2 Jun 2023 5:06 pm
I don't think quantity is the basis for justifying prosecution as much are aggravating circumstances, such as where we have evidence of Trump deliberately taking NDI docs, given that he stated on TV that 'I have every right to take them' (negating any 'I didn't know my underlings took them' arguments) and there is a new tape where Trump admits he had classified documents, and couldn't reveal the contents of the documents to the folks he was talking to in the tape, which proves he didn't declassify them.Cannonpointer » 02 Jun 2023, 12:55 am » wrote: ↑
[ ...edited for the 4000 word count...]
You got him this time, scooter. You got him this time.
Moreover, we have testimony from workers at Mar A Lago stating that Trump ordered the moving of boxes to hide them from the FBI after a subpoena was given.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA1bHlNI
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/12/politics ... index.html
So, the DOJ will look for a serious aggravated circumstance, such as obstruction of justice. This had to have occurred to warrant a federal magistrate signing off on a search warrant on the home of a former US President, you can rest assured he made sure there was more than sufficient probable cause for such a search, given the stakes involved. Moreover, the testimony of Trump ordering aides to move boxes to hide them from the FBI is more evidence of obstruction. Therefore, the DOJ is far more likely to prosecute Trump than they would of Biden or Pence, where such aggravating circumstances are not there. Carelessness, perhaps, but I doubt they are going to indict a sitting US President and a former VP on that, alone.
You seem to dismiss the possibility of Trump facing legal consequences without providing much evidence or logical reasoning to back up your claim. You mention that it would be unlikely for there to be a trial because if would be difficult to convince a jury. However, this argument doesn't have a strong foundation and doesn't consider the legal processes involved in such a case.
You also criticize the statement about the typical exercise of a president's authority to declassify documents. You interpret it as suggesting that any deviation from typical procedures is automatically considered criminal. But I think you might have misinterpreted the intention of that statement. It's more about emphasizing the importance of established processes and procedures, rather than labeling atypical actions as criminal right away.
Another point you raise is the complexity of navigating procedures and factors in a trial, especially when it comes to establishing the threatening nature of the documents beyond a reasonable doubt. It's true that presenting complex information to a jury can be challenging. However, it's the responsibility of legal professionals to present evidence and arguments in a clear and comprehensive manner. Just because it might be difficult doesn’t mean a trial should automatically be ruled out.
You also mention Biden's actions and suggest that they were more egregious than Trump's. While that is an interesting point (and a very debatable point with which I most certain do not accept as valid) it doesn't directly address the legality of Trump's actions or the potential consequences Trump might face. It's important to evaluate each case independently based on the available evidence and applicable laws.
so, in sum, your rebuttal seems to rely on speculative arguments and misinterpretations of the OP. It lacks strong evidence and logical reasoning to support your claims and doesn't fully address the legal aspects and potential consequences of Trump's actions.