Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (3 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

 

[brandon]

They don't have to.

I believe that prosecuting the presidential front runner of the opposition party during the election year looks so politically motivated that if they were doing it apolitically, they would want to be as transparent as possible as early as possible, to try to overcome the natural conclusion people will draw that this is more of "We'll STOP it."

Isn't it likely that if they were doing this, you'd just invent something else to confirm your bias?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Isn't it likely that if they were doing this, you'd just invent something else to confirm your bias?

I don't need to invent things to get that the DOJ and FBI have been trying to "STOP it," since 2016. I have it in their own words.

 

[superchuck500]

Nauta finally got representation.
Former public defender specializing in DUI defense.

Meet Sasha Dadan - Experienced Attorney at Dadan Law Firm, Florida

Discover Sasha Dadan's legal expertise in criminal, family, and civillaw at Dadan Law Firm. Committed to justice and client satisfaction. Fluent in Spanish,active community member.

www.dadanlawfirm.com

"A very responsible and best lawyer."


I'm definitely adding that to my bio. I'm even going to put it on my business cards.

 

[DaveXA]

I don't need to invent things to get that the DOJ and FBI have been trying to "STOP it," since 2016. I have it in their own words.

Oh sure you do. Lol.

 

[Saintamaniac]

They went after Nauta specifically because his lack of resources with which to defend himself.

This is simply not true. Prove me wrong. Show me the evidence that they went after Nauta SPECIFICALLY because of his lack of resources with which to defend himself. If you can't then this is a lie or your opinion or both.

 

[superchuck500]

Not everyone can afford as many high-paid lawyers as the DOJ can.

They went after Nauta specifically because his lack of resources with which to defend himself.

They went after Nauta because he was the one who actually physically moved the material around - and he brazenly lied about it.

He has substantial personal jeopardy. A reasonable person would plea and go state’s evidence but Trump operates like a mob boss and his inner people probably won’t flip.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This is simply not true. Prove me wrong. Show me the evidence that they went after Nauta SPECIFICALLY because of his lack of resources with which to defend himself. If you can't then this is a lie or your opinion or both.

Of course it is my opinion.

Aaaaah, I'll miss you guys . . .

 

[Snarky Sack]

They went after Nauta because he was the one who actually physically moved the material around - and he brazenly lied about it.

Is there evidence for that or just the accusation so far?

He has substantial personal jeopardy. A reasonable person would plea and go state’s evidence but Trump operates like a mob boss and his inner people probably won’t flip.

Really? Trump kills people who testify against him or to prevent them form testifying against him? They hang themselves in their cells with the security cameras mysteriously malfunctioning?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Is there evidence for that or just the accusation so far?

Really? Trump kills people who testify against him or to prevent them form testifying against him? They hang themselves in their cells with the security cameras mysteriously malfunctioning?

Does video count?

"During that June 3, 2022 visit, law enforcement officials were handed an envelope of 38 classified documents and told that all records sought by a subpoena were being turned over and that a “diligent search” of the home had been done. But investigators had reason to believe that was not true based on the relocation of boxes that they had observed on video, and that additional records remained at the house.

The movement of boxes by Nauta was detailed in last month’s indictment, but its inclusion in the search warrant affidavit helps explain why the Justice Department felt it had probable cause to search Trump’s home on Aug. 8, 2022 and why investigators were concerned that documents were being intentionally withheld from them.

The affidavit recounts how someone identified only as “Witness 5” was seen on multiple days carrying either cardboard or bankers’ boxes in and out of the anteroom at the house. The affidavit does not mention Nauta by name, but the dates of the actions — as well as of an FBI interview “during which the location of boxes was a significant subject of questioning” — line up with the dates cited in the indictment."

In Trump case, Justice Dept. unseals previously blacked-out portions from search warrant application

The Justice Department has disclosed some of the previously blacked-out portions of a warrant application it submitted last year to gain authorization to search former President Donald Trump’s Florida property for classified documents.

apnews.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

Does video count?

"During that June 3, 2022 visit, law enforcement officials were handed an envelope of 38 classified documents and told that all records sought by a subpoena were being turned over and that a “diligent search” of the home had been done. But investigators had reason to believe that was not true based on the relocation of boxes that they had observed on video, and that additional records remained at the house.

The movement of boxes by Nauta was detailed in last month’s indictment, but its inclusion in the search warrant affidavit helps explain why the Justice Department felt it had probable cause to search Trump’s home on Aug. 8, 2022 and why investigators were concerned that documents were being intentionally withheld from them.

The affidavit recounts how someone identified only as “Witness 5” was seen on multiple days carrying either cardboard or bankers’ boxes in and out of the anteroom at the house. The affidavit does not mention Nauta by name, but the dates of the actions — as well as of an FBI interview “during which the location of boxes was a significant subject of questioning” — line up with the dates cited in the indictment."

In Trump case, Justice Dept. unseals previously blacked-out portions from search warrant application

The Justice Department has disclosed some of the previously blacked-out portions of a warrant application it submitted last year to gain authorization to search former President Donald Trump’s Florida property for classified documents.

apnews.com

The video counts as soon as I see it, absolutely. Until then, your statements were based on accusations in the indictment, not evidence you can show.

You realize that this AP article piles assumption on assumption, right?

The agents "were handed an envelope?" How does that translate to "Nauta brazenly lied?" That passive voice gives me no confidence in the truthfulness of that claim.

If all they've got is Nauta moving boxes, they still have to prove that said documents were in the boxes, unless they were marked "Documents that Trump told me to Hide."

 

[coldseat]

They don't have to.

I believe that prosecuting the presidential front runner of the opposition party during the election year looks so politically motivated that if they were doing it apolitically, they would want to be as transparent as possible as early as possible, to try to overcome the natural conclusion people will draw that this is more of "We'll STOP it."

Transparency doesn't do anything to satiate right wing demands/outrage. The DOJ could be transparent as hell and you all would still say it's all fake or whatever little catch phrase y'all come up with.

 

[brandon]

The video counts as soon as I see it, absolutely. Until then, your statements were based on accusations in the indictment, not evidence you can show.

You seriously…SERIOUSLY…are suggesting that the federal government would make an accusation, which they claim to be supported with video evidence, without actually having said video?

I’m sure once they produce the video, clearly showing Nauta moving the boxes, you’ll just claim they can’t prove it’s him because it wasn’t shot in 4K HDR.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You seriously…SERIOUSLY…are suggesting that the federal government would make an accusation, which they claim to be supported with video evidence, without actually having said video?

I’m sure once they produce the video, clearly showing Nauta moving the boxes, you’ll just claim they can’t prove it’s him because it wasn’t shot in 4K HDR.

They will have "a video," no doubt in my mind.

What it will show, we will not know until we see it. Are you expecting me to immediately accept the accusation is true because someone said "video?"

 

[FullMonte]

The agents "were handed an envelope?" How does that translate to "Nauta brazenly lied?" That passive voice gives me no confidence in the truthfulness of that claim.

It doesn't. But:

Question: "Does any - are you aware of any boxes being brough to his home - his suite?
Answer (NAUTA): "NO."

Now, if they have video of him moving those boxes into the residence, that would be a pretty brazen lie, wouldn't it?

Question: do you have any information that could -- that would -- that could help us understand, like, where they were kept, how they were kept, were they secured, were they locked? Something that makes the intelligence community feel better about these things, you know?
Answer (NAUTA): "I wish, I wish I could tell you. I don't know. I don't -- I honestly don't know.

Now, the indictment includes a photograph of the boxes in the storage room, having toppled over with a document bearing classified markings visible that Nauta texted to another individual. That would also be a brazen lie, wouldn't it?

If all they've got is Nauta moving boxes, they still have to prove that said documents were in the boxes, unless they were marked "Documents that Trump told me to Hide."

Well, since he texted a photograph of boxes in the storage room, with a document marked classified visible; and he is on video moving boxes from that room into the residence. If that document was not found in that storage room, and was found in the residence, that would be a pretty clear indication that he moved a box containing a document that he knew had classified markings on it into the residence. If that document is one of the documents that is listed in the indictment, that would be pretty clear evidence that one of the included documents was moved by Nauta, and that he was aware of it.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Transparency doesn't do anything to satiate Right wing demands/outrage. The DOJ could be transparent as hell and you all would still say it's all fake or whatever little catch phrase y'all come up with.

Maybe we would, but at least we would not have the legitimate argument about transparency. That is how you deny credibility to people accusing you of being dishonest. Be so honest that they sound foolish clinging to those claims.

Keep in mind that in the wake of the IG Report and the Durham Report on DOJ misconduct, they started out in the hole, reputation-wise, at the beginning of this indictment. They need to be transparent to rebuild that reputation. Instead, they seem to be doubling down on the cover-ups.

 

[FullMonte]

You seriously…SERIOUSLY…are suggesting that the federal government would make an accusation, which they claim to be supported with video evidence, without actually having said video?

I’m sure once they produce the video, clearly showing Nauta moving the boxes, you’ll just claim they can’t prove it’s him because it wasn’t shot in 4K HDR.

you haven't been paying attention, have you? He has repeatedly stated that he believes the FBI would lie about the evidence that they have, that they claim they presented to the grand jury that issued the indictment, all in the hope of getting Trump....by, I guess, going to trial without the evidence to support their claim.

 

[Snarky Sack]

It doesn't. But:

Question: "Does any - are you aware of any boxes being brough to his home - his suite?
Answer (NAUTA): "NO."

Now, if they have video of him moving those boxes into the residence, that would be a pretty brazen lie, wouldn't it?

Question: do you have any information that could -- that would -- that could help us understand, like, where they were kept, how they were kept, were they secured, were they locked? Something that makes the intelligence community feel better about these things, you know?
Answer (NAUTA): "I wish, I wish I could tell you. I don't know. I don't -- I honestly don't know.

Where are you getting all that? It looks like a cut and paste but there's no link, so I can't tell if you copied it or just typed it out as a hypothetical.

Now, the indictment includes a photograph of the boxes in the storage room, having toppled over with a document bearing classified markings visible that Nauta texted to another individual. That would also be a brazen lie, wouldn't it?

By Allah! The indictment includes a photograph of the boxes in the storage room that the DOJ alleges Nauta texted to another individual.

These discussions are pointless if you refuse to acknowledge the different between an allegation and a fact. You keep using one allegation as factual back up for another, and that makes no logical sense.

Well, since he texted a photograph of boxes in the storage room, with a document marked classified visible; and he is on video moving boxes from that room into the residence. If that document was not found in that storage room, and was found in the residence, that would be a pretty clear indication that he moved a box containing a document that he knew had classified markings on it into the residence. If that document is one of the documents that is listed in the indictment, that would be pretty clear evidence that one of the included documents was moved by Nauta, and that he was aware of it.

Again, the DOJ claims that he is on video. Unless that video has been put out and I missed it?

Two ifs on top of two allegations in one paragraph.

 

[FullMonte]

Where are you getting all that? It looks like a cut and paste but there's no link, so I can't tell if you copied it or just typed it out as a hypothetical.

That's word for word from the interview that Nauta did. Of course, that comes from the indictment, so I'm sure you're going to claim that it's probably not true.

By Allah! The indictment includes a photograph of the boxes in the storage room that the DOJ alleges Nauta texted to another individual.

So, what's your hypothesis? Do you think that the DOJ is going to try and tamper with Nauta, and get him to lie to incriminate Trump by threatening him with trial where they don't actually have evidence of his guilt?

These discussions are pointless if you refuse to acknowledge the different between an allegation and a fact. You keep using one allegation as factual back up for another, and that makes no logical sense.

Yeah, it's entirely possible that the FBI simply lied about all of this, and they actually went to a grand jury in a courtroom, in front of a judge, and did not produce this evidence, and yet the grand jury still issued an indictment, and the judge is not sanctioning anyone involved for putting completely false information in a court filed indictment.

And, again, for what goal? To somehow "get Trump"? How? When this all falls apart in court when they can't produce the actual evidence that they claimed they had in the indictment, Trump will be vindicated, the DOJ will be embarassed, and the lawyers involved on the prosecution side will face sanctions and likely disbarrment.