Says the clown who appeals to authority of an MSNBC pundit whom he "transcribed" in support of his simplistic legal analysis hinging on his misunderstanding of mens rea. Something he has repeatedly exhibited he does not understand since debating it regarding prosecuting cops.

Carlin meme

I never said what you wrote above. I never implied what you wrote above. I never even hinted at what you wrote above. I explicitly disagreed with what you wrote above.

If DJT was told, it would be incredibly helpful to a prosecutor who was trying to make a successful prosecution. It would gut any attempt to rebut the mens rea element of the crime.

Your inability to understand the distinction between "necessary" and "useful" is the root of the problem here.

Because the big city attorney wants a singing pig!

Also, I am not appealing to authority when I disagree with you about black letter law based on my own expertise. And when a plumber tells you that you all plumbers understand that you need a pipe of X dimension to carry waste from a toilet, that isn't some sort of fallacious appeal to authority.

There is a good argument that the person who is wasting his time trying to teach the pig to sing is a far bigger idiot than the pig.

Welcome to my world.

Cuepee is like a ditch digger who, after finding himself at the bottom of a hole that is too deep to climb out of, decides to escape by digging to the center of the earth.

My habit of searching a thread for "uke" and seeing how often I'm living rent free in your mind keeps paying off. So I hope you understand I'm not actually reading your soliloquies to find where you lie about me.

Regardless, this is a lie. My claim was that it was inappropriate to uncritically spread baseless rumours about the gender identity of the assailant regardless of whether they eventually prove to be or not be trans. I term this a lie as opposed to an innocent mischaracterization as I have repeatedly made this point clear. Indeed, I explicitly stated it did not matter whether they turned out to be trans or not. Additionally, I have never suggested my opinion about this being inappropriate is "factually correct"; this would make no sense.

I shall enumerate this as Lie #4. All previous lies are here.

CP is the current embodiment of Cliff Clavin. CUEPEE thinks he is the wing nut that holds the universe together when he is actually just a winged nut.

and yet I have never used an appeal to their authority and never cite up front.

It is only when you guys say 'lol, why would we consider anything youtube lawyers say when we are 2+2 lawyers' I mention they should not just be discounted and you trusted based on your perception of 2+2 status you hold and them not. I point at their resumes and credibility only when you try to dismiss their comments as irrelevant because "we are 2+2 lawyers you are disagreeing with , so lol', as if that claim alone makes your argument.

Yes you did.

Time and again you have said such 'knowledge' is not relevant.

Then you do the same thing I said above that you do again here.

Each time in your rebut you just go to the one side of the ledger WE BOTH AGREE ON and have never disagreed.

I said before and I will say again YOU WILL ONLY refer to this side as if in dispute to try and make it look like you are right when you are not.

You say "if DJT was TOLD...".

We agree...

We never did NOT agree...

On the side of the ledger where he is TOLD.

So lets not speak of that again. And instead lets only speak of when he is NOT told. When "knowledge" cannot be proven??

That is the item in dispute as I say, as does the quotations that the lack of KNOWLEDGE makes it harder to prosecute.

If you agree it makes it harder to prosecute then we agree. But I think you are loath to admit you agree with my point so instead I expect you to immediate pivot to "..but if DJT was told..."

This is an issue of interpretation and application of law and not what the statute says or does not say.

No one is posting a statute and us fighting over that, so take your strawman elsewhere.

I did post a statute that spoke to the Hilary Clinton example which best parallels the DCT one and it specifically speaks to the value of 'knowledge' in prosecuting.

So you and I can debate the value of knowledge but you hold no black letter law position on this. I agree with that statute as written as I assume you do. Our debate is on it is applied and the value of the "knowledge" to a prosecutor.

So yes counsellor your arguments are riddled with appeal to authority fallacy. The entire 'lol, he believes youtube lawyers but does not just accept 2+2 lawyers words' is entirely an appeal to authority.

Are you seriously unable to comprehend the difference between knowledge of the statute and knowledge that you are removing classified documents from a secure location?

The latter is required if the mens rea is "knowing". The former is never required, and is relevant only insofar as it might help a prosecutor prove the required level of intent.

Here is a simple scenario to illustrate the difference.

Donald Trump is videotaped putting highly classified documents in his briefcase and stating, "I'm going to take these highly classified documents on vacation with me and read them on the beach." Donald Trump is later proven to have had absolutely no understanding that it was unlawful for him to take the highly classified documents on vacation with him.

Is Donald Trump entitled to exoneration on the ground that he was unaware of the law?

The answer clearly is no. And that is my only point.

Interesting theory. As always the truthfulness is suspect.

I just did a quick search of both of us and found you mentioning me in discussions I am not in multiples more then I mention you but then I only went back the last 10 days.
So if you have other data, happy for you to post it.

Of course, I doubt you will as the truthfulness of your statements never matters as opposed to what you make up and just say, does.

Again the entirety of what I did was report the equivalent of 'TMZ, Twitter, FB or CNN is now reporting that people on the right are saying Ahmaud Arbery was not just jogging and was casing the home'.


I completely accept if you think a forum like 2+2 is not an appropriate place to report on the reporting of that type of rumour, you have a right to that opinion.

I completely disagree and think 2+2 is EXACTLY the place where we can discuss such reported speculation.

What you cannot do, as you did, when you realized you over reacted is lie as you did. I did not 'Spam it'. I did not make up any allegation, I did not push any type of anti trans position. You not only lied about what i did but you assigned me motive for doing it and then criticized me for it when I had no such motive.

In other words you executed the leftist cancel culture playbook exactly. Ignore what is actually said just pile on smears and lies and assume no one else will read enough to cut through your BS.

No, you lead with the premise that DT can only be successfully prosecuted if it can be shown he knowingly removed 'classified materials' from his office. Which is just an outlandishly stupid and simplistic statement. Then you back it up with your appeal authority to authority, proving not only that it's a pundits talking point but then it becomes the sole reason your premise can't be wrong.

The actual answer to the question whether Trump can be prosecuted over classified information removal is a complex question that depends on which law he allegedly violates, what the classified material were, whether they were disseminated to others, who those others were and how the dissemination occurred. The actual answer is it's complicated and, as a general black letter rule of law, acting knowingly is not an element required in criminal prosecution.

Even if you presented all these facts and variables in your fact pattern for your premise, the answer is still "it's complicated." But your pea size brain can't ever allow for your simple premise to be incorrect.

You are not asking the operative question here and I am not going to allow you to shift it.


I hold a position you disagree with and keep saying I get wrong.

My position is was outlined above but is even more clearly demonstrated here in the Hilary Clinton case...


My position stated in many threads that you say is wrong is that "KNOWING" should not be key to any such prosecution and i believe it is purposely put in the legislation as it makes prosecutions extraordinarily difficult without an admission or a credible witness.

I have said a simple 'reverse onus' fixes that and puts the burden on the offender and makes prosecution easier.

My position has NEVER been specific to whether the knowing is attached to the "knowledge of the statute" or "knowledge of the boxes being taken". My position does not care about those distinctions and is only focused on the FACT the statute says that "KNOWING" is a key factor and my belief it should not be.

I do not believe 'knowing' should be a factor in any element, full stop. And that section 192 cites "knowing" as a factor is, imo, a deliberate protection built in for white collar offenders,that could easily be fixed.

I'm going to stop right there and not read past because as I have said before you have proven yourself to be a complete emotional arguer who has no care for fact, truth or the use of lies.

I have never and would never speak definitively on this as if I can speak to what will lead to a successful prosecution or not. I have continually spoken to OTHERS saying, and it being my view that it makes it more difficult and thus why many prosecutors will not pursue it.

So I don't think you care as you really don't attempt to debate but if you want serious replies, you will actually have to make a post that is not riddled with lies. Or don't. I don't really care.

I, um, wait, what?

I provided two positions, one of which was intended to be yours, and provided no judgement as to which one I believe to be correct. I then asked you if you could at least agree that the other position could also be arrived at reasonably. Rather than answer that question, you've taken the fact that I stated your position as one of the two possibilities as some kind of victory.

You could have short-circuited this entire conversation by simply acknowledging that you were not intending to suggest that ignorance of the law was a defense.

I have never offered an opinion on whether knowledge or some lesser mens rea should be required for statutes of this type.

If you enjoy thinking clearly, you should care about this distinction. It is important. And you do your argument no favors when you treat two very different things as if they are the same thing.

Here is a concise statement from an authoritative source of exactly the point I was making.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea\

This is first year law school stuff. I get no prizes for understanding the point. It isn't complicated.

Cuepee, my dude, please read these Wiki pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_of_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_(criminal_law)

Not a single sentence of this attempts to refute Lie #4 which was your claim that "uke say, it did not turn out to be a trans activist thus I was wrong". Lie #4 thus remains categorized as a Lie.

I am going to err on being very conservative when enumerating your lies, as above. In cases where it is a misunderstanding, or a difference of opinion, or just you being weird, or you mirroring accusations like this, I shall not enumerate these as lies. For example, I critiqued your behaviour of uncritically spamming baseless speculation you say on social media here, which isn't the same thing as critiquing your motivation for doing this. Frankly I have no idea why someone would behave so inappropriately. Nor did I claim that you made it up, it was always obvious you were reposting things from twitter. But nevertheless, in the interest of keeping my list of your egregious lies as clear as possible this shall not enter it.

Rococo, this is exactly why you never given sheet music to a pig!

So your conspiracy theory that changing the knowingly requirement is necessary for the elites to not escape prosecution is a made up lie and purely emotional drivel that came from my head?

I think I will stick to simple ridiculing the stupidity that flies from his fingertips.

I don't know how Presidents are dealt with in:re classified material but I do know that obtaining a security classification for normal people is largely a process in your signing your name on various dotted lines that you understand how certain materials up to your classification level must be handled and agreeing to the 101 ways they can **** you in the ass with a cactus if you do not comply. The basic idea is that if you have a clearance, there is no argument to be made that you "didn't know what to do", since your affirming you know what to do is part of the process of getting clearance in the first place.

Aren't there pretty trustworthy reports that the administration also destroyed a lot of documentation and left unexplained gaps in logs and records?

That isn't necessarily connected to the classified material, but it does certainly hint of an administration with a conspirator's nose for assessing documents.