Convicted Felon Donald J. Trump

But if, as you say, “‘wrong’ does not need to be a crime”, then it’s possible they both did the same wrong and yet only one of them is guilty of a crime, i.e. when the laws that criminalize the wrong have additional elements.

A = “mishandling documents”
B = “knowing at the time you are mishandling documents that you are mishandling documents”

A is the wrong. A+B is the crime.

Again, I can’t prove a negative.

Given that you don’t know the specific law, just entertain the idea that, due to some embarrassing oversight, there isn’t one. Why is that impossible?

I wasn’t talking about the wrong that isn’t a crime, I was talking about the crime that is wrong. They were both wrong, ie they both committed a crime therefor they were both wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that they both mishandled classified documents, and I am sure a competent lawyer could find a law to charge Joe under that fit his actions, as they did for Trumps actions. You are cherry picking one law and claiming Joe didn’t commit a crime according to that particular cherry picked law. Forget that law for a moment, are there any other laws that Joe violated with his actions? I dare you to say no. LOL

So Joe just returned the documents after all that time of not being vice president because one day he had the idea that the documents were taking up too much space in his garage? Just cleaning out the garage was he? Maybe he was the kid that got scared and returned the candy bar after the shit hit the fan? Too little too late! The crime was already committed.

Rude interjection, or as they say in court: ‘objection’

It’s much like in Solomon’s Court, the two women do not ‘know’ right from wrong based on their apparent love for the object of their concern, (although they may think so) (( that the love and the knowledge of what their love means )) - except through the higher love that they believe as necessary proof.

Here, the love of country through various challenges can fill in for the infant, for instance, though not certain of the valors of approbation?

One source of confusion may come from both claimants unsure about each others’ claim about the legitimacy of using ‘motives’ that could effect judgment through affective demonstration, making the situation more complex, by virtue of eliminating the difference between claimant and dependent, thereby subjecting Solomon to play judge and defense through measuring the conscience of both, and defending the one of whom he thinks, or feels more worthy of the object.

In Trump v.Biden, what actions or reactions make this dimension more or less plausible?



how is the game played in complex conflict escalation, and how relevant is it , literally , here, and figuratively in the game it’s self? [the search for differences between the phrase valors and valiant brought game theory into the picture]

So let me get this straight:

A is the act and B is the knowledge that your act is a crime. So if as you say A+B is a crime, but A by itself is not a crime, then the difference is that if you are ignorant of the law then you did not commit a crime? So ignorance of the law IS AN EXCUSE, and therefor you didn’t commit a crime. Got it!

To clarify: If you commit an act, and are too stupid to know you are committing a crime then you did not commit a crime. (rolls eyes)

Let the record show that ignorance of the law is a valid excuse.

Hi Motor,

Unless a lack of capacity proves that deficient culpability reduces ignorance to the level of a sufficient excuse to voice an immaterial objection.

Is this even sufficient reason to rudely object?

(Thinks , scratches, and drops all allusions, either way.)

What the heck?



Leave won the referendum and made many claims and promises—both before and after their victory. Each of those promises is carefully recorded and examined: most turn out to have been hot air, and far too many turn out to be lies. One of the mysteries of Brexit is how the ill-defined referendum question, answered in a way that suggested a very divided country, was finally delivered as the hardest of all possible Brexits. All of the opportunities to build a national consensus, or at least to try, were studiously avoided by May.

Do you not think that that was the only choice possible for getting Brexit ‘done’, due to the way we were tied into EU legislation and to how ‘the many’ were trying to block Brexit from ‘getting done’.


The culture war triggered by Brexit, and the subsequent tribalization of the debate, is a significant concern. Once this polarization took hold, it became clear that no one would be swayed, regardless of any evidence or personal experiences that suggested a change of stance. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that a considerable number of Brexiters failed to comprehend the distinction between the customs union and the single market. This lack of understanding led to a cycle of complaints about being ‘punished’, which persisted throughout the years of negotiations.

Brexit won, so Brexit is what we did… the EU liked our money far too much and had drawn up a new balance-sheet on what to further-bleed the UK dry on, whilst some MEPs were caught with multi-millions stashed under their floorboards.

Brexit wasn’t just about economic-freedom, but about so many other issues beyond that.


“In short, 17.4 million people were induced to vote for a really dumb and incoherent idea without anyone having a clue how to put the idea and its conflicting, ‘cakeist’ demands into practice. Then, when the intellectually-challenged Tory politicians presented with the task found their deluded ‘cakeism’ coming up against – and being frustrated by – reality, they simply railed, plotted and fought against each other, thus steering the entire process down a vicious spiral of idiocy, puerility and irresponsibility.” Some thoughts on Brexit Unfolded, by Chris Grey | Labour Pains

Brexit wasn’t just about economic-freedom, but about so many other issues beyond that.


I encountered a problem almost as soon as I emigrated to Germany: the suggestion that I had entered a country that was rigorously controlled and regulated. The fact that I felt a personal freedom like never before was not contradicted, but many were sceptical. The fact that I was immediately accepted in Germany and given opportunities that resulted in a career in nursing and care was something that people in Britain attributed to my resolve, but I attribute it equally to the chances available at the time for anybody.

That’s obviously a good thing.


Many people in Britain viewed the EU critically, which the Germans also did, but the British overlooked the fact that British politicians played a huge role in building the EU and had enormous influence. However, the increasing pressure from America and the other blocs is trying to decrease the benefits I enjoyed and is being driven by the world’s oligarchs. 2024 could be a huge step away from the liberal democracy that grew after WWII, but the EU will struggle to maintain what had been deemed right then.

Putting GDPR before citizens and livelihoods… hmmmm. :smirk:

You keep repeating this as though I’m saying it’s true always and everywhere. It’s definitely not. But if a law is written to require knowledge that the act is illegal, then yes, ignorance of the law means you don’t satisfy one of the requirements.

This specific crime, as written, has ‘willfulness’ as a requirement: the acts have to be done “willfully”. That term has a specific legal meaning, supported by multiple Supreme Court cases explaining what it means. Those cases came down before the law was written, so the law was written using this word to mean what the Supreme Court has said the word will be interpreted to mean:

A ‘willful’ act requires “that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.”

That’s a crazy high bar! You’re absolutely right that it’s unusual. This law is an outlier. Nevertheless, for this specific law, that creates this specific crime, it is the case.

And it’s also an element that’s very easy to establish for Trump, because he was told repeatedly that what he was doing was illegal and he kept on doing it, then doing it again, then doing while lying to the FBI and his own lawyers about doing. There’s six months of back-and-forth that establish it for Trump. That’s why he was charged.

Who da f is George Santos, and why shouldn’t he be there? :woman_shrugging: lol


Is that a crime?

Isn’t that what the defendant’s people do?


It was an entertaining watch, I must say. :laughing:

This does seem to be linked to the presidential election, there’s no doubt about that!

Front page news:

Biden escapes prosecution by playing the stupid card.

News at 11.

Disgraced former congressman: lied about his life during his campaign to hide his past, indicted, kicked out of congress, shunned by his party, I think because he was a cross-dresser and sexually harrassed a (male) aide.

I appreciated that Emily Maitlis had basically the same reaction to him as I did.

It’s certainly a bad look. Why would I want to watch a panel moderated by a liar and premised on a lie?

The Special Counsel used basically the same bad-faith framing in his report, because the Special Counsel wasn’t Biden’s buddy and really wishes he’d found a crime.

I’ve seen a lot of outrage about a ruling today in the Trump documents case, where the judge struck a paragraph from the indictment. But as a result of our conversation, @Motor_Daddy, I don’t find that decision so problematic.

The judge struck language about Trump showing a classified map to an aide. As I understand it, Trump isn’t being charged for disclosing classified information, just for retaining it. As such, the paragraph described something he did that wasn’t part of any of the crimes he’s being charged with, and that was the judge’s rationale for striking it.

That all seems reasonable to me. It’s possible that Trump was ‘willful’ when he disclosed that information, but willfulness is such a high bar that it’s not a strong case – Trump could argue mere reckless braggadocio and, strange though it seems, that would be a defense in this case.

I point this out because I notice a lot of liberals in my feeds don’t like it, and I try to notice when I don’t agree with people I generally agree with, and to understand why. Here, people who don’t like Trump are sad about this ruling because it helps him. But the ruling seems fair and reasonable given what I’ve learned about the relevant law from our conversation, so it doesn’t make me sad.

That is what the general public was continually told, but the fact was that the UK was an integral part of the EU, and amputating an integral part is painful and complex. Unfortunately, the populistic way that the Conservatives approached the task, playing up to their donors, gave a completely wrong picture of how Europeans saw Brexit.

I had many conversations with the Germans and French, in which we were in agreement about the need to reform the EU, but that its existence is of primary importance for the member nations, because it was becoming clear that the Americans were moving away (before Trump), and the Russian and Chinese influence was growing. If we wanted to maintain the lifestyle we were used to, which was made possible by exploiting colonies, we had to pull together, not disperse.

Brexit was part of nationalistic ideology but (among other things) also pushed because of the EU’s declared policy of taxing multi-national concerns. It is also curiously financed by people who have an interest in weakening the EU as a world power bloc because the influence of socialism in the EU led to widespread workers’ rights and freedoms. Many of these were, in fact, British innovations – especially the ECHR. The EU was attempting to embody the Declaration of Human Rights and prevent war, and whether you agree with how it was implemented or not, it was attempting to create a large space on our planet where multiculturism and freedom were possible.

GDPR is designed to give consumers more control over their personal data, and in the world of scammers, internet fraud, spam and all the other problems we have with our data being made available, it seems a good idea. Admittedly, in a nursing environment, that caused me a lot of problems and made processes complicated. However, we found ways to work with it. When everything begins to flow so easily, as is the case with digitalised data, we lose the oversight of where that data is going. Maybe we could have done that better, but where do we consider destroying the whole because a part doesn’t please us?

1 Like
1 Like

…sounds like a very unpleasant man, indeed.


…but is it a crime / isn’t that what Defence Attorneys do… reframe the accusation as they see it?
This video’s under 10 minutes… go to 1.46 to hear the judicial-implications of the case, that I just asked (again) above.

…it’s a start :woman_shrugging:

What’s Europe got to do with it?

It was called Brexit, not Eurexit.


The question of EU reformations was broached by the UK… the answer received was “Not for the foreseeable future”… so not good enough, so Brexit won over Remain.

…but they had voted to squeeze the highest-GDP countries for even more money, to fund initiatives in the lower-GDP countries… of which there are many.

An appealing offer, right? :smirk:


…so Socialism v Capitalism/Globalism?

Instead of Nations being gauged by their talents/skills, they are now being gauged by their GDP. :smirk:


I meant GDP, sorry… but the two are inextricably linked, in the monetary/digital representation, of a Nation.

Why are European farmers struggling? … because the EU are still implementing legislation from 2022, because they need more money to continue the implementation, whilst farmers continue to struggle on towards impoverishment.


Joe said he would not pardon Hunter. What a stand up guy Joe is, eh? Well not quite: He doesn’t rule out commuting his sentence, which means if he is sentenced to jail time Joe could commute that sentence to no jail time. LOL

So Joe won’t pardon Hunter but he will give him a get out of jail free card. Six of one half a dozen of the other. What a clown and a trial that is just a waste of tax payer’s money. Why bother prosecuting him if his Daddy will just get him out of jail anyway?

1 Like

…Is Piers Morgan Trump’s defense attorney?

I think this is misleading. E. Jean Carroll had already sued Trump for defamation before that law was passed. And that law was passed as part of a broader Me Too inspired push to hold powerful men accountable. Arguably Trump was a big part of why the Me Too movement, but it’s a slightly different spin to say that Trump’s conduct sparked a nationwide movement of enraged women who lobbied for laws to hold serial abusers responsible for their past conduct, and one of those laws fit Trump’s conduct.

Trump wasn’t the only high profile man affected (Bill Cosby was another high profile man sued under it). The law was also modeled on other laws that added a look-back window for laws that retroactively extended statutes of limitations, so it wasn’t unprecedented.

I’d also take issue with his description of major cities as uniformly Democratic. Being solidly Democratic, so that every election comes out in the Democrats’ favor, is different from being uniformly Democratic: Hillary got less than 80% of the vote in NYC, so while it’s virtually guaranteed that Dems will carry the city every time, a randomly impaneled jury is still likely to include people politically sympathetic to Trump.

I feel you are so emotionally involved with this that our conversation is becoming difficult. The representation of the process of leaving the EU suggested that Britain was punished for leaving, but the problems of leaving had to do with the rules that past British governments had wanted to be implemented. Articles and statements were being made regarding that process that were utter lies, and the right-wing press put a lot of effort into promoting a “betrayal” myth that reminded me of the “Dolchstoßlegend” employed by the Nazis.

That was not the reason for Brexit. It was a purely emotional campaign, which I was faced with when speaking to my family in the UK about it. Even my brother, with a master’s degree in economics, provided emotional reasons for Brexit, despite being a France fan and praising Germany on his visits. The sovereignty question was very prominent, and the fear of being part of a United States of Europe, although any such aspirations would take decades to implement.

Sometimes, I was presented with arguments that I had difficulty not to laugh at and found internal criticisms of the EU from people who still wanted to remain more plausible and realistic. But it is over, and Britain now has to see where it is going. It will probably depend on what happens in America, and to what degree Britain wants to remain its vassal. Not sure how that will play out with regard to sovereignty, but as long as appearances are kept up, I suppose anything goes.

I’ll leave you with this quote:

“A principle that emerges in the cases so far mentioned is that folly is a child of power. We all know, from unending repetitions of Lord Acton’s dictum, that power corrupts. We are less aware that it breeds folly; that the power to command frequently causes failure to think; that the responsibility of power often fades as its exercise augments.

The overall responsibility of power is to govern as reasonably as possible in the interest of the state and its citizens. A duty in that process is to keep well-informed, to heed information, to keep mind and judgment open and to resist the insidious spell of wooden-headedness. If the mind is open enough to perceive that a given policy is harming rather than serving self-interest, and self-confident enough to acknowledge it, and wise enough to reverse it, that is a summit in the art of government.”

Tuchman, Barbara Wertheim (20. Juli 2011). The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.