Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

Cairn Horn88

By Cairn Horn88
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Imagine your basis of hating Trump is because of mean tweets, January 6 and “hush money” trial all because liberal media is crooked. Fuck right off. This is my last post in this forum  dumb fucki

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

When you're a court, you just grab their asset, and they let you do it!

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Bye bitch. Enjoy living in literal hell if your man Biden is re elected

Posted Images

Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45683

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The statute for "removal" of classified information is https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924, which provides:

(a)
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
 
I don't know the case law on this, nor can I recall the facts of being "advised that what he was doing was illegal."  I think that really pertains more to those are Presidential Records and there is no criminal offense for removing Presidential Records.
 
So, again, intent is going to be tough, possibly.  First, you'd have to show that he knew that there were classified documents among the dozens of boxes that he took and that he intended to remove those.  Then, there may be a bit of a bomb in the "with the intent to retain."  Certainly, subsequent events show an intent to retain, but he may have needed that intention at the time he took the documents, and that could be a toughie.
 
In a case where someone removes discrete classified documents, as by shoving them down their pants to take them out of the building and home, that intent is not so problematic.  It could be here.
 
 

 

Quote
Needed to add this part here:
 
So, again, intent is going to be tough, possibly.  First, you'd have to show that he knew that there were classified documents among the dozens of boxes that he took and that he intended to remove those.  Then, there may be a bit of a bomb in the "with the intent to retain."  Certainly, subsequent events show an intent to retain, but he may have needed that intention at the time he took the documents, and that could be a toughie.
 
In a case where someone removes discrete classified documents, as by shoving them down their pants to take them out of the building and home, that intent is not so problematic.  It could be here.

 

 

Do you ever want to stab yourself in the face after typing stuff like this?  I mean, I appreciate it, but I just can't imagine not wanting to stab myself in the face after typing something like this.  Just saying.

Edited by Biff Tannen
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hookah Horns

Hookah Horns 3083

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, BamaATL said:

 Is it possible that Trump has long been indicted under seal for the initial theft, say all the way back in March or April?  The reason it hasn't been unsealed is because they wanted anything to do with Meadows sealed until the Jan 6th indictment? 

 

No. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31465

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

 

 

 

Do you ever want to stab yourself in the face after typing stuff like this?  I mean, I appreciate it, but I just can't imagine not wanting to stab myself in the face after typing something like this.  Just saying.

It's why lawdogs get paid the big bucks.  All in the game yo.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GhostOfTomJoad

GhostOfTomJoad 9324

Posted
Posted
My understanding is that he had an impressive resume from his job as a waiter.
More likely he worked the ball collector at the driving range and one day dotard saw him jiggle the handle just right so the dispenser took the token and gave him an extra jumbo bucket instead of the small. Trump immediately identified him as a technical genius and voila, he put him in charge of IT.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4058

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:
1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:
My understanding is that he had an impressive resume from his job as a waiter.

More likely he worked the ball collector at the driving range and one day dotard saw him jiggle the handle just right so the dispenser took the token and gave him an extra jumbo bucket instead of the small. Trump immediately identified him as a technical genius and voila, he put him in charge of IT.

That has to be the most accurate assumption of a Trump scenario anyone’s ever posted here.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30238

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The statute for "removal" of classified information is https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924, which provides:

(a)
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
 
Then, there may be a bit of a bomb in the "with the intent to retain."  Certainly, subsequent events show an intent to retain, but he may have needed that intention at the time he took the documents, and that could be a toughie.

I would bet my very last dollar that in every administration, as it is about to be succeeded by another administration, that there are numerous civil service wonks from the various agencies handling classified records who instruct the soon-to-be prior officeholder and his staff about the proper retention procedures.   What is unique about Trump is that he has no interest in listening to or following any direction that doesn’t mesh with his interests or wants.  

And I would also be stunned if Donnie did not have a hand in going through “his boxes” to some extent before he left office.  And really, when Jack has recorded video of Trump saying ‘they are all mine, and the FBI should give them back, because I have every right to keep them’ - then we know they were classified, we know he knows they were classified (because they were taken away because they were classified), and yet he still maintains a right to keep them at an unauthorized unsecure location for his own ends. 

I think that sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence exists to maintain a conviction if the jury thinks he knew what they were and took them anyway.

I don’t think it will be a challenge to show that: 1)when a person hid the boxes from the feds; 2) hid them from his own lawyer; 3)and later tried to wipe the server with video of his myrmidons hiding the boxes…..that person always knew that they were classified, and went to great lengths to keep them, including the obstruction of their return.

Finally, you could argue lack of intent if the documents were some lower level classified docs that got mixed in with other records, or there was it just one or two docs. When you have over 100 records, including some of the most sensitive classified material that country possesses, I think that goes toward proving intent as well.  

Honestly, I am not worried about the conviction. I am more worried about checking all the boxes of the elements of the crime at the appellate level.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31465

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I would bet my very last dollar that in every administration, as it is about to be succeeded by another administration, that there are numerous civil service wonks from the various agencies handling classified records who instruct the soon-to-be prior officeholder and his staff about the proper retention procedures.   What is unique about Trump is that he has no interest in listening to or following any direction that doesn’t mesh with his interests or wants.  

And I would also be stunned if Donnie did not have a hand in going through “his boxes” to some extent before he left office.  And really, when Jack has recorded video of Trump saying ‘they are all mine, and the FBI should give them back, because I have every right to keep them’ - then we know they were classified, we know he knows they were classified (because they were taken away because they were classified), and yet he still maintains a right to keep them at an unauthorized unsecure location for his own ends. 

I think that sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence exists to maintain a conviction if the jury thinks he knew what they were and took them anyway.

I don’t think it will be a challenge to show that: 1)when a person hid the boxes from the feds; 2) hid them from his own lawyer; 3)and later tried to wipe the server with video of his myrmidons hiding the boxes…..that person always knew that they were classified, and went to great lengths to keep them, including the obstruction of their return.

Finally, you could argue lack of intent if the documents were some lower level classified docs that got mixed in with other records, or there was it just one or two docs. When you have over 100 records, including some of the most sensitive classified material that country possesses, I think that goes toward proving intent as well.  

Honestly, I am not worried about the conviction. I am more worried about checking all the boxes of the elements of the crime at the appellate level.

You realize that I was addressing a hypothetical indictment for removal of classified information, not the existing case.

The removal case also has the disadvantage of being a five-year felony, but would also seem to be venued in DC.  In any event, I'm guessing it's proof of intent problems that keep them from bringing that case.  He removed entire boxes, not individual documents, and it's a guess, but I'd imagine that the statute has been interpreted to mean present knowledge of specific classified documents and a then-existing intention to retain them in an insecure location.  So that means he could confess to subsequent discovery and intentional retention at a later time and probably avoid conviction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You realize that I was addressing a hypothetical indictment for removal of classified information, not the existing case.

The removal case also has the disadvantage of being a five-year felony, but would also seem to be venued in DC.  In any event, I'm guessing it's proof of intent problems that keep them from bringing that case.  He removed entire boxes, not individual documents, and it's a guess, but I'd imagine that the statute has been interpreted to mean present knowledge of specific classified documents and a then-existing intention to retain them in an insecure location.  So that means he could confess to subsequent discovery and intentional retention at a later time and probably avoid conviction.

I suppose the trick with that sort of case, which is entirely hypothetical would be that you would have to prove that not only did he take the stuff (he obviously did), but you would also have to prove he knew it was illegal to do so (a bit tougher, and not legally clear on how to prove intent), and you would have to prove that he took very specific things with full knowledge as to what they were and that again it was specifically illegal.   As I understand it, as a stand alone it would be difficult to meet the "criminal mindset" portion as it applies to law.

What I was hoping for, and perhaps it was too much, was that we would see an easy and quick open and shut case that was completely stand alone, with no real reason for much of a delay due to discovery, etc.  The reason I am hoping for something like that is because it will get the public quickly accustomed to hearing guilty verdicts on this asshole, and the quicker he is convicted the sooner he moves the next stage of sentencing (how that plays out, I don't know, but I do want to see him found guilty, a lot).  

All that having been said, I'd much rather they get it right than indict on something that is questionable leading to the public losing faith or questioning his guilt or innocence.  Basically, I hope the prosecutors across the board get an average 98%.  While all of us follow this stuff closely, the general public does not, and what we can ill afford is confusion by any mixed verdicts or acquittals.  A few charges here and there on his now 70 plus felony counts are ok, but not very many.  People are idiots, but when you win a football game 70-2, it's pretty obvious who the better team is; this is sort of akin to that.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45683

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, BamaATL said:

All that having been said, I'd much rather they get it right than indict on something that is questionable leading to the public losing faith or questioning his guilt or innocence.  Basically, I hope the prosecutors across the board get an average 98%.  While all of us follow this stuff closely, the general public does not, and what we can ill afford is confusion by any mixed verdicts or acquittals.  A few charges here and there on his now 70 plus felony counts are ok, but not very many.  People are idiots, but when you win a football game 70-2, it's pretty obvious who the better team is; this is sort of akin to that.  

Him being 1-79 or whatever it is so far hasn't seemed to have swayed many people on the right.

Edited by Biff Tannen
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31465

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

I suppose the trick with that sort of case, which is entirely hypothetical would be that you would have to prove that not only did he take the stuff (he obviously did), but you would also have to prove he knew it was illegal to do so (a bit tougher, and not legally clear on how to prove intent), and you would have to prove that he took very specific things with full knowledge as to what they were and that again it was specifically illegal.   As I understand it, as a stand alone it would be difficult to meet the "criminal mindset" portion as it applies to law.

What I was hoping for, and perhaps it was too much, was that we would see an easy and quick open and shut case that was completely stand alone, with no real reason for much of a delay due to discovery, etc.  The reason I am hoping for something like that is because it will get the public quickly accustomed to hearing guilty verdicts on this asshole, and the quicker he is convicted the sooner he moves the next stage of sentencing (how that plays out, I don't know, but I do want to see him found guilty, a lot).  

All that having been said, I'd much rather they get it right than indict on something that is questionable leading to the public losing faith or questioning his guilt or innocence.  Basically, I hope the prosecutors across the board get an average 98%.  While all of us follow this stuff closely, the general public does not, and what we can ill afford is confusion by any mixed verdicts or acquittals.  A few charges here and there on his now 70 plus felony counts are ok, but not very many.  People are idiots, but when you win a football game 70-2, it's pretty obvious who the better team is; this is sort of akin to that.  

Yeah and, as usual, it's a bit more complicated than it looks.  One reason I dug into it is that 793 and the related provisions of the "Espionage Act" (an historical misnomer really), don't seem to proscribe "removal," just retention and communicating to a foreign entity, among other things.  So I had to root around for 1924.  And then, as with all of this stuff, you have to look pretty hard at what the intent requirements are.

Pretty obviously, Smith does not intend to rely on completely circumstantial evidence to prove Trump's intent.  And that requires beating the bushes, talking to a lot of people, and that is what generates discovery from the government:  the subpoenas, search warrants, and interview recordings and transcripts of people that didn't have anything incriminating to say.  And even though that stuff is not incriminating and can therefore apparently be ignored by the defense, that's not really the case.  A competent defense team has to sort through all that chaff looking for things that may be exculpatory.

And, yeah, although Biff is right also, I'd rather have DOJ batting 1.000 on this stuff than slinging half-ass indictments to see if anything sticks.   The public has lost some confidence in DOJ/FBI and that's completely fair, although not for the reasons the GQP cites and I think this needs to be done pretty impeccably.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31465

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, NAVY said:

And he doesn’t pay most of his vendors and lawyers. Very grift-y. In my opinion 

I think that's another new feature for Trump.  He's paying a lot of other people's legal bills, as well as his own, and the stakes are too high for him to stiff them.  And it's not his money.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
conVINCEd

conVINCEd 21469

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Well, it's never too early to start saving for your canteen money.  

Can @YGIFSchime in and explain it to me like I’m 5 how we put money in prisoners accounts in exchange for beating up people we don’t like.  Asking for a friend.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19450

Posted
Posted

I'm sorry, I wouldn't know anything about that.  

I have heard that inmates don't want anything linking them to any kind of incentive prior to---should they be caught red-handed---any kind of violent act.  So you don't just wire money directly from yourself to the inmate's canteen account.  What you start out by doing is psychological tormenting.  Have folks walk by them in the mess or common areas or outside and make random comments to let the inmate know their identity is known, as well as some bits of personal information (home address, family members, etc.).  Used to be much harder, had to mail money orders to be written out again and mailed from different states, to the inmate who is helping you's family/loved ones.  They'd then clear it for cash, deposit it on a Friday payday like anything else looking like tips or whatever (few grand here and there).  You can do it now much easier via fintech/digital payment platforms.  Key is to get it two degrees from separation.  Yeah, each person takes a few hundred for their trouble but a substantial amount finds its way into the inmate's canteen account.  Eventually, you give them enough---they can't spend it if they tried so they ask you just give it over to their mom/partner/kid/et. al.  That's when it gets even easier.  The real tricky part though is when you want to get salty.  There's different language and payment levels, but if you want---the idea is to have somebody beat into the infirmary.  Get released and beat back into it.  This makes the assailants vulnerable though to getting caught or squealed upon.  So it comes with a hefty price tag.  But every single wing in a federal prison has a guy who knows how to get this done for the right price.  But to an earlier point, psychological torture is usually more effective and less costly for you and less risky for the other inmates involved.  And it can go on long after the prisoner is released.  To this day, some Cholas still roll up on Jenna Ryan in DFW and remind her she's being watched.  

There are obviously more nuanced steps to all this that I won't lay out here.  And I'm guessing there's a few guys on here that know even more than I do.  But my experience set is this---my father and uncles paid for decades to have the son-in-law of Sam Giancana protected from prison harassment because of his help with trucking unions.  Jimmy D., we'll call him.  And that was no easy task in the 80's & 90's.  I had an uncle who was doing a stretch in serious, serious federal institutions---Marion and Thomson in Illinois.  Two places that make Alcatraz look like an all-inclusive beach resort.  And we ran circles to make sure he was okay in his old age and released early to die in peace at home.  Between those two growing lessons and an intimate knowledge of political banking, I found out rather easily you can really, really, really fuck with bad people while making another inmate's family's life a little easier since he's in there for some over-hyped bullshit charges anyway and deserves a break.  

Trump will never see the inside of a prison.  I promise you that with all my heart and soul.  But I also promise you that multiple people in his inner circle will go to prison.  And one of them will commit suicide, legit suicide, not prison bullshit framing.  And it will serve as a message to the rest of them.  Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89661

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, NAVY said:

And he doesn’t pay most of his vendors and lawyers. Very grift-y. In my opinion 

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think that's another new feature for Trump.  He's paying a lot of other people's legal bills, as well as his own, and the stakes are too high for him to stiff them.  And it's not his money.

Yeah, if he's paying, then shit has gotten real for him. He can't afford to have lawyers bailing on him at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...