Did Trump just give his 'mens rea' on the commission of a crime?

[Rumpole]

It appears (to me, anyway) that Trump confessed on TV to Hannity to the crime of Espionage, mishandling of national defense information documents.

Let's be clear, the 'boxes' Hannity is querying Trump about , are the boxes of classified documents, i.,e national defense information documents to which the Espionage Act, applies. It is one thing to own the documents, by inadvertent means, but he just confessed that it is okay for a president to take them. If that isn't 'mens rea' for a prosecutor, tell me what is?

And, No, it's not okay. Inadvertent acquisition by a President, as I understand DOJ policy, is not likely to be prosecuted, as is the case with Pence and Biden, but with Trump, he's giving his mens rea, (guilty mindset) on Television, to a crime? Not to mention he obstructed the governments' efforts to retrieve the documents, that's another crime, right there.

And for those of you about to raise the 'classification' issue. No can do, As I understand it, The Espionage Act does not depend on any classification regime, only DNI damage assessments, where the classification may, or may not be, supplemental to a charge if the damage assessments are severe.

 

[Rambunctious]

Trump is not a criminal... Biden is....

 

[Oddball]

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[Rumpole]

Trump is not a criminal... Biden is....

I just provided evidence. You haven't provided anything. Allegations are empty.

 

[Rambunctious]

I just provided evidence. You haven't provided anything. Allegations are empty.

.... oh no.... more evidence..... results pal... let me know when you have some.... buuuuaaahahahahahahaheeheeeheeeheee

 

[Oddball]

Let's be clear, the 'boxes' Hannity is querying Trump about , are the boxes of classified documents, i.,e national defense information documents to which the Espionage Act, applies. It is one thing to own the documents, by inadvertent means, but he just confessed that it is okay for a president to take them. If that isn't 'mens rea' for a prosecutor, tell me what is?

Were any of that truly the case, do you honestly believe that all the current attention would be on some preposterously weak and insignificant hush money payment?

Don't lie.

 

[YoursTruly]

It appears (to me, anyway) that Trump confessed on TV to Hannity to the crime of Espionage, mishandling of national defense information documents.

Let's be clear, the 'boxes' Hannity is querying Trump about , are the boxes of classified documents, i.,e national defense information documents to which the Espionage Act, applies. It is one thing to own the documents, by inadvertent means, but he just confessed that it is okay for a president to take them. If that isn't 'mens rea' for a prosecutor, tell me what is?

And, No, it's not okay. Inadvertent acquisition by a President, as I understand DOJ policy, is not likely to be prosecuted, as is the case with Pence and Biden, but with Trump, he's giving his mens rea, (guilty mindset) on Television, to a crime? Not to mention he obstructed the governments' efforts to retrieve the documents, that's another crime, right there.

And for those of you about to raise the 'classification' issue. No can do, As I understand it, The Espionage Act does not depend on any classification regime, only DNI damage assessments, where the classification may, or may not be, supplemental to a charge if the damage assessments are severe.

The left just keep streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching these witch hunts out until they look exactly like the boy who cried wolf.
Now if Trump actually does something against the law, no one is going to care.
I know I don't. And I don't even like Trump.

 

[BackAgain]

It appears (to me, anyway) that Trump confessed on TV to Hannity to the crime of Espionage, mishandling of national defense information documents.

Let's be clear, the 'boxes' Hannity is querying Trump about , are the boxes of classified documents, i.,e national defense information documents to which the Espionage Act, applies. It is one thing to own the documents, by inadvertent means, but he just confessed that it is okay for a president to take them. If that isn't 'mens rea' for a prosecutor, tell me what is?

And, No, it's not okay. Inadvertent acquisition by a President, as I understand DOJ policy, is not likely to be prosecuted, as is the case with Pence and Biden, but with Trump, he's giving his mens rea, (guilty mindset) on Television, to a crime? Not to mention he obstructed the governments' efforts to retrieve the documents, that's another crime, right there.

And for those of you about to raise the 'classification' issue. No can do, As I understand it, The Espionage Act does not depend on any classification regime, only DNI damage assessments, where the classification may, or may not be, supplemental to a charge if the damage assessments are severe.

You are wrong. When Trump says things, as maybe you’ve realized, he often speaks in shorthand. But after a while, if you care to, you can get the gist of it.

He frequently speaks about what “a” President is allowed to do. He has been given information. He accepts it as true. He recalls the gist of it. And relies on it.

If other Presidents have kept materials after leaving office, then presidents are allowed to do that.

So you formulate little fantasies in your head and assume that he’s saying he “did it.” Not what he said.

 

[excalibur]

I just provided evidence. You haven't provided anything. Allegations are empty.

No, you provided no evidence. Have a nice day.

 

[Doc7505]

It appears (to me, anyway) that Trump confessed on TV to Hannity to the crime of Espionage, mishandling of national defense information documents.

Let's be clear, the 'boxes' Hannity is querying Trump about , are the boxes of classified documents, i.,e national defense information documents to which the Espionage Act, applies. It is one thing to own the documents, by inadvertent means, but he just confessed that it is okay for a president to take them. If that isn't 'mens rea' for a prosecutor, tell me what is?

And, No, it's not okay. Inadvertent acquisition by a President, as I understand DOJ policy, is not likely to be prosecuted, as is the case with Pence and Biden, but with Trump, he's giving his mens rea, (guilty mindset) on Television, to a crime? Not to mention he obstructed the governments' efforts to retrieve the documents, that's another crime, right there.

And for those of you about to raise the 'classification' issue. No can do, As I understand it, The Espionage Act does not depend on any classification regime, only DNI damage assessments, where the classification may, or may not be, supplemental to a charge if the damage assessments are severe.

~~~~~~
You have yet to convict Trump for any of your made-up fantasy charges.

 

[Rumpole]

No, you provided no evidence. Have a nice day.

Trump stated it was acceptable for a President to 'take classified documents'.

No, it's not acceptable, it is illegal. And that,excalibur, is Trump's mens rea for the crime of Espionage, the mishandling of national defense information documents.

Your rebuttal does not provide a path of reasoning, and until you do, it's a weak rebuttal, and my position stands.

 

[Rumpole]

~~~~~~
You have yet to convict Trump for any of your made-up fantasy charges.

Well, it took more than a decade to convince Al Capone, so, there ya go.

It's not made up, Trump admitted, on camera, that it's acceptable for a President to take national defenses information documents, and that is a revelation of mens rea for a potential crime. It doesn't' prove he did the deed, but it does prove he finds the crime 'acceptable', which a prosecutor will use against him in a court of law if there is an indictment on an espionage charge.

 

[excalibur]

Trump stated it was acceptable for a President to 'take classified documents'.

No, it's not acceptable, it is illegal. And that,excalibur, is Trump's mens rea for the crime of Espionage, the mishandling of national defense information documents.

Your rebuttal does not provide a path of reasoning, and until you do, it's a weak rebuttal, and my position stands.

Horace, you are clueless.

BTW Øbama had classified documents with him after he left office and in fact, the Obama Foundation paid the National Archives to remove them to safe storage.

https://www.obama.org/wp-content/uploads/BOF-NARA-LOI.pdf

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It appears (to me, anyway) that Trump confessed on TV to Hannity to the crime of Espionage, mishandling of national defense information documents.

Let's be clear, the 'boxes' Hannity is querying Trump about , are the boxes of classified documents, i.,e national defense information documents to which the Espionage Act, applies. It is one thing to own the documents, by inadvertent means, but he just confessed that it is okay for a president to take them. If that isn't 'mens rea' for a prosecutor, tell me what is?

And, No, it's not okay. Inadvertent acquisition by a President, as I understand DOJ policy, is not likely to be prosecuted, as is the case with Pence and Biden, but with Trump, he's giving his mens rea, (guilty mindset) on Television, to a crime? Not to mention he obstructed the governments' efforts to retrieve the documents, that's another crime, right there.

And for those of you about to raise the 'classification' issue. No can do, As I understand it, The Espionage Act does not depend on any classification regime, only DNI damage assessments, where the classification may, or may not be, supplemental to a charge if the damage assessments are severe.

 

[Doc7505]

Well, it took more than a decade to convince Al Capone, so, there ya go.

It's not made up, Trump admitted, on camera, that it's acceptable for a President to take national defenses information documents, and that is a revelation of mens rea for a potential crime. It doesn't' prove he did the deed, but it does prove he finds the crime 'acceptable', which a prosecutor will use against him in a court of law if there is an indictment on an espionage charge.

Yet, you pass on the criminal, traitorous acts of Biden and his family that sold out America to China.

 

[Rumpole]

Horace, you are clueless.

BTW Øbama had classified documents with him after he left office and in fact, the Obama Foundation paid the National Archives to remove them to safe storage.

So, Obama had the docs removed to NARA.

Wonderful, that is compliance with the PRA.

And your point is, what?

 

[Rumpole]

Yet, you pass on the criminal, traitorous acts of Biden and his family that sold out America to China.

I wouldn't if you, or anyone, anywhere, ever, could produce evidence.

Alas, but you haven't, nor can you, because it doesn't exist. You ommit this glaring truth:

When a new administration comes to the White House, one of the many things on the bucket list of presidential things to do is to fire all the US Attorneys from the previous administration, and bring in the new president's own team.

Joe Biden did this except for one, the US Attorney Delaware, David Weiss (two, actually, he left Durham in place who hasn't come up with squat, either).

Why was he left and not replaced?

Because the previous AG, Bill Barr, assigned this Trump appointed Us Attorney to investigate Hunter Biden. When Joe Biden took over the presidency, so as not to appear trying to tip the scales one way or the other, he left Weiss in place to finish the job, the investigation of his own son.

Does that sound like the work of a corrupt president? Sounds like just the opposite, to me, and should sound like the opposite of corruption to any rational human being who doesn't kneejerk at the first bit of innuendo and scant evidence that comes down the pike.

The fact of the matter is that Hunter Biden has been under investigation by the DOJ by Trump appointed US Attorney David Weiss for the last three years, and Weiss has, thus far, not given the slightest hint that the President has done anything wrong (only that Hunter might be indicted for taxes and lying on a gun application form, but I doubt there is evidence of taxes, maybe not registering as a foreign agent, or some minor charge which I doubt a US Attorney will have the cajones to indict a sibling of a US President on a chickenshit charge).

So, If the shoe were on Trump's foot, would Trump have left that attorney in place if it were his son being investigated? We don't have to speculate, the answer is no because Trump fired Preet Bharara, the US Attorney who sensed he was about to be asked to do something inappropriate, who was getting regular phone calls from Trump, decided it was best to not answer his calls anymore, to head that prospect off at the pass, so to speak, and a day later, he was fired. Trump's WH reeks of corruption. (Claims of fact will be substantiated on request).

 

[Rumpole]

Horace, you are clueless.

Well, tell that to the good folks who gave money and power to the following unscrupulous private operators:

1. Enron Corporation - Engaged in accounting fraud, filed for bankruptcy in 2001.
2. WorldCom - Involved in accounting fraud, filed for bankruptcy in 2002.
3. Lehman Brothers - Involved in the subprime mortgage crisis, filed for bankruptcy in 2008.
4. Tyco International - Involved in accounting fraud, its CEO was convicted of fraud in 2005.
5. Adelphia Communications - Involved in accounting fraud, its founder and CEO was convicted of fraud in 2004.
6. HealthSouth - Involved in accounting fraud, its founder and CEO was convicted of fraud in 2005.
7. Bear Stearns - Involved in the subprime mortgage crisis, acquired by JPMorgan Chase in 2008.
8. Bernie Madoff Investment Securities - Engaged in a Ponzi scheme, its founder was convicted of fraud in 2009.
9. General Motors - Filed for bankruptcy in 2009 due to financial difficulties and a decline in sales.
10. Washington Mutual - Involved in the subprime mortgage crisis, seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 2008.

 

[whitehall]

"Mens Rea"? Where do they find this stuff? The left's interpretation of a statement made by the former president hardly rises to the level of espionage.