You are correct. And Trump was notorious to tearing up notes and other things that are supposed to be archived.

In the spirit of rigness and rigtards. It could be noted how stories and coverage has been running things lately. A news cycle is completely and utterly maintained by one existential threat at a time.
Trump, Covid, Ukraine, whatever the next humanity ending event may be

This is not to say these problems aren't real. But they have been parlayed into 24/7 bombardment. Ever wonder why Jane and Jane Doe never complain about Yemen or Ethiopia or any of the other dozen or so brown hell scapes? Ofc you haven't, bc we all know that isn't covered. 13k win with Ukraine winning Eurovision. Was obv rigged af and easy to cash that one.

So many problems who cares if people can't pay rent. Just be happy you aren't nuked or literally starving and you should be fine

Why would I short circuit it that way when I right..,

What we are talking about here is not the pure writing of the law but how the statute is interpreted and applied by Prosecutors.

And if a prosecutor assessing Hilary or Trumps actions with regards to removing records believes they cannot establish they KNOWINGLY removed them they will be far less likely to prosecute.

If they can establish they knowingly removed them (witness says they told them, or they admit it) they are more likely to prosecute.

This hinges largely on the ignorance or not, knowledge or not, of the accused (Hilary and Trump), just as the video I posted above confirmed.

Enumerate your own lies while you are at.

Also clarify how many times a day you search to see if I mentioned you. As i did yesterday and the time before you mentioned the same thing (that you caught me mentioning you via searching it) was a long time ago. So you got two hits very far apart.

Are you going to pretend that coincidentally that was the only time you searched or admit you constantly search to see if I mention you and get a hit every few weeks only as you pretend you are doing it as you think I am obsessed with you???

You realize your argument of "I am constantly watching you and searching you to see if you are obsessed with me' argument is creepy right?

And that is why Trump does not email or text. Roy Cohn taught him well The Way of the Mob.

Most of the info on other stuff is out there, so that puts a dent in the conspiracy theory.

But front-pages are generally completely dominated by either algorithms or engagement analysis, and those I suspect also tell us that big fat capital letters and the occasional red type will also generate more clicks.

My survival guide:
- No social media on smartphone.
- No news media that consistently exploit headlines to induce stress.
- Absolutely no follows or subscription to politicians, pundits, social media influencers or paying attention to those eco-systems.
- No political videos
- Minimal amount of news videos
- Absolutely no news videos from sources that uses montages, music or other editing to make it more dramatic.
- Treat comments sections like superstitious villagers treat suspected warlocks.

That's for me, I'm not going to say what would work for others. But I find that very little of what is in the modern media eco-system is needed to actually stay informed. I also find that a lot of actors, influencers and providers are unethical in how they present news, headlines and contemporary issues.

First noting that as you have not attempted to defend Lie #4, it shall remain in the enumeration uncontested.

But the rest of this post is.....weird. Let's be clear: in long threads I don't intend to read in their entirety, I will habitually go CTRL+F+uke to quickly find people who have responded to me. It has nothing to do with you except happening to discover when you bizarrely misrepresenting me in some massive paragraph-less essay responding to someone else I wouldn't have otherwise read. Mostly I ignore this. But no, this cute little theory of yours is entirely in your head. As I have not explained this to you before, I shall not enumerate this as a lie, although I would caution against making nonsensical soul reads about people in the future.

My only riggedness here is Eurovision That was great and predictable af. I'm only commenting on the marketing of news. I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes to the extent it matters in my emotional or cognitive states. That's what separates me from conspiracy people, I couldn't care much less or be surprised or gaf generally.

I can only comment on the release of info. And what is disseminated from press releases to public is not exactly a case study. I don't think anything I stated is controversial other than Ukraine song riggedness but you begin a post with addressing a conspiracy theory other than Eurovision. Entertainment events is where the rigged bets are at. Who had Smith to punch Rock for $100


Re the modern media eco system, you are not actually projecting your perspective of the world to the masses right? Like who ever would think you're a news rube. I'm just commenting on marketing of news but if you see a conspiracy I think there's a thread for that somewhere

Before i catch up on this threads posts and questions of me I will plant these here.

As Rococo points out up thread he and i have this argument whenever the issues of 'Knowledge' as it then applies to 'Intent' comes up with regards to Trump and why or why not a Prosecution proceeds against Trump. I state how the current legislation is deliberately flawed because the way it is drafted makes is such that Prosecutors hesitate to charge in big cases (Trump, etc) when they cannot establish such knowledge that can then be used to show the 'intent' was there, and thus the persons (Trump's) ability to feign ignorance or have real ignorance, ends up being a defense a Prosecution is not willing to test in court.

The Prosecutors are searching desperately for that person who can establish:

- 'Trump knew the law with regards to taking classified documents out of the white house'
- 'Trump knew the law with regards to filing incorrect banking statements
- 'Trump new the law re campaign donations'

etc, etc.

I push forth my view that a simple change in legislative wording to more of a positive onus on people in Trumps position to 'know', where it can be established they had all the resources around them to ask those questions and get clarity on the law(s), so that Prosecutors are no longer cowed by fear that they can argue 'they did not know' would fix the system.

Section 1924 speaks directly to what am I saying as it cites "KNOWINLY" being a key component to its prosecution and those discussing it call 'that specifically' the challenge in prosecuting Hilary prior and Trump now.

Here is some analysis on why Trump has not been charged as a result of his account being charged

More analysis on why they must establish 'intent' of Weissleberg and GET him to admit Trump not only knew but directed and participated in these filings without which they would struggle in court to establish Trump had the INTENT or KNOWLEDGE and thus his ignorance of that would be why they would not prosecute...

With regards to MIchael Cohen going to jail and why Trump (Individual #1) has not been indicted as well...

This above says if Trump was in fact IGNORANT of the law being broken that would be a defense. He needs to "WILLFULLY VIOLATE" it and not just do so out of IGNORANCE.
Again I stand by my view, that a simple change to a reverse onus in laws like this, would make these crimes much more prosecutable but that legislators deliberately make them hard to prosecute with this burden to protect the elite.


And lastly despite Rococo assembling his cadre of 2+2 lawyers and the assertions they put forth that any lawyer whose position somehow ends up on YouTube is 'lol a Youtube lawyer' whose point of view should have no merit or weight in this discussion, I present for you one of probably a dozen top lawyers and legal experts (time stamped) echoing exactly my point...



"...the real issue here... Everyone sees this is a strong case against Weissenberg... everyone sees this is not an indictment that can reach the President... they apparently do not have PROOF of his INTENT or KNOWLEDGE of these schemes...'



And because I know their will be an automatic retort of 'lol another YouTube lawyer' as a way to say 2+2 Lawyers should be considered the REAL authority on these matters here is Joyce Vance's Bio. I invite someone to post an actual argument why her views are worthless in discussion as 'lol a Youtube lawyer' as this narrative persists, and why then '2+2 Lawyers' should get any credibility bump if that is the case.

Personally I would prefer this stupid Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Ridicule stuff would stop, but one side is intent in using both to try and substantiate their arguments while thinking it diminishes mine.

For those who do not want to read the long post above but who will otherwise opine here, I suggest you just click on the hyper links in the articles and read them and see how common the talk of "Knowledge" being key to "Intent" ...being key to charges is.

That is my position, and where Rococo keeps claiming i am wrong. THat provable 'Knowledge' is not at issue and thus ignorance (lack of knowledge) is not why Prosecutors so often refuse to prosecute Trump and others (Hilary).

I am fine with Rococo holding another view on this as I have heard others lawyers debate this line, so I know there is tension around it. BUt his view that I am just wrong and this issue of 'knowledge' is not a factor is one I do not agree with and certainly it is something that many lawyers argue is an issue.

I'm not going through the whole post or links, but just to summarise the Wiki links I posted earlier ITT:

- Not knowing that shooting people is illegal is never a defence.
- Not knowing that the gun was loaded might, under some circumstances, be a defence (see, e.g., Alec Baldwin).

Knowledge of facts and knowledge of law are fundamentally different from a criminal prosecution point of view.

Did it read past "Before i catch up on this threads posts and questions of me I will plant these here.....". No one is waiting with baited breath for you to explain to use what you think the law should be or how it should operate when you obviously don't understand the current law and how it currently operates.

Yes I ignored that as no one is arguing that.

There are certain laws (particularly white collar) where Intent and Knowledge are far more emphasized in the law. I cited one statute above.

But I do appreciate you trying to contribute without reading what we are actually arguing.

I'll answer that question after you answer this one by me.

If you have no position but you think 'the other position (Rococo's) could be reasonably arrived at' as compared to my position (as stated by you), I want you to tell me why you did not ask Rococo that question as it seems that question would work both ways?

Meaning you could start with his statement and ask him if it "could not be reasonable arrived at'?

Correct? OR not? If if you agree it is correct then why did you not ask Rococo that?

I do have a position, I just didn't present it in that post.

Ok.

But why did you not ask Rococo that question you asked me?

Probably because Rococo typically understands the law, while you typically do not. (IN MY OPINION!)

I don't have practical experience with the specific US procedures for handling classified material, but I have with NATO procedures which I think are in large part based on US procedures.

It's not complicated at all, I'd describe it as extremely simple. For most recipients, you could condense it down to a 5-minute briefing (not that that the people who handle this stuff for a career would let poor sods get off that easy) and the material is always visibly marked. Perhaps it could become a bit more messy if you handle material that later gets classified, but even then it really isn't complicated if you got your **** together (looking at you Hillary).

There isn't any question about how laws like this work.

1) The prosecution need not prove that a perpetrator was told (or otherwise knew) he was violating the law.

2) In statutes that have a mens rea of "knowingly", the prosecution of course must show that the perpetrator knowingly committed the acts that constitute the offense.

The only question is whether the talking head said something that was contrary to 1) above. I did not interpret the talking head's comments to be contrary to 1) above because any first year law student would know that was an incorrect statement of the law. In other words, my interpretation of the talking head's comments admittedly was informed by an assumption that the talking head wasn't a complete ****ing idiot. If Bobo had asked why I chose one interpretation over the other, that's what I would have told him.

I would analogize it as follows. Imagine that the talking head had been a diving expert. Someone asks the talking head how long a highly trained person should be able to hold his breath underwater. The talking head holds up two fingers. I guess that's a little ambiguous, but the reasonable interpretation is that he meant two minutes. Is it possible that the talking head is a complete ****ing idiot and that he meant two hours and not two minutes? Sure. I guess that's possible. But it isn't very likely.

Your opinion is pretty worthless here FWIW but if it gives you comfort that is fine.

Rococo and i agree in most discussions of law (see the current Twitter thread, etc) but on this one issue of the role or value of 'knowing', 'Intent' and "Ignorance' and how they impact a prosecutors decision to charge or not, we greatly disagree. I stand by my position that 'KNOWING' and 'Ignorance" play way to big a role in way too many areas of White collar law where they should not, and it is deliberately done that way to protect the elites by making prosecutions very hard to do even when clearly laws have been broken.


And everything I discuss in law, outside of business law, typically comes from any of the 10 or so top Legal Podcasts I listen to. For years, Legal Podcasts have been my biggest go to in the podcast world.

So don't take team Rococo's 2+2 lawyers saying 'lol at considering anything YouTube lawyers say as valuable or of any worth in these discussions' as that if just an Appeal to Ridicule while they simultaneous flex their 2+2 lawyer cred as a reason to not dispute them and flex their Appeal to their Authority.

I do not know the resumes of any of our esteemed 2+2 lawyers but I suspect Joyce Vance, BARBARA MCQUADE , JILL WINE-BANKS, of the SistersInLaw Podcast, Stay Tuned with Preet podcast - Preet Bharara, or the lawyers featured on Law360, or any of 10 more I could name, would not be laughed out of the room as 'lol Youtube' or 'lol podcast' lawyers when offering their views on current legal issues, despite what some on 2+2 seem to need others to believe and how they would assert their 2+2 cred as something to value in these discussions.

Great then so lets focus on Point 2 as that was always my point and i have never claimed ALL statutes or laws require it:

- "... In statutes that have a mens rea of "knowingly", the prosecution of course must show that the perpetrator knowingly committed the acts that constitute the offense. "

Because as you have pointed out and which started this argument I say often on these issue with Trump "KNOWING" is a factor as to whether prosecutions proceed against him when crimes where clearly committed ... and "NOT KNOWING" or "IGNORANCE", or an inability to prove either, should NOT be a factor. in why the prosecutions are not pursued.


So on the current "Trump classified documents from the White House" I posted an article that references section 1924 and says a Prosecution of Trump would have the same challenge the Hillary, classified doc' one had over 'KNOWING'.

So on the Michael Cohen Individual #1 here is 'Knowing" being a key...


And as i go through these examples time and again (there are more upthread) you retort 'knowing' and 'ignorance' are not factors and we argue over that. Now you seem to be saying in some cases ...

"...In statutes that have a mens rea of "knowingly", the prosecution of course must show that the perpetrator knowingly committed the acts that constitute the offense. ..."

Of course the Prosecutor must show the Perpetrator KNOWING..."

So we are done here as that is and was ALWAYS MY POINT along with me saying a simple switch to a reverse onus in these type statutes, would greatly fix this issue. Allow prosecutors to pursue and secure prosecutions without the need to prove the KNOWING.

And BTW this Reverse Onus is not just something I am making up whole cloth.

It does exist, or versions of it, in certain white collar areas such as Securities Law.

I've been a Director of numerous Public Companies over the years and as Director we cannot use a lack of 'knowing' or 'ignorance' as an excuse to defend ourselves from shareholder lawsuits or actions, if we made a choice that ultimate harmed the company and shareholder value.

As a Director you are often making 'calls' in areas you do not have specific expertise and the 'reverse onus' expectation is that you must then seek out and engage with suitable experts to inform your position.

It is not ultimately about getting the call correct as you can be wrong, cost everyone money and still be indemnified against being sued, but you must document and be prepared to show you spoke to the people you should of (relevant experts) before making your decision or call and thus the decision was not made out of IGNORANCE. And if that is true you (The Board Member) are protected from any lawsuit.

When it comes to Trump and his 'Call to Brad Rothenburger', 'Threats to Ukraine for Quid Pro Quo', 'him being named as "Individual #1', and him 'taking away the Classified Materials from the WH', none of these things should require him have the specific KNOWLEDGE and if not he is not prosecuted due to his ignorance.


Instead, like with a Board Director, the law COULD require Trump (anyone in his spot) be required to seek out the answer FIRST from any of his numerous available experts at his finger tips (WH Counsel, DOJ, Chief of Staff, etc) and if Trump cannot show he asked the right people the right questions then he is guilty. If he did ask them and was badly advised that would be a defense, just as it is for a Board Member.


It is MY VIEW, they do not put Politicians to that type of requirement as it is Politicians who write the law and it would make it much easier to Prosecute and much harder for Politicians to do all the bad things they get away with if we simply made it a requirement that they MUST seek advice, because we require them to only be acting if they are informed.

Why would they be acting out of ignorance? Why would we want that? Simple fix. Just require them to seek advice. It works for Board Members as a way to protect shareholders. WHy not protect citizens the same way?

I haven't expressed an opinion on the bolded.

I never disputed that some statutes have a mens rea of "knowingly." I never disputed that a prosecutor must prove that the perpetrator acted knowingly in order to get a conviction under statutes where that is the required mens rea. You can't point to any post in which I said any such thing.

Nice try, but in almost all cases, we are not disagreeing with the Preet Bhararas of the world. We are disagreeing with your misinterpretation of what they said.

Lol, Law.