Did you know Jack Smith has a 97% conviction rate? He didn't achieve that by being sloppy about either assembling evidence or filing charges.
This message was deleted by its author.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
It’s not what aboutism to point out that the charges are equally applicable when the name is changed with Joe Biden. @ElwoodBlues
ElwoodBlues · M
@jackjjackson
Neither Biden nor Pence refused to turn over documents to NARA. In fact both Biden and Pence returned documents with commendable alacrity. You clearly don't understand what twice-impeached is charged with. Maybe if you went back and read this thread you might understand.
equally applicable
Nope. DEAD WRONG.Neither Biden nor Pence refused to turn over documents to NARA. In fact both Biden and Pence returned documents with commendable alacrity. You clearly don't understand what twice-impeached is charged with. Maybe if you went back and read this thread you might understand.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
Trump did voluntarily turn over documents and there remain some documents Biden has not turned over. Get your facts straight tweedle dum @ElwoodBlues
ElwoodBlues · M
@jackjjackson The security videos from Mar-a-Lago show that Trump had a bunch of boxes moved to HIDE them from searchers. He handed over a few documents, tried to hide the rest, thereby obstructing justice. It's all in the indictment.
there remain some documents Biden has not turned over.
Links? Evidence?? Or right-wing fairy tale???
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues And of course you know what was in the boxes, correct?
ElwoodBlues · M
The security videos from Mar-a-Lago show that Trump had a bunch of boxes moved to HIDE them from searchers. He handed over a few documents, tried to hide the rest, thereby obstructing justice. It's all in the indictment.
@sunsporter1649 says
!!!ROTFL!!!
@sunsporter1649 says
And of course you know what was in the boxes, correct?
Correct.And of course you believe that bullschiff. Whoops,
Rather than believing in a GiAnTt FbI CoNsPiRaCy?? And a GiAnTt ElEcTiOn CoNsPiRaCy?? And a GiAnTt ClImAtE CoNsPiRaCy???!!!ROTFL!!!
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues And of course you believe that bullschiff. Whoops, you insisted hunters laptop was stolen by ruskie agents, who left hunter for dead, so you will buy into almost anything
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
What about the White House cocaine?
@sunsporter1649
@sunsporter1649
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@jackjjackson The left-wing nut-job marxists will come up with some way to blame it on President Trump
ElwoodBlues · M
@jackjjackson
So you've abandoned your defense of Trump because you agree that Trump's refusal to turn over the secret documents to NARA is inexcusable. Good to know.
What about the White House cocaine?
Switching over to whataboutism, LOL!!!So you've abandoned your defense of Trump because you agree that Trump's refusal to turn over the secret documents to NARA is inexcusable. Good to know.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
Please try to keep up. There is no what aboutism. The Biden’s are criminals. Trump is beloved for kicking ass in the swamp and will be given the chance to continue. The dems are running like Confederates from Sherman in Georgia jackass. @ElwoodBlues
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues What secret documents?