Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 9 2023 10:27pm)
So first imagine that every accusation in the indictment is true and assume the worst. Even then, the prosecutors are not alleging any nefarious plot or corruption, but rather that Trump committed a dumb crime. An important distinction. That he showed classified documents to people when it didn't really matter, just for the hell of it. They aren't alleging any harm was done, ie a victimless crime- no accusation any materials were picked up by hostile foreign actors or even leaked to the media. To contrast, in the Hillary email scandal we learned China got access to her email server and spied on classified files, and in the Biden corruption scandal we know he got paid millions in bribes to change policy, which he did, and started a war. So even in an uncharitable lens we still completely lack harm and only get 'recklessness' for malice, two very critical elements of most crimes. But it can still be argued as a strict liability crime, without needing either.
However, once you start using a strict liability standard on classified documents, then you have to hold Hillary, Biden & Pence to that same standard, because they possessed classified documents without authorization, had the responsibility to return them, thus 'recklessness' just the same, and same intent to hide it in Hillary's case when she tried to destroy evidence. And if you try to narrow the 'intent' by saying it only applies to the two instances where they have Trump saying he 'shouldn't do this', that's only 2 out of the 37 charges, the prosecuting attorneys did not make such a distinction and threw the entire book at Trump.
Now go the other direction and look at the flaws in the case. I'll try to keep them brief since they'll probably get elaborated on in this thread either way
1. Precedent says declassification is a plenary power and a crime of unauthorized documents is a violation of the presidents authority. No matter what the president says, its still his deliberative process, his arbitrary use of power. No other branch of government can resolve whether he classified something or not, else they'd be treading on his constitutional prerogative. Even if he makes conflicting statements, if he says he has a standing order that declassifies documents and that he did so implicitly by removing them, yet also says here's some super secret documents- as the last president to exercise that authority, he is the only one authorized to resolve that question.
1a: Important to note, none of that applies as a defense to Biden/Hillary/Pence/etc who weren't presidents and didn't have power over classification
2. Piercing attorney client privilege take an huge burden for prosecutors to show a criminal conspiracy in any general case, but then another layer of interfering with presidential deliberative powers even after leaving office. The prosecutors here seem to be making that case based on inference and suggestion, that Trump's 'hand motions', a wink and a nod, are enough to pierce privilege. If a judge knocks that pillar out from under this case, it completely implodes.
3. The Presidential Records Act was passed after the Espionage Act, which takes supercedes it and turns it from a criminal to a civil case, which then has standing precedent that only the president chooses which of his records become classified upon leaving office and does not confer any mandatory or discretionary authority to the the archivist, because again, that would violate his plenary powers as per 1). Notably, Jack Smith's indictment completely fails to mention the PRA or how it should be the ruling law in this case. That's a glaring omission that a judge can rule upon to simply vanish this case like a fart in the wind.
4. Trump jokes, exaggerates, boasts and overtly lies in pretty much every conversation. If you took his statements at face value you'd find him contradicting himself nonstop. He's exactly the kind of person who would simultaneously believe he's shielded by declassifying documents in his possession, while turning around and bragging that he's got secret documents, purely for boasting purposes.
5. Nothing in this case amounts to any kind of smoking gun of wrongdoing. Trump kept documents, Biden kept documents, Hillary kept documents. In any rational civil society, elected officials, especially during a bitter partisan campaign with the fate of a nation on the line, should not be subject to politicized prosecutions with anything less than a slam dunk. Its clear interference in our election, but not a clear accusation of any substance. The 'Nixon Standard' was that even when actual corruption was exposed, we were still better off as a nation if we put it behind us. Here we've got Trump accused of being a silly bastard and Democrats want to use it to derail the next election, and there's a good chance our democracy won't survive 2025
Damn over 800 words. You know it must be bad for Trump.