It should be clear by now as to why he stole the documents in the first place. They were a sort of insurance policy for him, in his way of thinking, for later intimidation, coercion, blackmail, threats of all sorts. They weren't trophies or sport or ego. They were weapons.

Kind of working back here…

I don’t buy that Trump kept those documents as weapons. His past history is pretty egotistical and the fact that he was showing these things to idiots like Kid Rock show that he’s more ego than anything else. Again, it’s not right, and he appears to have done it more extensively and brazenly than others, but others have done it.

As to the appeal to authority and correctness, that’s not what it is. An appeal to authority is simply saying that someone is right because of who they are. Taking advice and using it personally generally falls under both evaluating credentials and whether what that expert states makes sense to you. It only falls to an appeal to authority when just the credentials matter. If you decide that because your surgeon has a degree from Yale that he’s more knowledgeable than the guy who graduated from the University of Georgia Med school, you just utilized an appeal to authority.

That you say do x because climate scientists say so is an appeal to authority. That you say do x because the climate guys say so, and I see y, z, and u happening is not… even if your seeing is not really educated- it’s use of your opinion.

The failure is when you insist your opinion is right because “these guys are authorities and they agree with me”…

Now to your article.

That was interesting.

To the points he made, some things Trump is supposedly wanting are not that bad.

Regarding trade war-

Biden is doing one now. What do you call what the west is doing to Russia? A trade war is certainly less violent than a shooting war. In my mind is several clicks down the violence scale than military action.

That he is proposing a decrease in management and investment in new domestic programs is classic conservatism… although they directly contradict this later on. Undoubtedly this is due to Trump’s schizoid policy thinking.

Less intimate involvement in ok’ing and refusing what say Obamacare covers is not accurate. That he wants to keep spending, but pick and choose what they pay for and to decrease oversight by the department of labor, commerce, et al is contradicted when he says specifics elsewhere.

They then state he wants to be activist on crime, homelessness, and drug use.

The comments on protectionism are a bit different.

There in principle I agree with Trump. We’ve been trying to get to free trade by opening ourselves up, yet not responding to others with their protectionism.

I agree free trade is the goal- but opening our markets while others protect theirs hasn’t worked out so well.

A reciprocal trade agreement where we tariff you back for your protectionism is changing from carrot to stick for opening up trade. That’s not bad.

The idea of blanket tariffs to protect domestic industry is.

As to their point re Trump being more inclined to be partisan now than before, well that’s hardly surprising. It’s also rich when the left complains about it given they do it much more effectively than the right.

Trump’s no cuts in domestic spending is kind of a canard. If we didn’t cut but also didn’t increase anything, spending would pretty soon be under control. He didn’t say anything significant.

Trump stating he’s for law and order is a bit rich, I agree, but most of the country is not happy with the way things have gone with the withdrawal of law and order on the streets in the name of equality.

Being for reestablishment of institutions for those who don’t make good choices was one of Reagan’s mistakes. This is part of the social contract, and economies of scale do apply. If you can’t follow civil rules, you probably need to be institutionalized. The question is where we draw the line. I don’t think mainstreaming has either worked all that well, or is a good use of taxpayer money.

The regulatory state is a balancing act. Too much control is a violation of freedom, but inadequate control causes inappropriate behavior. The problem as I see it is that we have been shifting towards excessive control for some time. The squeaky wheel gets the grease… but no one steps back and says, this is excessive from within the system.

As to Trump’s proposal to remove civil service protections from policymakers in government employment, that’s actually very appropriate. Civil service, like the military is supposed to be subordinate to elected people (the will of the people). I’m thinking that is way overdue. You want to make policy, get elected.

As to shifting more agencies to direct presidential control, that’s a whole balance of powers argument. The government has classically been moving more to executive control, so I’m not sure I see the need to push it further that way.

As for moving agencies out of DC, that’s past due. We have had the seat of government becoming an entity into itself. The whole idea that DC deserves to be a state on its own is part and parcel of this. I think decentralization would actually reduce a lot of the us vs them people see with the federal government.

“Freedom cities” exempt from federal regulation is absurd on its face. The government that governs least may govern best, but look at the problems we have with congress being exempt from its own rules. If we can have any place free from the regulations, then all should be.

The culture war-
I get where Trump gets some support here.

Education has become a morass with little control. While I have support for abolishing tenure in public K-12, I also think we need to strengthen job security protections in general for teachers. Cutting down the longevity benefits for the while increasing the starting benefits would be one thing. In general a “parental bill of rights” is a good idea. I also feel that getting rid of staff that are not involved in educating kids directly has a lot of merit.

I’m not a big supporter of all the gender ideology LBGTQ stuff in schools. We are making mountains out of what should be simple acknowledgment that they exist. Having a few singleton bathrooms that can be used by anyone probably solves a lot of this. Further, getting rid of PE as a subject in school (as opposed to giving time frames for it) gets rid of needing to decide who showers where. But I agree it’s not really that easy.

Of course, these ideas in and of themselves aren’t that outlandish… it’s that Trump wouldn’t be capable of appropriately administering these ideas that is the problem with him.

quote:

Of course, these ideas in and of themselves aren’t that outlandish… it’s that Trump wouldn’t be capable of appropriately administering these ideas that is the problem with him.

"These ideas", which are really plans of sorts to be implemented somehow - note: 20,000 shock troops, really are outlandish, but Rightist.

Trump couldn't administer anything properly, but he's very good at creating chaos, and division - "us vs them". With the tear it all down attitude of most Rightists and the GOP congress, there's plenty of opportunity in chaos. It will take 50 years to fix the damage, if possible at all.

There's a lot of chit with the culture wars and specifically Education, It's sorta like the goals of gutting the admin/deep state, supposedly for more "control" and freedom. What they really want is State/Govt funded indoctrination on a vast scale in private schools. Fuck critical thinking - get them young while they are vulnerable. Insure several generations of deficient critical thinkers; Loyalist factory on TP money. Critical thinking, especially teaching children how, is the enemy of the indoctrinated. It's another segregation scheme using supposedly innocuous words like "Parental bill of rights" and "Moms for Freedom", etc. It has practically nothing to do with ALL parent's rights nor about Moms or freedom. It's about taking away freedom and about diverting money for the cause. Think Michael Flynn. It's insidious.

quote:

I don’t buy that Trump kept those documents as weapons. His past history is pretty egotistical and the fact that he was showing these things to idiots like Kid Rock show that he’s more ego than anything else. Again, it’s not right, and he appears to have done it more extensively and brazenly than others, but others have done it.

BS. That's your apologist ass showing.

Ego - sure, but Trump is about revenge and power, and Ego is a side deal. "Others have done it" - that's apologist BS. Others haven lied repeatedly about it, tried to hide or destroy the evidence, have loyalists messing with it and helping, having congress persons running interference, deflection, weaponizing investigations in retaliation, attacking the judiciary and rule of law, all associated with the theft of the documents.

In other cases, there was active cooperation to correct.

quote:

As to the appeal to authority and correctness, that’s not what it is. An appeal to authority is simply saying that someone is right because of who they are. Taking advice and using it personally generally falls under both evaluating credentials and whether what that expert states makes sense to you. It only falls to an appeal to authority when just the credentials matter. If you decide that because your surgeon has a degree from Yale that he’s more knowledgeable than the guy who graduated from the University of Georgia Med school, you just utilized an appeal to authority.

That you say do x because climate scientists say so is an appeal to authority. That you say do x because the climate guys say so, and I see y, z, and u happening is not… even if your seeing is not really educated- it’s use of your opinion.

The failure is when you insist your opinion is right because “these guys are authorities and they agree with me”…

The way I look at it is any time I consult the weather forecast, or watch PBS Newshour, for info, or watch a video on youtube about operating a tractor or attachments, or planting a food plot, I'm engaging in appeal to authority. I don't have to trust them. I could go outside and look up at the sky and predict the weather for tomorrow, or I could take the advice of a youtuber, mixed with my own experience and use the info, reject it, or partially use the info.

This is an interesting topic to me. It's gonna take several edits for me to complete my thoughts/rebuttal on this one.

For starters, I appeal to authority, for definitions and background:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Argument from authority

================================================

If you are correct in your view about appeal to authority, then you have effectively undermined practically all my 18.000 posts, since I rely on appeal to authority mostly.

There used to be a guy from Texas herein who posted articles from American Thinker, aka American Stinker. Such articles were notorious for lack of appeal to authority and if such appeal did enter the article, it was FALSE authority. It was a total exercise in confirmation bias, and blatant opinion, with insufficient or flawed backup, especially lacking facts.

If you read articles that have some semblance to ethical journalism, then such articles will be loaded with facts and appeal to authority. Hardly any articles are mere raw opinion.

Some herein seem to think that expression of raw opinion is best. Backup with facts and appeal to authority optional or not even worth anything.

Which is more credible - mere opinion, or opinion with backup such as facts, evidence and appeal to authority?

Some who post herein, notably appeal to authority is lacking or absent, such as you and Lane. My take on that is that you consider yourselves the authority, no backup needed. Others, like TB40, don't know how to appeal to authority, so he will criticize those who do.

================================================

There is something else interesting about this topic, and within the above link to Wikipedia (appeal to authority), such appeal goes deeper.

Here's the phrase:

Historically, the appeal to authority has been both classified as non-fallacious and fallacious [4][5] with some that held that it can be a strong or at least valid defeasible[6] argument[7][8][9][10][11] and others claim it is weak or an outright fallacy.[12][13]

The general form of this type of argument is:

Person or people A claim that X is true.
Person or people A are experts.
Therefore, X should be believed.[14]

Now, let's go to Aristotle, who is generally considered a master at logic:

https://iep.utm.edu/aristotle-logic/#H9

Aristotle: Logic

9. The Syllogism

We can define a syllogism, in relation to its logical form, as an argument made up of three categorical propositions, two premises (which set out the evidence), and a conclusion (that follows logically from the premises). In the standard account, the propositions are composed of three terms, a subject term, a predicate term, and a middle term: the subject term is the (grammatical) subject of the conclusion; the predicate term modifies the subject in the conclusion, and the middle term links the subject and predicate terms in the premises. The subject and predicate terms appear in different premises; the middle term appears once in each premise. The premise with the predicate term and the middle term is called the major premise; the premise with the subject term and the middle term is called the minor premise. Because syllogisms depend on the precise arrangement of terms, syllogistic logic is sometimes referred to as term logic.

So, is the general form of this type of argument or logic a Syllogism? BTW, a syllogism can be false, if the evidence or premise is flawed.

https://www.yourdictionary.com...ogism-examples-rules

Examples of Syllogism: Definition, Types and Rules Explained

=========================================================

Now if you really want to argue, see the last section in the Wikipedia article: Roots in cognitive bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ts_in_cognitive_bias

That ties into our discussion about the culture wars and schools and group think.

You deny that others have taken classified documents? That’s the crime and charge.

As to revenge and power, most folks want revenge when wronged. Trump’s problem there is his narcissism and ego give him a warped sense of grievance.

Power? Name a president who doesn’t have an abnormally high desire for it. Carter is probably the closest to normal in that lot, and he was absolutely ineffective as president.

I’m not apologizing for Trump, but your side seems to make more of him than the evidence supports.

I certainly feel he’s done wrong and from some of your posts, I’m probably for a harsher sentence than you are supporting.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

I don’t buy that Trump kept those documents as weapons. His past history is pretty egotistical and the fact that he was showing these things to idiots like Kid Rock show that he’s more ego than anything else. Again, it’s not right, and he appears to have done it more extensively and brazenly than others, but others have done it.

BS. That's your apologist ass showing.

Ego - sure, but Trump is about revenge and power, and Ego is a side deal. "Others have done it" - that's apologist BS. Others haven lied repeatedly about it, tried to hide or destroy the evidence, have loyalists messing with it and helping, having congress persons running interference, deflection, weaponizing investigations in retaliation, attacking the judiciary and rule of law, all associated with the theft of the documents.

In other cases, there was active cooperation to correct.

It is not just taking documents that make it s crime.

It is the intent.

We have given you the factors the justice department says it uses in determining intent.

As to appeal to authority and as an argument, while I personally find it a very weak and useless argument, it is used by many places, especially law.

As to your comment about me “considering myself an expert” well, in some limited areas I am, by legal definition.

As far as debate is concerned I think I’m reasonably well informed from a general public level, and probably have a greater fund of knowledge than most… based on grades, education, and past experience. Whether that makes me an expert or not is a matter of definition and comparison to who is discussing it. For example, Joshua (LHeym) or Mike Mitchell (or Lavaca) are experts on law compared to me. You may notice I defer on legal basis to their statements on what the law is.

I was a forensic debater in high school. It was … interesting. I know they’re rules for debate, and frankly, it’s why I don’t tend to play the quote articles and sources game.

Geedubya was the texan you are referring to.

While I agree his spamming of questionable source articles (which were op Ed’s) was irritating at times, his behavior in appeal to authority was similar to what you do- find an authority you agree with, and state argue this, and claim superiority in the argument because he had a source. Many of your sources are biased op-Ed’s.

My participation here is intellectual entertainment more than proof. Occasionally I feel the need to offer supporting links, but frankly digging them up is more work than I enjoy. It’s relatively easy to find counterpoint/point internet links, so if you feel something is truly out there, you can certainly research it on your own, but as much debate experience goes, if it’s just appeal to authority, you can find similar level evidence and it just bogs down to who’s faster or who is willing to spend more time. At the end of the day, if you don’t understand the whys and wherefores of what you are saying, you are not really arguing the point.

Folks often relate studies and comment on this being proof, without really understanding the statistics and probability. Often, their certainty is that the study is right has more to do with its correlation to a goal than its actual validity. One needs to understand that scientific studies have an underlying need to say something in order to get published, and the way academia works is in order to be accepted, you have to publish and be accepted by the group as an expert. The more you publish, the more prestige, money, and authority/security you get. Thus there is some level of bias in what is being published. Medical research is notoriously full of this. This flavors my thinking on most of the reports. You look at the statistics used, you see generous confidence intervals or manipulation (even if statistically allowed) and you realize that there is a pretty good chance this finding will change over time.

At the beginning of this, you mentioned that you were not interested in trying to convince the Trump supporters of their error. You felt it too much… yet if you really want consensus, that’s what you have to do.

I get that it’s too much effort for the reward, I’ve admitted the same for quoting my sources.

But then you shouldn’t be surprised when your arguments are not accepted.

I don’t expect you to admit you are wrong, but if you are made to think about it, in my mind it’s a success. From my end, there are very few here who I am discussing things with who do not meet my definition of success in the debate process.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You deny that others have taken classified documents? That’s the crime and charge.

As to revenge and power, most folks want revenge when wronged. Trump’s problem there is his narcissism and ego give him a warped sense of grievance.

Power? Name a president who doesn’t have an abnormally high desire for it. Carter is probably the closest to normal in that lot, and he was absolutely ineffective as president.

I’m not apologizing for Trump, but your side seems to make more of him than the evidence supports.

I certainly feel he’s done wrong and from some of your posts, I’m probably for a harsher sentence than you are supporting.

I didn't deny that others have taken classified documents. Although Trump took the documents for sure, the quantity is an issue, and the intent is bolstered by his lies and attempts to keep them and hide them when requested to return them. I don't know if he would have been prosecuted or not just because he took the documents, although IMO he should be, But no doubt, if he had cooperated and returned ALL the documents pronto, the case against him would be much weaker.

The thing is that Trump has been wronged only in his narcissistic mind. Does that make him like most people or most presidents? IMO, one can't make more of him than the evidence supports and especially more than the evidence suggests. He's a monster - quantify a monster? Do monsters come on a scale of 1 to 10?

All that and I would be satisfied if he just went away, stfu, in humiliation. But monsters can't be humiliated, they have no shame.

Also, according to several cultures' beliefs or myths, Trump is a condemned man, all on his own doing.

Here are some quotes, from appeal to authority:

Hubris (or hybris, translated as "excess"), is a notion which, in ancient Greece, refers to excessive attitudes: passion, pride, outrage, crime, transgression. In short, the term is opposed to temperance and reason (logos). The man who indulges in excess is condemning himself for having defied the gods. Noun.

This is what Trump is NOT: (The opposite of Hubris is Sophrosyne (σωφροσύνη). It is considered an important quality to have and is expressed in opposition to the concept of hubris. The meaning of the concept Sophrosyne is, "an ideal of excellence of character and soundness of mind." No language has an equal word to Sophrosyne. Sophrosyne (uncountable) The Ancient Greek concept of an ideal of excellence of character and soundness of mind, which when combined in one well-balanced individual leads to other qualities, such as temperance, moderation, prudence, and self-control.)

Karma is a concept of Hinduism which describes a system in which beneficial effects are derived from past beneficial beauty and harmful effects from past harmful actions, creating a system of actions and reactions.

Zoroaster believed that good and evil are not equal forces but that good will ultimately triumph over evil. Like many ancient cultures, the ancient Egyptians saw the forces of good and evil as being in constant conflict with one another.

The important point is that in Buddhism "good" and "evil" are less about moral judgments than they are, very simply, about what you do and the effects created by what you do. The emphasis in Buddhism is on what is suitable and unsuitable rather than on the Western sense of right and wrong or good and evil. A life of virtue is outlined by the eightfold path: suitable view, intention, mindfulness, concentration, effort, speech, bodily conduct, and livelihood.

The Catholic Christian Church teaches that the nature of the good is the full actualization of any being's potential, or achievement of perfection. To be good is to be all that one can be. Evil is not some impersonal force that is outside human control; it is the result of an abuse of our free will.

And so forth.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
As to appeal to authority and as an argument, while I personally find it a very weak and useless argument, it is used by many places, especially law.


Geedubya was the texan you are referring to.

While I agree his spamming of questionable source articles (which were op Ed’s) was irritating at times, his behavior in appeal to authority was similar to what you do- find an authority you agree with, and state argue this, and claim superiority in the argument because he had a source. Many of your sources are biased op-Ed’s.

At the beginning of this, you mentioned that you were not interested in trying to convince the Trump supporters of their error. You felt it too much… yet if you really want consensus, that’s what you have to do.

I get that it’s too much effort for the reward, I’ve admitted the same for quoting my sources.

But then you shouldn’t be surprised when your arguments are not accepted.

I don’t expect you to admit you are wrong, but if you are made to think about it, in my mind it’s a success. From my end, there are very few here who I am discussing things with who do not meet my definition of success in the debate process.

Making false equivalence with my posts compared to Geedubya's is offensive to me. I see no parallels.

I am interested in agreements, but --------

I think the same of you - "if you are made to think about it, in my mind that's a success". However, I'm not so sure that "success" is present, in that context. I think your defense shield is strong.

BTW, I think it's a waste of time if I don't appeal to authority, and thus appropriate or borrow whatever credibility I can find in making my points. The world is not a college or high school debate arena with their rules of engagement. It's not just the messenger's credibility and presentation, stand alone. It's credibility on a broad scale. Obviously, we have a breakdown on a large scale with many folks who can't sort out credibility. Take the viewership of Tucker Carlson for example.

I will grant Tucker Carlson, see you a Sean Hannity, and raise you a Rachel Maddow and the View.

quote:

As to your comment about me “considering myself an expert” well, in some limited areas I am, by legal definition.

As far as debate is concerned I think I’m reasonably well informed from a general public level, and probably have a greater fund of knowledge than most… based on grades, education, and past experience. Whether that makes me an expert or not is a matter of definition and comparison to who is discussing it. For example, Joshua (LHeym) or Mike Mitchell (or Lavaca) are experts on law compared to me. You may notice I defer on legal basis to their statements on what the law is.

Probably all of us are "experts" in some limited areas, legal or otherwise. Same for "knowledge". But really "knowledge" needs to be strictly defined, as distinguished from belief, in the context of our debate.

Myself, about the only thing I can legit claim to be an expert in is catching catfish, by rod and reel or trotline. I've been doing it since my teens. I've learned and changed methods over the years. I still appeal to authority, so to speak, for entertainment and on the chance of learning something new. So, in that one arena, I am able to critique the "authority" from my own experience and knowledge, which I know is incomplete. That's the way it is with practically everything. So, when I post with appeal to authority, it's not proof absolute that I'm after, but credibility and in no way trying to short-change anyone's assessment or critique of authority. It's merely another form or level of debate.

Take medicine or the medical practice. (They don't call it "practice" for no reason, BTW) I'm sure that legit appeal to authority occurs all the time, in the same context as I do with catfishing. No Doc can know it all. If I find one, I'm gonna get a second opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I will grant Tucker Carlson, see you a Sean Hannity, and raise you a Rachel Maddow and the View.

Good one.

Then if intent is required, how is ignorance not a defense of violation?

Trump may be being prosecuted because he refused to return them and get all pope-holy about how he has the right to have them… but fundamentally isn’t the law possession of these documents illegally?

Kind of like the whole Hunter Biden gun charge thing. The law is drug user, prohibited person, lied on his 4473.

Do most people who do what Biden did get prosecuted? I don’t know how many fess up to illicit drugs and buying a gun- but his dad is advocating for more laws. Why make more laws if we are not enforcing the ones we have? How many get arrested for driving with a broken taillight and they find impairment, search for drugs, find drugs/guns and get charged for every violation? My suspicion is some get all the charges, some get some, and a few get none- all at prosecutorial discretion. You’ve said that they have discretion, and it’s good. Maybe, but why is it if I make a machine gun and play with it at a range I’m going to face legal charges re illicit possession while the gang banger with a glock switch just gets it taken away and faces some lesser charge?

I understand that motive (what Trump wants to do with the documents) makes it easier to get a conviction.

But the written law is just possession of the documents.

Trump was given classified material education. He was told there were consequences for mishandling classified material. He kept it, and they found the documents. Pretty open and shut.

Now, his novel (crap) argument that he could declassify them so he’s allowed to have them may have some merit to a judge or juror, but what does US code say? Not what the policies about prosecution…

Again, lots of folks have gone to Leavenworth with less intent or knowledge than these politicians.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It is not just taking documents that make it s crime.

It is the intent.

We have given you the factors the justice department says it uses in determining intent.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Then if intent is required, how is ignorance not a defense of violation?

Trump may be being prosecuted because he refused to return them and get all pope-holy about how he has the right to have them… but fundamentally isn’t the law possession of these documents illegally?

Kind of like the whole Hunter Biden gun charge thing. The law is drug user, prohibited person, lied on his 4473.

Do most people who do what Biden did get prosecuted? I don’t know how many fess up to illicit drugs and buying a gun- but his dad is advocating for more laws. Why make more laws if we are not enforcing the ones we have? How many get arrested for driving with a broken taillight and they find impairment, search for drugs, find drugs/guns and get charged for every violation? My suspicion is some get all the charges, some get some, and a few get none- all at prosecutorial discretion. You’ve said that they have discretion, and it’s good. Maybe, but why is it if I make a machine gun and play with it at a range I’m going to face legal charges re illicit possession while the gang banger with a glock switch just gets it taken away and faces some lesser charge?

I understand that motive (what Trump wants to do with the documents) makes it easier to get a conviction.

But the written law is just possession of the documents.

Trump was given classified material education. He was told there were consequences for mishandling classified material. He kept it, and they found the documents. Pretty open and shut.

Now, his novel (crap) argument that he could declassify them so he’s allowed to have them may have some merit to a judge or juror, but what does US code say? Not what the policies about prosecution…

Again, lots of folks have gone to Leavenworth with less intent or knowledge than these politicians.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It is not just taking documents that make it s crime.

It is the intent.

We have given you the factors the justice department says it uses in determining intent.

As usual, you are mistaken. Trump was asked, repeatedly, by the National Archives, the statutorily-designated custodian of Presidential records, to return the record he wrongfully removed. He refused. He was then served with a subpoena demanding their return. He stalled and dithered, finally partially complied and had his lawyers certify that all relevant documents had been produced. They hadn't, and everybody knew it. The FBI obtained and executed a search warrant, finding a large number of records including significant numbers of classified documents. They only did, in my opinion, a half-assed job. They did not search Bedminster, where he was reported to have shown classified documents to civilians, but accepted Trump attorneys assurances there were none present; they didn't search Trump Tower and the didn't search the actual Office of Donald Trump, paid for by GSA, that is reportedly used for little else besides storage of the same type banker boxes he kept the seized documents in.

These actions are in no way analogous to Biden, who discovered documents, reported them and returned them on his own, or Pence, who did likewise.

The Clinton "Socks" case is frequently lied about by Republicans, but they lie about everything so no reason that would be any different. There were no government documents stored in Clinton's sock drawer, they were tapes of interviews he did with a historian. Judicial Watch sued for access and was slapped down because they ruled to be personal records, not Presidential.

As far as I’m concerned, if they found them, can prove that he had them in his possession, and that they are classified material, he’s guilty of the charge.

Seems pretty simple, and not as complex as some want to make it.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
As far as I’m concerned, if they found them, can prove that he had them in his possession, and that they are classified material, he’s guilty of the charge.

Seems pretty simple, and not as complex as some want to make it.

One caveat: it is necessary to prove he wrongfully had them.

He did.

Pence, for example, was never even considered for prosecution because he notified NARA as soon as he discovered he had them, made no attempt to keep them and there was no evidence he had them with intent.

Trump lied, repeatedly, had his lawyers lie, moved documents around to keep even his own lawyers from finding them then ordered the security camera footage showing it destroyed.

Had he hired a skywriter to spell out INTENT over Mar-A-Lago it wouldn't have been any plainer.

There's going to be an interview of Trump on Sunday, 9/17 on meet the press, NBC news.

https://youtu.be/7UYNTtBz-zc?si=hKHztsTPQEZ5Vq60

Steve Schmidt explains Donald Trump’s terrifying plans if he wins the 2024 election | The Warning

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Then if intent is required, how is ignorance not a defense of violation?

Trump may be being prosecuted because he refused to return them and get all pope-holy about how he has the right to have them… but fundamentally isn’t the law possession of these documents illegally?

Kind of like the whole Hunter Biden gun charge thing. The law is drug user, prohibited person, lied on his 4473.

Do most people who do what Biden did get prosecuted? I don’t know how many fess up to illicit drugs and buying a gun- but his dad is advocating for more laws. Why make more laws if we are not enforcing the ones we have? How many get arrested for driving with a broken taillight and they find impairment, search for drugs, find drugs/guns and get charged for every violation? My suspicion is some get all the charges, some get some, and a few get none- all at prosecutorial discretion. You’ve said that they have discretion, and it’s good. Maybe, but why is it if I make a machine gun and play with it at a range I’m going to face legal charges re illicit possession while the gang banger with a glock switch just gets it taken away and faces some lesser charge?

I understand that motive (what Trump wants to do with the documents) makes it easier to get a conviction.

But the written law is just possession of the documents.

Trump was given classified material education. He was told there were consequences for mishandling classified material. He kept it, and they found the documents. Pretty open and shut.

Now, his novel (crap) argument that he could declassify them so he’s allowed to have them may have some merit to a judge or juror, but what does US code say? Not what the policies about prosecution…

Again, lots of folks have gone to Leavenworth with less intent or knowledge than these politicians.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It is not just taking documents that make it s crime.

It is the intent.

We have given you the factors the justice department says it uses in determining intent.

As usual, you are mistaken. Trump was asked, repeatedly, by the National Archives, the statutorily-designated custodian of Presidential records, to return the record he wrongfully removed. He refused. He was then served with a subpoena demanding their return. He stalled and dithered, finally partially complied and had his lawyers certify that all relevant documents had been produced. They hadn't, and everybody knew it. The FBI obtained and executed a search warrant, finding a large number of records including significant numbers of classified documents. They only did, in my opinion, a half-assed job. They did not search Bedminster, where he was reported to have shown classified documents to civilians, but accepted Trump attorneys assurances there were none present; they didn't search Trump Tower and the didn't search the actual Office of Donald Trump, paid for by GSA, that is reportedly used for little else besides storage of the same type banker boxes he kept the seized documents in.

These actions are in no way analogous to Biden, who discovered documents, reported them and returned them on his own, or Pence, who did likewise.

The Clinton "Socks" case is frequently lied about by Republicans, but they lie about everything so no reason that would be any different. There were no government documents stored in Clinton's sock drawer, they were tapes of interviews he did with a historian. Judicial Watch sued for access and was slapped down because they ruled to be personal records, not Presidential.

I am not mistaken. I am agreeing with you. The difference between President Trump, VP Biden, HEC, and VP Pence is intent,

The statute requires Gross Negligence. Factors we have been told by DOJ used to establish at least Gross Intent are

Quantity of documents
Type of Documents (Mot all classified documents are the same. That is a simple truth).
Cooperation in returning documents
Concealment
All factors that have brought President Trump to the Courthouse. He has bragged on recordings about having them, refused to comply with requests to return, actively sought to conceal, and had a very large quantity of Top Secret Documents.

Simple or mere possession is not sufficient.

I am also correct about Congress Impeaching. Both chambers have distinct roles delegated to that specific Body.

No, the law requires more than mere possession. It requires possession that is at least grossly negligent.

Per Comey when he opined HRC had not broke the law in her documents case:

“All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or indications of disloyalty to the United States… We do not see those things here.”

Comey opined HRC was careless, but she was not grossly negligent.

We have facts alleged to the opposite with President Trump.

The statute 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), requires only “gross negligence,” not intent.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=...4cea8b0eda5245b3bfc5
Congresswoman Lauren Boebert in the news lately

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...0a8af2247b894c&ei=39

A neuroscientist explains why stupidity is an existential threat to America
Opinion by Bobby Azarian, Raw Story • 40m

It may sound like an insensitive statement, but the cold hard truth is that there are a lot of stupid people in the world, and their stupidity presents a constant danger to others. Some of these people are in positions of power, and some of them have been elected to run our country. A far greater number of them do not have positions of power, but they still have the power to vote, and the power to spread their ideas. We may have heard of “collective intelligence,” but there is also “collective stupidity,” and it is a force with equal influence on the world. It would not be a stretch to say that at this point in time, stupidity presents an existential threat to America because, in some circles, it is being celebrated.

Although the term "stupidity" may seem derogatory or insulting, it is actually a scientific concept that refers to a specific type of cognitive failure. It is important to realize that stupidity is not simply a lack of intelligence or knowledge, but rather a failure to use one's cognitive abilities effectively. This means that you can be “smart” while having a low IQ, or no expertise in anything. It is often said that “you can’t fix stupid,” but that is not exactly true. By becoming aware of the limitations of our natural intelligence or our ignorance, we can adjust our reasoning, behavior, and decision-making to account for our intellectual shortcomings.

To demonstrate that stupidity does not mean having a low IQ, consider the case of Richard Branson, the billionaire CEO of Virgin Airlines, who is one of the world’s most successful businessmen. Branson has said that he was seen as the dumbest person in school, and has admitted to having dyslexia, a learning disability that affects one’s ability to read and correctly interpret written language. But it wasn’t just reading comprehension that was the problem — “Math just didn’t make sense to me,” Branson has said. “I would certainly have failed an IQ test.”