Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (2 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

So, not English. Not History.

noted.

Why?

Are you an English and History teacher?

 

[FullMonte]

Not ignore the evidence. Take into account all the evidence AND all he or she knows about recent history, and then rule in Trump's favor.

Wow...you are SO bad at this that if you were trolling, it would be horrible trolling because of how bad it is. The fact that you appear to believe this stuff is just sad.

So, you aren't saying that they will ignore the evidence, but they will "take into account all of the evidence AND all he or she knows about recent history, and then rule in Trump's favor"? Yet later, in this very same post, when I again say that you are claiming Trump supporters will ignore the evidence, you respond "Yes, and you keep saying that as if in wonderment." So, in one post, you can't even keep straight if you are saying that Trump supporters will ignore the evidence and rule in his favor or not. Hell, in the last post, you literally posted an entire paragraph describing a Trump supporter doing exactly that.

You seem perturbed at the idea of Trump making any defense at all. He will make a defense, if it even gets to trial. I don't know what it will be, but you are not correct to imply that your version is his only defense.

Not at all. I hope his lawyers provide him the best defense possible. But, the reality is "providing the best defense possible" sometimes is simply working to mitigate the damage and minimize the sentence. "Providing the best defense possible" does not always mean getting an acuittal.

In this particular case, Trump is charged (for example) with illegally retaining national defense information. The facts that are laid out are: NARA contacted Trump to return the documents. Trump did not return the documents. A subpoena for the documents was issued. Trump returned some documents, and a sworn statement from his lawyer saying that they had returned everything. An FBI search warrant was issued, and national defense documents were found in Donald Trump's personal desk.

Unless his lawyers can somehow provide evidence that either: There was no subpoena issued, that his lawyer did NOT submit a sworn statement that they had returned everything, or that there were no documents containing national defense information in his personal desk....then the facts clearly show Trump is guilty of that charge.

You're making assumption on top of assummption about what the prosecution has. It is very common for prosecutors to overcharge and at the end of the presentation of evidence drop charges that they had no evidence for. In other words, the indictment is no evidence at all and you cannot claim to have seen evidence of any of the indictments.

Are you some suggesting the possibility that:
--A subpoena for those documents was never issued?
--Trumps attorney did NOT submit a sworn statement that they had returned everything?
--Documents containing national defense information were NOT found in Trump's desk?

Yes . . . like Clinton.

So, now you are back to just making things up? Or can you provide ANY source that says that Biden and/or Pence were asked to return documents that were found in their possession, and either (or both) of them refused to return those documents, lied and said they didn't have them, and hid them from the people searching for them?

Not for that, maybe.

So, you agree that had Trump returned the documents, he would not be facing these charges? Which means that you agree that this is NOT a politically motivated prosecution, and is a prosecution based solely on Trump's actions. Great, now we are getting somewhere.

Anyway, he was not required to "return" to NARA personal copies that he made for reference after leaving office. That wording is directly from the Presidential Records Act, as near as I recall the exact words.

Ok, here is what the wording of the Presidential Records Act says:

"The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter."
"Upon the conclusion of a president's term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of his last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President. The Archivist shall have an affirmative duty to make such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions of this chapter."

So, that leaves us with one simple question. Is there ANY scenario where a report on US nuclear capabilities (even if it's just a copy) is a personal record belonging to Donald Trump?

I notice you did not respond to my statements about Bill Clinton supporters during his legal troubles. Perjury is pretty serious, for a lawyer and a president. An affair with a subordinate used to be one of the cardinal sins in feminism. But his supporters never gave two shirts about it.

I offer you another chance to comment.

Ok, I'll comment. As soon as you can provide some rationale as to why the actions of Clinton (either Clinton) supporters is relevant to whether or not Donald Trump is guilty, or whether or not the prosecution of Donald Trump is warranted, I'll engage you on that topic.

 

[Incumbent]

To expand on what I told MT15, if you want me not to talk about Clinton, avoid broad generalizations like "Trump supporters don't care about the law or the truth!" Coming from people who supported the Clintons, that will automatically prompt a "whatabout" response.

Imagine if the next Democrat president makes an off color remark about women, and Trump supporters criticize him for it. You gonna ignore that hypocrisy?

You can talk about whatever you want and other people can make whatever observations they want. That's not the point. People have to decide for themselves if they want to take the bait.

People focusing on Clinton instead of Trump are comparing unrelated events that don't share pertinent similarities, but people are free to be gullible shills and make the comparison if they want to, certainly.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Federal prosecutors aren't idiots. They aren't going to let a partisan MAGA hack who thinks of Trump as "ma boy" on the jury whether it's Florida or not. Those types will be easily voir dire'd off the jury pool.

So, in a state in which 70% of Republicans support Trump over their own Republican governor, they are going to ban Trump supporters from the jury?

Are they really going to ask jurors how they voted? Is there a precedent for that, or will this be another new rule for Trump only?

Will the defense be allowed to ban anyone who voted against Trump? Since juries are drawn from registered voters, this will be a pretty narrow band of people available.

Clinton's name will not come up in court unless it's in the defenses opening or closing statements.

It won't be there, or at least not in the context of any "whatabout" defense. The "whatabout" defense will be implied. No doubt it will permeate the defense presentation, without ever being explicit.

If it does come up, it will be stricken from the record and the jury will be ordered to disregard the statement and the defense attorney will be reprimanded. At least that is what will happen if the judge is able to fulfill the minimum requirements of her job. I guess that may still be an open question, but we'll see.

There are any number of contexts in which the name "Clinton" could come up in a trial of a former president. Prosecution can object, and the judge can admonish the jury not to think about what they just heard. Which will just make them think about why the judge doesn't want them to think about it. No judge can control the thoughts of the jury.

For example, the prosecution calls a long time WH staffer to testify about Trump and classified material (or I guess it is now "defense material"). On cross, the defense asks the staffer about serving previous presidents. Is the defense going to jump up and object to the very name "Clinton?"

 

[SFIDC3]

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) on Tuesday trotted out a new defense of former President Donald Trump: Namely, that it was fine to keep top-secret government documents stashed in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago because it's likely not a bathroom at the resort that guests could access.

Appearing on CNN, Donalds recited other Republicans' claims about the indictment showing that the United States Department of Justice has purportedly been "weaponized" against the former president.

Host Phil Mattingly, however, pressed Donalds on some of the specific allegations in the indictment about Trump's handling of classified information.

In response, Donalds took particular offense to prosecutors including photos of a Mar-a-Lago bathroom that was packed with boxes of classified documents.

"You guys are throwing up the pictures about they were in a bathroom or on a stage," Donalds fumed. "As somebody who has been to Mar-a-Lago, you can't walk through Mar-a-Lago of your own accord because Secret Service is all over the place. So if the documents are in a place, they are in a room, depending on the time of year, you can't even get into said room."

Donalds emphasized this point by touting the sheer number of different bathrooms at the former president's resort.

"There are 33 bathrooms at Mar-a-Lago!" he said. "So don't act like it's in some random bathroom that the guests can go into. That's not true!"...........

MSN

whew!!!!! I think we should all be relieved now....as long as it's not some random bathroom and we have Trump and his lawyer's word (and this clown Donalds apparently), then we can have a high level of confidence that the documents Trump had (illegally) were in fact secure......

Sadly enough, this ridiculous argument is actually one of the all time classics.....Sure, the fox is watching the hen house, but the fox is a good fox, no need to worry here.....

 

[Snarky Sack]

You can talk about whatever you want and other people can make whatever observations they want. That's not the point. People have to decide for themselves if they want to take the bait.

People focusing on Clinton instead of Trump are comparing unrelated events that don't share pertinent similarities, but people are free to be gullible shills and make the comparison if they want to, certainly.

What do you mean by "taking the bait?" Did you take the bait in this post I'm quoting?

I doubt I would have mentioned Clinton more than once if people had not responded with the "that's different!" defense.

 

[Incumbent]

What do you mean by "taking the bait?" Did you take the bait in this post I'm quoting?

I doubt I would have mentioned Clinton more than once if people had not responded with the "that's different!" defense.

What do you think I meant? Does it matter?

I doubt you doubt that.

 

[efil4]

Why?

im sure, if you take your time, you will make the right connection.

Shoot, you have been "connecting" things this entire thread, dont stop now. But its obvious words, meanings mean little unless if furthers your bias.

You can keep playing games with folks here, ive been lurking and watching all of it unfold. We have many good-hearted folks who will entertain someone like you. Not me.

I see right thru the disingenuous comments - heck, its in your name. Far be it from me to change your mind, its made up already. Now you are just here to conflate things to a point where folks cant keep track of your statements that are ambiguous and re-defined when you get cornered.

We had another member that used to play this game a while back. Huh.

Anyway, teach away. Ill keep watching from a ways back as i do enjoy when folks like you routinely get "schooled" ( oh goodness me- pardon the pun )

 

[Incumbent]

We had another member that used to play this game a while back. Huh.

Many, really, going back to the legacy board. It's cookie-cutter. At this point, it's not hard to tell the people who have the ability to dive into a topic in a compelling way and those who can only hang around the periphery.

 

[Huntn]

I'm very new myself. I'd welcome you, but I have to believe that you've been here longer than I. Let me answer about what I hope for President Trump at the end.

How much money did he make from those alleged violations of the espionage act? Zero, of course. If - and it is very much an "if" at this point, the allegations are true, he showed off knowledge of classified information for the sake of showing off. Mob bosses don't violate the Espianage Act.

Mob bosses are in it for the money. They leave a trail of dead bodies of people who might have witnessed against them, or otherwise slowed their efforts to make money and stay out of jail. There are politicians you could say that of, but Trump isn't one of them. Trump is no mob boss. That analogy will only confuse you.

A far better one would be to think of Trump as an oppositon leader in a third world country whose political opponents gained power and are now using the full weight and armed might of government to prevent him from ever regaining power. Through that lens, current events make much more sense.

I highly doubt that. The "Get Trump" movement has been after him for more than seven years now, long before he was an ex president, even before he was a president. Did he fork up in his call to the Ukraine president? Nope, but we were told by a "whistleblower" that the call violated the law. So he released the transcript, and sure enough, no violation. Just two leaders telling each other what each wanted from the other. Praise Allah for the presidents ability to declassify. If that call had remained hidden, there would still be intelligent people who believe that Trump violated the law in that call.

Hillary did the same as Trump, exactly, and she was never the president. She kept classified information unlawfully, and when it was discovered, instead of saying, "I forked up, what can I do to make it right," she negotiated, stalled, stonewalled, and ultimately physically destroyed evidence that she had magically decided was not government records. The difference is one of personality. Instead of trying to talk circles around the investigators, she feigned a poor memory at every tough question.

Years ago I worked around people whose jobs were classified. Not just the work they did, but their actual job description was classified information. They told people they met that they were contract compliance inspectors, or some such, knowing that no one in government would ever ask a compliance inspector to come visit. Each time I would meet one, they would ask me if I was "read on," meaning did I know what they did. As soon as I said I was, they would regale me with stories of their adventures.

Point is that officials, senior and mid-level, do not take classified information as sacred and inviolable as we might be led to believe from watching "Spy Kids."

Oh.

If that is your stance, there was no need to request information as if you were interested in an honest debate. You could have led with that sentence, and said no more. Still, I'll answer your question as promised:

I'm of two minds about what I want for President Trump. His promises were far better than what he delivered. I believe he could have accomplished his goals of building the wall in the first two years, so not doing it in four makes me think that he was hoping that an unfinished wall would drive his supporters to the polls in fear of a Democrat president who would open our border to massive illegal immigration. Hmm. I believe that the country would benefit from eight years of DeSantis moreso than four more years of Trump.

On the other hand, I hate to see the liars, cheats, document forgers, and justice system weaponizers get a win. If Trump steps down as presidential candidate, in an irrevocable way, all the phony investigations would stop, because they would not be cost effective anymore. That would be good for the country, because these actions by the Entrenched Bureaucracy have been incredibly devisive.

But, unfortunately, we would only get a short break from the anti-Trump hysteria, while they geared up for anti-DeSantis hysteria. Having had a taste of victory, they will see themselves as invincible and go after any Republican or Democrat who is not part of the establishment and has a chance to become president.

If Trump stepped down and an establishment Republican, like Pence, somehow won the nomination, while at the same time Kennedy Jr. won the Democrat nomination, the weaponized government would go after Kennedy, not Pence or whoever. We already saw how the DOJ/FBI treated Pence for having classified documents, so he is not on their list.

So, my hope for Trump is the fight these trumped up charges. There is not enough time for the DOJ to get a conviction between now and the election. So I hope that he becomes president, pardons himself and does a deep clean of the DOJ/FBI.

I'd put the probability of that at about 60%, unless Kennedy or Newsome gets the Dem nomination, then the odds even up.

Thanks for sharing, but holy crap, I disagree with just about everything you said about Mr. Trump. Do you actually believe your retoric or are you pracising a Trump sales pitch?

So I’ll assume I’m talking to resistant wall, that maybe you don’t think about it in these terms (maybe you do), that he severely damaged the Nation and the Federal Govt in his first 4 years, a second Presidential term for the The Head Liar, could easily mean the end of the Untied States of America as a democratic republic.

How people can support this poison is somewhat puzzling other than I believe it is rooted in racism and white privilege and some how thinking that if rights are denied to others, it means you will come out ahead, but you don’t realize you are dealing with a doubled edged sword. As someone recently said it is surprising that Trump gets the support from Middle Class whites as he does, because they are the type of people he stiffs on a regular basis, when he not is appealing to their selfish natures to ask for their votes. His 6Jan suckers are paying the price of his malfeasance. You do agree that they broke the law, yes?

The USA is at a crossroads, the most serious test in our history since the Civil War and this corrupt narcissistic, sociopathic, sad excuse for a human being, he is just the symptom of the illness that lives among us. At any other time in our history, this man would have been somewhere between a laughing stock and regarded a serious menace as a leader and that includes how the GOP leadership felt in 2015-16. They wanted no part of him. Their base overruled them. But this is how it is with most MAGA people, they don’t live in reality. And they appear more than ready to put a knife in democracy for their perceived personal advantage.

Regarding Trump and classified papers, I already explained it to you, what he did was dangerous, egregious, blatant and he was uncooperative, combative and unrepentant as he broke the law, because he thinks he is above the law.

Maybe you are listening to too much dis-information, Fox News, Truth Social? Just for icing on the cake I’d like to know, do you feel like the 2020 election was stolen?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Wow...you are SO bad at this that if you were trolling, it would be horrible trolling because of how bad it is. The fact that you appear to believe this stuff is just sad.

Having gotten the obligatory personal attack out of the way . . .

So, you aren't saying that they will ignore the evidence, but they will "take into account all of the evidence AND all he or she knows about recent history, and then rule in Trump's favor"? Yet later, in this very same post, when I again say that you are claiming Trump supporters will ignore the evidence, you respond "Yes, and you keep saying that as if in wonderment." So, in one post, you can't even keep straight if you are saying that Trump supporters will ignore the evidence and rule in his favor or not. Hell, in the last post, you literally posted an entire paragraph describing a Trump supporter doing exactly that.

Yes, when you repeat the same thing over and over again, I tire of correcting it every time. You are bound and determined to say that taking into account the disparate treatment of Trump and Clinton is the same as "ignoring the evidence," so I stopped beating my head against the wall explaining it to you.

Trump supporters will listen and attend to the evidence to whatever extent they choose, as will Clinton supporters, Biden Supporters, and Bernie Supporters. No one will "ignore the evidence" as in not being at all aware of what it is.

Not at all. I hope his lawyers provide him the best defense possible. But, the reality is "providing the best defense possible" sometimes is simply working to mitigate the damage and minimize the sentence. "Providing the best defense possible" does not always mean getting an acuittal.

So you believe that there is no possibility of exculpatory evidence, or of showing that Trump's actions do not violate the laws that the prosecutors claim it does? Remember until the indictment came out, this was all about "mishandling classified." If not, show me a post, prior to the indictment, where you said, "the charges won't be about classified, they will be about military documents." You fell for it like everyone else did.

In this particular case, Trump is charged (for example) with illegally retaining national defense information. The facts that are laid out are: NARA contacted Trump to return the documents. Trump did not return the documents. A subpoena for the documents was issued. Trump returned some documents, and a sworn statement from his lawyer saying that they had returned everything. An FBI search warrant was issued, and national defense documents were found in Donald Trump's personal desk.

Unless his lawyers can somehow provide evidence that either: There was no subpoena issued, that his lawyer did NOT submit a sworn statement that they had returned everything, or that there were no documents containing national defense information in his personal desk....then the facts clearly show Trump is guilty of that charge.

OK, I get it. Having seen no evidence, but only accusations in an indictment, you know all you need to know for a conviction.

Are you some suggesting the possibility that:
--A subpoena for those documents was never issued?
--Trumps attorney did NOT submit a sworn statement that they had returned everything?
--Documents containing national defense information were NOT found in Trump's desk?

I'm suggesting that the defense will put on a defense.

So, now you are back to just making things up? Or can you provide ANY source that says that Biden and/or Pence were asked to return documents that were found in their possession, and either (or both) of them refused to return those documents, lied and said they didn't have them, and hid them from the people searching for them?

Clinton did.

So, you agree that had Trump returned the documents, he would not be facing these charges?

Why do you ask the same questions over and over again?

Which means that you agree that this is NOT a politically motivated prosecution, and is a prosecution based solely on Trump's actions. Great, now we are getting somewhere.

It is completely politically motivated. 100% You ignored me saying that they would have found something else to "Get Trump," as they had been for more than six years at that point.

Clinton would not have been in trouble if she had said - the very first time that she was asked about it "OMG, I can't believe I didn't know not to keep thousands of classified documents, including national defense documents, in my personal server in my bathroom. Please send a security detail to come and get that server!" she would not have been in trouble either.

Do you admit that her non-prosecution was politically motivated?

Ok, here is what the wording of the Presidential Records Act says:

"The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter."
"Upon the conclusion of a president's term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of his last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President. The Archivist shall have an affirmative duty to make such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions of this chapter."

Is that the whole wording, or did you selectively edit out what I said about copies for personal reference?

Here, it is right above the part you quoted. Can't miss it. Literally.

The idea that presidents can never have a copy of anything from the WH is absurd and completely ad hoc. The PRA is intended to prevent presidents from hiding documents, "stealing from history," so to speak. Extra copies, stored separately, help preserve history.

What criminal penalties are attached to the Presidential Records Act?

The answer is none. Not even an overdue book fine. School libraries have more power to give consequences than the Archivist.

You know why there are no criminal penalties attached to the presidential records act? Because it would be absurd to file criminal charges on a former president for not turning over every document from his term in office. From Washington to Trump, no president turned over every single document.

Are any of the counts of the indictment for violating the Presidential Records Act?

So, that leaves us with one simple question. Is there ANY scenario where a report on US nuclear capabilities (even if it's just a copy) is a personal record belonging to Donald Trump?

What is your evidence that he had a report on US nuclear capabilities?

What kind of report is it? Is it a newspaper report, an open source academic journal, an article in Popular Mechanics, or a Top Secret set of plans for the latest nuclear warhead? That would make a difference, though they could all be called "a report on US nuclear capabilities."

Ok, I'll comment. As soon as you can provide some rationale as to why the actions of Clinton (either Clinton) supporters is relevant to whether or not Donald Trump is guilty, or whether or not the prosecution of Donald Trump is warranted, I'll engage you on that topic.

It is not relevant to whether he is guilty. It is very relevant to whether prosecution of Trump is warranted.

This isn't some one-off, "hey we found this out about Trump, so unfortunately we have to prosecute him." This is a seven year pattern of behavior on the part of the DOJ and the FBI to first try to interfere with, then try to overturn the results of the 2016 election and now try to disqualify Trump from running.

That after having given Clinton a pass just prior to that election with the justification that no one had ever been prosecuted under similar circumstances. That is even more true about Trump.

No honest person who read the OIG report and the Durham Report on Operation Crossfire-Hurricane can say that the DOJ/FBI is an unbiased organization seeking only the truth and to enforce the law. It is the same people doing this, with some minor staff changes. The culture of "Get Trump" lives on the in maxed out Democrat donors who lead the FBI and DOJ.

My advice to Trump opponents is this: Be happy with the indictment. Getting a conviction before the election is a longshot. Even starting the trial before the election will be almost impossible, because Trump's lawyers will delay, delay, delay.

I hope the burning and looting can be kept to a minimum if Trump gets re-elected. Can we at last agree on that?

 

[samiam5211]

whew!!!!! I think we should all be relieved now....as long as it's not some random bathroom and we have Trump and his lawyer's word (and this clown Donalds apparently), then we can have a high level of confidence that the documents Trump had (illegally) were in fact secure......

Sadly enough, this ridiculous argument is actually one of the all time classics.....Sure, the fox is watching the hen house, but the fox is a good fox, no need to worry here.....

SCIF = Secluded Commode for Immediate Family

 

[Huntn]

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) on Tuesday trotted out a new defense of former President Donald Trump: Namely, that it was fine to keep top-secret government documents stashed in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago because it's likely not a bathroom at the resort that guests could access.

Appearing on CNN, Donalds recited other Republicans' claims about the indictment showing that the United States Department of Justice has purportedly been "weaponized" against the former president.

Host Phil Mattingly, however, pressed Donalds on some of the specific allegations in the indictment about Trump's handling of classified information.

In response, Donalds took particular offense to prosecutors including photos of a Mar-a-Lago bathroom that was packed with boxes of classified documents.

"You guys are throwing up the pictures about they were in a bathroom or on a stage," Donalds fumed. "As somebody who has been to Mar-a-Lago, you can't walk through Mar-a-Lago of your own accord because Secret Service is all over the place. So if the documents are in a place, they are in a room, depending on the time of year, you can't even get into said room."

Donalds emphasized this point by touting the sheer number of different bathrooms at the former president's resort.

"There are 33 bathrooms at Mar-a-Lago!" he said. "So don't act like it's in some random bathroom that the guests can go into. That's not true!"...........

MSN

These people are out of their minds. I think most of us remember what happened to General Patradius for leaking some classified documents to his girl friend. Violating classified documents standards is serious business, especially hauling away 30-40+ boxes of Top secret classified documents which is a first and then thinking you can blow off Federal authority because you were President. “I own all this stuff” it’s possible that Trump actually believes that, and then you can legitimately question the man’s mental stability.

David Petraeus and the fall of a general

A profile of David Petraeus, formerly the top US military commander in Afghanistan and intelligence chief.

www.bbc.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

im sure, if you take your time, you will make the right connection.

Shoot, you have been "connecting" things this entire thread, dont stop now. But its obvious words, meanings mean little unless if furthers your bias.

You can keep playing games with folks here, ive been lurking and watching all of it unfold. We have many good-hearted folks who will entertain someone like you. Not me.

I see right thru the disingenuous comments - heck, its in your name. Far be it from me to change your mind, its made up already. Now you are just here to conflate things to a point where folks cant keep track of your statements that are ambiguous and re-defined when you get cornered.

We had another member that used to play this game a while back. Huh.

Anyway, teach away. Ill keep watching from a ways back as i do enjoy when folks like you routinely get "schooled" ( oh goodness me- pardon the pun )

Six paragraphs* to say you're not going to entertain me. I found it very entertaining, thanks!

*See, even without being an English teacher, I know about paragraphs, commas, and shirt.

 

[Snarky Sack]

These people are out of their minds. I think most of us remember what happened to General Patradius for leaking some classified documents to his girl friend. Violating classified documents standards is serious business, especially hauling away 30-40+ boxes of Top secret classified documents which is a first and then thinking you can blow off Federal authority because you were President. “I own all this stuff” it’s possible that Trump actually believes that, and then you can legitimately question the man’s mental stability.

David Petraeus and the fall of a general

A profile of David Petraeus, formerly the top US military commander in Afghanistan and intelligence chief.

www.bbc.com

Then why is not one of the counts he's charged with about classified documents?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Thanks for sharing, but holy crap, I disagree with just about everything you said about Mr. Trump. So I’ll assume I’m talking to resistant wall, that maybe you don’t think about it in these terms (maybe you do), that he severely damaged the Nation and the Federal Govt in his first 4 years, a second Presidential term for the The Head Liar, could easily mean the end of the Untied States of America as a democratic republic.

How people can support this poison is somewhat puzzling other than I believe it is rooted in racism and white privilege and some how thinking that if rights are denied to others, it means you will come out ahead, but you don’t realize you are dealing with a doubled edged sword. As someone recently said it is surprising that Trump gets the support from Middle Class whites as he does, because they are the type of people he stiffs on a regular basis, when he not is appealing to their selfish natures to ask for their votes. His 6Jan suckers are paying the price of his malfeasance. You do agree that they broke the law, yes?

The USA is at a crossroads, the most serious test in our history since the Civil War and this corrupt narcissistic, sociopathic, sad excuse for a human being, he is just the symptom of the illness that lives among us. At any other time in our history, this man would have been somewhere between a laughing stock and regarded a serious menace as a leader and that includes how the GOP leadership felt in 2015-16. They wanted no part of him. Their base overruled them. But this is how it is with most MAGA people, they don’t live in reality. And they appear more than ready to put a knife in democracy for their perceived personal advantage.

Regarding Trump and classified papers, I already explained it to you, what he did was dangerous, egregious, blatant and he was uncooperative, combative and unrepentant as he broke the law, because he thinks he is above the law.

Maybe you are listening to much dis-information, Fox News, Truth Social? Just for icing on the cake I’d like to know, do you feel like the 2020 election was stolen?

This post would be a good start to a thread called "Reasons to Hate Trump and Trump Supporters." When I see the reference to White Privilege, I know the post has nothing to do with the Trump indictment.

I fear if I respond point-by-point I'll be accused of jacking the thread.

 

[coldseat]

So, in a state in which 70% of Republicans support Trump over their own Republican governor, they are going to ban Trump supporters from the jury?

Florida doesn't have 70% Republican support. There are 21.7 million people that live in Florida, 4.6 million of those voted for Ron in the last election in which is received 60% of the vote. Trump got 5.6 million votes for 51.2% of the vote in 2020 in Florida. There are 14.5 million registered voters in Florida. It won't be as hard as you think to find exclude the MAGA extremists. The grand jury in Florida returned the indictment, so it's not as hard as you seem to think it is.

Are they really going to ask jurors how they voted? Is there a precedent for that, or will this be another new rule for Trump only?

I don't think they'll ask how people voted, or maybe they will. If they do, it's because that's an allowable question and not one for Trump only (Why do you Trump supporters always do that?) But they'll easily ask question about peoples feelings towards Trump, their social media, etc. I'd likewise be excluded from from a jury because of my previous social media posting and feelings about what a horrible and corrupt human being Trump is. Nothing new here.

Will the defense be allowed to ban anyone who voted against Trump? Since juries are drawn from registered voters, this will be a pretty narrow band of people available.

I doubt who the person voted for alone will be a standard for dismissal, but if it is, then both the defense and prosecution will be able to do it.

It won't be there, or at least not in the context of any "whatabout" defense. The "whatabout" defense will be implied. No doubt it will permeate the defense presentation, without ever being explicit.

There are any number of contexts in which the name "Clinton" could come up in a trial of a former president. Prosecution can object, and the judge can admonish the jury not to think about what they just heard. Which will just make them think about why the judge doesn't want them to think about it. No judge can control the thoughts of the jury.

For example, the prosecution calls a long time WH staffer to testify about Trump and classified material (or I guess it is now "defense material"). On cross, the defense asks the staffer about serving previous presidents. Is the defense going to jump up and object to the very name "Clinton?"

Clinton won't come up at trial, but you can continue to believe that it will if you want to.

Outside of extreme Republican policy decisions by the SC, some circuit courts and district judges, one of the surprising things about our judicial system is how well it's held up to the machinations of Trump and his whims. His layers consistently lose in court in his defense. This will be no different.

 

[Booker]

Yeah, just a left wing witch hunt...

John Bolton: Trump indictment ‘devastating’

Former national security adviser John Bolton said the federal charges brought against former President Trump last week are “devastating,” adding the indictment should result in the end of Trump’s political career. “This is a devastating indictment,” Bolton, who served under Trump, said Monday on...

news.yahoo.com

Barr: GOP spouting ‘big lies’ comparing Trump handling of classified documents to previous presidents

Former Attorney General Bill Barr called arguments being made by Republicans attempting to compare former President Trump’s handling of classified documents to previous presidents “big …

thehill.com

Mitt Romney’s blistering response to Trump’s damning indictment

Republican senator says ex-president’s actions match those that caused his two impeachments

www.independent.co.uk

Chris Christie Skewers Republicans Defending Trump: 'Blame Him, He Did It'

“Whether you like Donald Trump or you don’t like Donald Trump, this conduct is inexcusable,” Christie said during a CNN town hall

www.rollingstone.com