Frankly, I was unsure of an interpretation of what is a 'process crime'. Used in the context that the poster has offered, it seemed somewhat subjective.
So this is what a nano-Google revealed:
"Process crime -- In United States criminal procedure terminology, a process crime is an offense against the judicial process. These crimes include failure to appear, false statements, obstruction of justice, contempt of court and perjury."
So, with that, I am not convinced that taking protected documents
What documents do you contend were “protected?” In what way were they “protected?”
from the people for one's personal use and possession,
There is a distinction between the Presidential documents that are the property of the US Government and other documents that may not be governed by the PRA.
denying that one has them,
Be specific. When exactly did he “deny” having documents when he was in negotiations with the government over which to return and how and when?
refusing to return them (even after subpoena),
You can’t demand the return of his personal documents and as I get it, part of his position was that some of the items weren’t covered by the PRA. He has every right to contest the issue.
and continuing to deny they exists....
What documents do you claim he denied existed?
until a physical search reveals they really do exist....well, ....
Wrong. They weee known to exist. They were the subject of negotiations. That point alone shatters your premises.
Overall: You make far too many assumptions. And they have no sound foundation.
If we assume (I assume you do) that Trump was in physical possession of many documents) that doesn’t mean that he “wrongfully” took any of them.
Well, charging for such and calling such a 'process' offense seems to be an exercise in minimalism. An exercise in in 'cover up' or 'whitewashing'.
Of course, that’s not what I said. What I did say was that the government frequently resorts to “process” crimes when they have no substantive charges. And I hope they don’t try that crap here.
Now, I readily admit prosecuting Trump for such a crime will be a challenge. There is the "ex-President" thing, the 'intent' thing, the 'political witch hunt' thing. All challenges, in my view.
Nobody really cares what Chilliconfuzed finds potentially “challenging.”
But then, some of these files were classified.
Nope. He declassified them. And it will be up to the government to disprove same if they dare to charge him with any such crime.
He no longer had a 'need-to-know' allowance for seeing them or possessing them.
Hardly relevant.
He refused a subpoena to deliver all of them.
Not really.
Even his former AG, Bill Barr, said Trump and his team were "jacking around" the FBI and DOJ.
Nobody except you and your fellow libtard hyenas give a shit what Barr says.
All that must not be done with impunity. There must be accountability. There must be consequences.
No. There need be no reaction to what was actually done.
So, if the government feels they have sufficient evidence, of a quality and quantity that can be demonstrated in a court of law.....
Do they? If so, that might portend an indictment. A very bad move. And based on many of the very misconceptions you have laid out.
well, it seems they have a mandate to uphold our laws.
It would be nice if they were to uphold our laws in a non politically partisan fashion.
After all, that is the job they swore an oath to our Constitution and to the people to fulfill.
That’s why it would be nice if they did their actual jobs.
No man is above the law, the saying goes.
And the saying is kind of a trite little saw. Not prosecuting Trump doesn’t suggest that he’s above the law. It suggests either that they realize there is no genuine case here OR that prosecutorial discretion allows for them to be selective in what they prosecute and that this bullshit isn’t worth it.
