Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (1 Viewer)

[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

 

[Dragon]

I've work in IT security for the DK government and it is standard practice that all personal mailboxes are wipped clean when someone leaves a job just as it is standard practice that all official emails are properly registered and saved in the system at time when they were received.

Every employee - from top to bottom - has to attend a yearly security course, and fill out and sign an official statement saying that they comply with all rules and regulation when it comes to files on their computer and mail and other messages. And yes - random audits are made every year - from top to bottom. I've even been involved in auditing a sitting ministers pc.

So it is actually a standard security procedure to delete/erase everything on an official mailaccount when the person is no longer employed in that position

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The list of seditionist grows larger and larger with each indictment...there are at least 2 more to go, how many more will reveal themselves to be treasonous thugs?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Are you familiar with the Impound Control Act? It states that the president can't withhold funds that have been appropriated by Congress without specifically asking them to and then receiving permission.

Not quite. According to the non-partisan GAO:

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 created the procedural means by which the Congress considers and reviews executive branch withholdings of budget authority. It requires the President to report promptly to the Congress all withholdings of budget authority and to abide by the outcome of the congressional impoundment review process.
That is not the same as requiring him to ask for and receive permission before he withholds the funds. I think it is a great tool. Trump withheld the funds from Ukraine because the U.S. was contributing more than other NATO nations to Ukraine. Let congress review it and go on record saying that they believe that the U.S. should contribute more.

Did VP Joe Biden violate the Impoundment Control Act when he threatened to withhold funds if they did not fire prosecutor he wanted gotten rid of?

Trump withheld the funds in order to pressure Zelenskyy into opening a criminal investigation into a matter that was already investigated solely to damage the reputation of the person he (rightly) assumed would be his opponent in the next presidential election.

He did not connect getting the funds and opening a criminal investigation in the phone call. He said to the only person that was a fact witness to what Trump said about withholding the funds, "I want nothing, I want nothing. No quid pro quo." There is no evidence that he did that, only speculation that he was implying it.

Do you have any evidence of this, perhaps by the number of deportations per year?

How would the number of deportations per year tell us whether Biden was a Democrat president who would open our border to massive illegal immigration? Do you deny that our border is open, or at least far more open than during the Trump administration?

How do you define "justice system weaponizer"?

A person who participates in using the justice system to go after political opponents, with little to no regard to whether they actually committed crimes or whether their prosecution is similar to precedents in prosecuting people who are not political opponents.

 

[MT15]

Good propaganda has a scintilla of truth but never tells the entire story. You should know that if you know any history at all. But sure - there are some falsehoods in there. Number 4 is the most problematic at first glance. Number 3 is also not true in its entirety. Number 5 is misleading, intentionally so.

It is so fascinating to see someone who has this cognitive dissonance - the ability to excuse everything that Trump does, while skewing facts to make what Clinton did appear to be worse. I suppose that’s the only way you can feel good about your decisions.

To this point:

 

[Snarky Sack]

To this point:

I think they change those nuclear codes, pretty often. Probably been changed a bunch of times since January 2021.

Even if they don't, there's been no evidence presented that Trump kept any nuclear codes, so put your mind at ease.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Not quite. According to the non-partisan GAO:

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 created the procedural means by which the Congress considers and reviews executive branch withholdings of budget authority. It requires the President to report promptly to the Congress all withholdings of budget authority and to abide by the outcome of the congressional impoundment review process.
That is not the same as requiring him to ask for and receive permission before he withholds the funds. I think it is a great tool. Trump withheld the funds from Ukraine because the U.S. was contributing more than other NATO nations to Ukraine. Let congress review it and go on record saying that they believe that the U.S. should contribute more.

He used the threat of withholding the money to attempt to force Zelinskyy into opening a sham investigation designed to damage a political rival. That's illegal, and the same GAO you are quoting said as much.

Did VP Joe Biden violate the Impoundment Control Act when he threatened to withhold funds if they did not fire prosecutor he wanted gotten rid of?

A few things. One, it wasn't a prosecutor "he" wanted to see gone. It was a prosecutor most of the Western world wanted to see gone because he was corrupt.

He did not connect getting the funds and opening a criminal investigation in the phone call. He said to the only person that was a fact witness to what Trump said about withholding the funds, "I want nothing, I want nothing. No quid pro quo." There is no evidence that he did that, only speculation that he was implying it.

You can read it for yourself to see that you are wrong.

Full Document: Trump’s Call With the Ukrainian President (Published 2019)

Trump is accused of pressing Ukraine to investigate his political rivals.

www.nytimes.com

How would the number of deportations per year tell us whether Biden was a Democrat president who would open our border to massive illegal immigration? Do you deny that our border is open, or at least far more open than during the Trump administration?

I mean... you could see how many people are deported under Biden and compare it to Trump and Obama, the two most recent presidents. That should be the place to start.

A person who participates in using the justice system to go after political opponents, with little to no regard to whether they actually committed crimes or whether their prosecution is similar to precedents in prosecuting people who are not political opponents.

Excellent. You just described Donald Trump. His attempts to prosecute and investigate rivals are well documented. What's happening now is already turning up evidence, and Biden didn't say a word about any of it. He has stayed out of it and let the Justice Department do its job. It turns out, Trump actually did do some pretty bad shirt. Not only that, he brought it on himself not only by refusing to cooperate, but by actively obstructing the efforts of the government to reclaim shirt he stole.

 

[Snarky Sack]

He used the threat of withholding the money to attempt to force Zelinskyy into opening a sham investigation designed to damage a political rival.

That is pure speculation. That was what the phone call to Zelensky was supposed to prove. When it didn't, Trump's opposition kept insisting that their speculation was evidence.

That's illegal, and the same GAO you are quoting said as much.

Where did they say that?

Again, there is no evidence that Trump withheld the money to get them to investigate corruption that involved a former U.S. vice president, but if he had (which he did not), what law says he cannot? Here is the text of the law you cited. Find the part that backs up your claim, or find it somewhere else.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title2/chapter17B&edition=prelim

Or don't. You don't have to.

A few things. One, it wasn't a prosecutor "he" wanted to see gone. It was a prosecutor most of the Western world wanted to see gone because he was corrupt.

Ok, but Biden did want to see him gone, and it was Biden who threatened to withhold the funds. Had he asked congress' permission to do that?

You can read it for yourself to see that you are wrong.

Full Document: Trump’s Call With the Ukrainian President (Published 2019)

Trump is accused of pressing Ukraine to investigate his political rivals.

www.nytimes.com

I've read that several time, to make sure that I wasn't wrong. I wasn't and I am not. Quote the president threatening to withhold funds if Ukraine prosecutors did not do what he wanted them to do.

I mean... you could see how many people are deported under Biden and compare it to Trump and Obama, the two most recent presidents. That should be the place to start.

No that would tell me nothing about how many people are coming in and not being deported.

Excellent. You just described Donald Trump. His attempts to prosecute and investigate rivals are well documented.

I don't say that is wrong, I ask you to provide examples. If you do, I'll acknowledge that you provided valid examples. If Trump was wrong to do it, I'll say so.

What's happening now is already turning up evidence, and Biden didn't say a word about any of it. He has stayed out of it and let the Justice Department do its job.

Well, of course Biden stays out of it. He stays out of everything. He signs what he is told to sign and reads words prepared for him. It is the weaponized agencies that are doing it.

It turns out, Trump actually did do some pretty bad shirt. Not only that, he brought it on himself not only by refusing to cooperate, but by actively obstructing the efforts of the government to reclaim shirt he stole.

That's so vague, how can I accept it or dispute it?

It sounds like this would sound to you:

Clinton actually did do some pretty bad shirt. Not only that, she brought it on herself, not only by refusing to cooperate, but by actively obstructing the efforts of the government to reclaim the shirt she stole.

 

[J-DONK]

The conservatives posters in here still whining about a double standard is hilarious.

 

[MT15]

I think they change those nuclear codes, pretty often. Probably been changed a bunch of times since January 2021.

Even if they don't, there's been no evidence presented that Trump kept any nuclear codes, so put your mind at ease.

I have no idea what you are blathering about nuclear codes for. You are practically incoherent here.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I've work in IT security for the DK government and it is standard practice that all personal mailboxes are wipped clean when someone leaves a job just as it is standard practice that all official emails are properly registered and saved in the system at time when they were received.

Every employee - from top to bottom - has to attend a yearly security course, and fill out and sign an official statement saying that they comply with all rules and regulation when it comes to files on their computer and mail and other messages. And yes - random audits are made every year - from top to bottom. I've even been involved in auditing a sitting ministers pc.

So it is actually a standard security procedure to delete/erase everything on an official mailaccount when the person is no longer employed in that position

What do they do about government officials who keep Top Secret information on private servers that are less secure than gmail? I would think they would want to wipe them right away. Right away should also be the time when that government official leaves the job, as in as soon as the government finds out they had a private server.

Is that how it would go in DK?

 

[Snarky Sack]

No matter how dire others think Trump's legal situation is, he is still hiring attorneys based on attractiveness as much as legal skills.



Don't assume she is a dumb blonde though, any sexists on here. She sounds smart and confident, the exact kind of woman many people are intimidated by.

 

[brandon]

less secure than gmail?

Gmail is pretty forking secure, homie.

 

[MT15]

Sack: evidently you need us to come up with the facts of the Clinton case, since you keep spouting things that are not facts. This is a waste of time in this thread, IMO, because this thread isn’t about Clinton and you are attempting to excuse what Trump did by conflating it with a much, much less severe case. IMO you are doing this deliberately in order to make Trump look better.

I think Wikipedia is a good source for this because it is in the past, and the Wiki entries are vetted by numerous people and sourced. Here is the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on the Clinton email case:

“During her tenure as United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton drew controversy by using a private email server for official public communications rather than using official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers. After a years-long FBI investigation, it was determined that Clinton's server did not contain any information or emails that were clearly marked classified.[1] Federal agencies did, however, retrospectively determine that 100 emails contained information that should have been deemed classified at the time they were sent, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails were retroactively designated confidential by the State Department.[2][3][4][5]”

please reread this sentence: After a years-long FBI investigation, it was determined that Clinton's server did not contain any information or emails that were clearly marked classified.

The entry has a lot more to refute what you have been saying but we can start here. Can you admit that you were wrong about the amount and nature of the material on her server?

Link to Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy

It’s fruitless to try to have a discussion with someone who either doesn’t know or doesn’t acknowledge basic facts.

 

[Optimus Prime]

MIAMI — Federal and local authorities on Sunday amped up security preparations ahead of Donald Trump’s first appearance in federal court on criminal charges here, monitoring online threats and potential gatherings of far-right extremists while marshaling more police officers to be on duty.


Escalating violent rhetoric in online forums, coupled with defiant statements from the former president and his political allies, have put law enforcement officials on alert for potential disruptions ahead of Trump’s court appearance. He is facing a 37-count federal indictment, 31 of which allege he willfully kept classified documents in his possession after leaving the White House.


Authorities were monitoring plans for pro-Trump rallies in Miami, including one outside the federal courthouse on Tuesday purportedly organized by a local chapter of the Proud Boys, a far-right extremist group, some leaders of which were found guilty of seditious conspiracy in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/11/trump-miami-courthouse-security-protests/

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

This story might interest some people...
*

So you think they've got Trump right where they want him, eh? Wait till you hear what this former federal prosecutor turned high-end defense attorney has to say.

If you think Donald Trump is finally, really, actually, but for real this time, about to face justice — hold on just one moment.

www.yahoo.com

 

[cuddlemonkey]

That is pure speculation. That was what the phone call to Zelensky was supposed to prove. When it didn't, Trump's opposition kept insisting that their speculation was evidence.

It isn't speculation. It's in the transcript. The link I gave you even annotates it to make it easy to follow as well as provide context, including the fact that someone that was on the phone call testified that the section with all of the ellipses is missing crucial information, including the fact that Trump brought up Biden. Essentially, Trump said, "We do a lot for Ukraine, more than anyone else, and we do it because they don't do enough. I would like you to do us a favor, though. Get to the bottom of this Crowdstrike/server/Biden thing."

This is akin to a mafioso walking into a small business and telling the owner, "We do a good job protecting you, and that ain't cheap, so maybe a little compensation would be nice. It would be a shame if something happened to your store and we weren't being paid to protect it."

Where did they say that?

"CONCLUSION

OMB violated the ICA when it withheld DOD’s USAI funds from obligation for policy reasons. This impoundment of budget authority was not a programmatic delay."

Office of Management and Budget—Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance

In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for...

www.gao.gov

Again, there is no evidence that Trump withheld the money to get them to investigate corruption that involved a former U.S. vice president, but if he had (which he did not), what law says he cannot? Here is the text of the law you cited. Find the part that backs up your claim, or find it somewhere else.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title2/chapter17B&edition=prelim

Or don't. You don't have to.

I would be happy to.

"§683. Rescission of budget authority
(a) Transmittal of special message
Whenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided or that such budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons (including the termination of authorized projects or activities for which budget authority has been provided), or whenever all or part of budget authority provided for only one fiscal year is to be reserved from obligation for such fiscal year, the President shall transmit to both Houses of Congress a special message specifying—

(clipped for brevity)

(b) Requirement to make available for obligation
Any amount of budget authority proposed to be rescinded or that is to be reserved as set forth in such special message shall be made available for obligation unless, within the prescribed 45-day period, the Congress has completed action on a rescission bill rescinding all or part of the amount proposed to be rescinded or that is to be reserved. Funds made available for obligation under this procedure may not be proposed for rescission again."

The above link to the GAO decision states that no special message was transmitted to Congress, and that the executive branch unilaterally made this decision without following the law.

Ok, but Biden did want to see him gone, and it was Biden who threatened to withhold the funds. Had he asked congress' permission to do that?

There is a window of time between Congress passing a law to authorize funds, the President signing the law, and the funds being made available. The Trump administration was, according to the GAO, six days past the 45-day mark on releasing the first of the funds. There is no evidence to my knowledge that the Obama administration violated this law.

I've read that several time, to make sure that I wasn't wrong. I wasn't and I am not. Quote the president threatening to withhold funds if Ukraine prosecutors did not do what he wanted them to do.

Addressed above.

No that would tell me nothing about how many people are coming in and not being deported.

So why not find those numbers to see if you are right before making the assertion?

I don't say that is wrong, I ask you to provide examples. If you do, I'll acknowledge that you provided valid examples. If Trump was wrong to do it, I'll say so.

2018: "President Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with the conversation."

Trump Wanted to Order Justice Dept. to Prosecute Comey and Clinton (Published 2018)

The encounter was one of the most blatant examples yet of how President Trump views the typically independent Justice Department as a tool to be wielded against his political enemies.

www.nytimes.com

2019: "On Thursday, Trump gave the names of four people — James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Stzrok and Lisa Page — when he was asked about his past formulation that former federal officials who were involved in investigations dealing with his campaign and that of rival Hillary Clinton were guilty of treason, and reminded that the crime is punishable by death.

Later, the White House issued a statement noting that Trump had directed American intelligence agencies to cooperate with a federal investigation he has ordered into any crimes that might have been committed in relation to those probes and ensuing activity by former FBI and Justice officials."

Trump turns the full force of the government on perceived political enemies

Analysis: The president is wielding power in ways not seen in the United States in generations — if ever.

www.nbcnews.com

July 2020: https://www.americanoversight.org/i...nistrations-politicization-justice-department

October 2020: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/07/trump-demands-barr-arrest-foes-427389

Well, of course Biden stays out of it. He stays out of everything. He signs what he is told to sign and reads words prepared for him. It is the weaponized agencies that are doing it.

This is just some bullshirt. Everything is on the rebound- jobs, economy, foreign relations- from what this administration inherited.

That's so vague, how can I accept it or dispute it?

It sounds like this would sound to you:

Clinton actually did do some pretty bad shirt. Not only that, she brought it on herself, not only by refusing to cooperate, but by actively obstructing the efforts of the government to reclaim the shirt she stole.

You're right. I should be more specific. I'll let the special counsel do that for me.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf

You've been shown where the Hilary stuff is bullshirt, especially compared to this.