d2!

I knew that I could lure you from the shadows.

I've been lurking, just not posting much (or at all, really).

Who is going to keep lagtight and chez in line if all you do is lurk?

Lol, Trolly I guess!

I'll prob post a bit more soon, been busy with IRL stuff.

Lag tight needs a foil and a verbal beatdown or two.

This thread used to have greats like Playbig2000 in it and now it's been reduced to this.

This! And d2_e4 is the right man for the job!

Let's try to step away from the context of the quote for a minute, forget what we already believe we know about the quote.

No matter what you may think is meant, can you see how there could be more than one interpretation?

1) The someone in question is telling Donald Trump it is illegal to take home classified documents. This is a problem, because now that Trump knows it is illegal, if he takes them home, he can be prosecuted. If he didn't know it was illegal to take home classified documents, he can't be prosecuted.

2) The someone in question is telling Donald Trump the documents are classified. This is a problem, because now that Trump knows they are classified, if he takes them home, he can be prosecuted. If he didn't know the documents were classified, he can't be prosecuted.

Forget what you think is right or wrong - can you at least see how an argument can be made for either interpretation?

You also don't get to look at one sentence of that guy's comments. He goes on later to say, "if they were hastily boxing stuff up . . .", which was a clear reference to the hypothetical scenario in which classified documents are removed, not knowingly, but rather as a result of negligence.

Trump obviously would be unable to argue that he was merely negligent if someone specifically told him that it was unlawful to remove the documents.

Look, the guy could have been a little more precise with his words, but no lawyer would have listened to that interview and said "holy ****, that guy said Donald Trump has to know the law in order to be guilty of violating the law."

I think we're arguing semantics.

He originally stated that 'knowingly' engaging in certain activity was often times a prerequisite trigger for certain regulatory laws to be invoked.
You came back with something about 'not knowing laws'.
They're two different discussions.

I referenced a working example of a very real law where doing something 'knowingly' versus 'unknowingly' was the basis for the law and that 'knowingly' had to be demonstrated before a prosecution could occur. Even if every single context clue was there, they would have to prove that you KNOWINGLY sold the gun to the prohibited party.

Its not a discussion on whether you knew the law existed or not.

No one has ever disputed that many criminal statutes require proof that the perpetrator acted knowingly or willingly (as opposed to recklessly or negligently). That is blatantly obvious. I never said anything to the contrary.

Rococo, can you just explain mistake of law vs. mistake of fact or would that be no fun?

None of this is fun, which begs the question of why I bother.

Of course, there is the very real possibility that you are wrong and Rococo is correct. The law review article shows the circuits are split: one treats it as a strict liability issue, the other has a reasonable knowledge element. Both treatments dispell the correctness of your original example.

The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;

who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition.

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.


https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/...context=uclrev

It becomes a lot easier once you join the "derps gonna derp" club. They you just chuckle at the know-nothing-know-it-alls instead of trying to have some type of reasoned conversation. Your choice how much more time you want to set on fire with that activity!

I understand what you are saying above and totally disagree with it, which is fine.

Your analysis seems to be only considering one side of the ledgerand saying 'yes charges would be filed", whereas this statement "....The key here in this sort of investigation where it will become a problem, ..." is saying where charges DO BECOME A PROBLEM is when the Prosecutor CANNOT prove KNOWLEDGE.


That statement is saying where such KNOWLEDGE cannot be proven or demonstrated charges will become a PROBLEM.

That is clearly speaking to the importance or advantage of demonstrable knowledge of the offender to the offense in terms of prosecution which 100% supports my view.

I'm well aware of how these cases are actually prosecuted, in the real world, with actual facts, actual CIs, actual BATF agents and actual US Attorneys.
Please cite me one single prosecution where the defendant wasn't otherwise clearly demonstrated to have direct knowledge of the purchasers status as a prohibited party.
"Knowingly" is the singular emphasis in literally every single prosecution made under relevant subsections of 18 USC 922 and 924, the BATF even has field policy on demonstrating it for such cases. You will be able to provide literally zero prosecutions where "well, he should have known because of these context clues..." was the basis of the case. Zero. Papers in legal journals are fine, but when there are no working examples, its just academia.

Conversely, every single prosecution made under (the above) will involve an element of evidencing the defendant having clearly demonstrated knowledge of a buyers prohibited status as the primary emphasis of both the investigation and the prosecution.
Every. Single. One.

IRL?



Welcome back d2.

It is so weird as you are completely agreeing with my position here and yet seem to think you are not. I am sure as I scroll down, it will be Rococo who cannot "step away from the broader context" as what you say here does not agree with his position.

You ARE presenting my analysis of the point. That the "TELLING" gives DJT "KNOWLEDGE" that then makes it prosecutable whereas Rococo is saying such 'telling" and "Knowledge is irrelevant
" and whether DJT is told or not or knows or now it not relevant.

That is our entire dispute and you just agreed with me.

Langley.
Yermain.

And here it is one post later, I should have scrolled first.

Again, as I see it you are speaking to one side of the ledger.

You keep coming back to this one scenario of 'if someone specifically told DJT, he then has no ability to argue he was merely negligent"

YEs,m agree, busted. If they have a credible first hand witness who can prove he told Trump, or Trump admits he was told I totally agree with your position that "he has no ability to argue he was merely negligent".

I have never argued against that so can we bury that as 'agreed to' and not waste time restating it over and over as if in contention when that aspect NEVER has been.


So lets look at the other side of the ledger. The side you NEVER address as you keep moving back to the settled side. The side where there is no witness to Trump or Hillary's actions on the record and Trump is denying it is where the quote clearly states is where PROBLEM for prosecuting lies. If you DO NOT have that person telling him or him admitting it. you do not have the thing "that moves the ball" and makes prosecution more likely.

I don't think any analysis of that quote can show a logical breakdown that the speaker is saying 'Knowledge of the offense is irrelevant to the Prosecution of CJT and with or without said knowledge the chance of a prosecutor proceeding is the same'.

LOL.
Langley was a case of a felon who claimed to be 'unaware he was a felon', so big swing and a miss there.

Yerman, I'd need something to pull up on Pacer.

Man you live by the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Sad.

If you have read jjj's posts you would understand that if he is a lawyer, in fact, he harms any appeal to authority more than he helps it.

The guy argues from near 100% emotion devoid of fact.

He literally does not understand why me or anyone posting "XYZ is trending on Twitter" as a factual statement (what I said about Chapelle) CANNOT be wrong and using his great lawyerly deductive reasoning thinks he caught me in one which he can carry thread to thread as a gotcha.

It is logically impossible to be wrong if all you do is post 'this is what is being talked about or trending' when it is being talked about trending.

But he and uke say, it did not turn out to be a trans activist thus I was wrong, which is factually incorrect.

I took no position on that topic, I did not spam it nor did I comment on it. I just posted that it was being speculated about on Twitter and it was as was the proof of the Twitter post I provided.

You could not get jjj to agree now that I was not wrong, as his argument is emotional and not fact. It is a fact I was not wrong but due to emotion he HAS to claim I was.


jjj is living proof why Appeals to Authority are considered one of the most common logical fallacies and yet you, Rococo, live by them.

And what you say above is key.

In all of these discussions and debates between top lawyers and legal scholars and theorists on line that jjj (and Rococo to a much lesser extent) scoff at and dismiss as they are on Youtube, and thus nothing they say should be considered in this debate is nonsense. If the top lawyers and legal scholars are to be dismissed becasue they are 'lol youtube lawyers' by virtue of their discussions being viewed on YouTube, what could possibly be the reason to accept 'lol, 2+2 Lawyers' words as more credible?

jjj is unable to see the logical fallacy in his criticism.

We all know Prosecutors do not like to bring cases they might lose, and thus this 'knowing' is all too often the key to whether they prosecute or not.

This is one of the key summaries in the Edwards case analysis


And a key summary in the Hilary Clinton case...


And Rococo can appeal to the internet authorities knowing better and to just throw out all those instances because 'they know better', but I am not going to agree. And each and every time when he acts as if it is 'wrong' for me to continue to disagree and that I should not cite other legal experts or analysis that AGREES with my view, I am not going to cede to that.

If these guys put together compelling augments fine, but the appeal to authority is not going to fly.

A simply change in the statute, as I have said, that puts a reverse onus on that aspect of 'knowing' would make it much easier to prosecute these type of white collar crime. And that is exactly why they do not fix it, imo.

No one is stopping you. Pacer away, You think the circuit court ruled it was strict liability without a case before it? Lol.