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

 

[coldseat]

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.

Those claims and the people making them do sound foolish.

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.

That's the thing, you already assume everything is a lie or exaggeration, nothing will change that.

I'm not sure where you've lived your whole life, but good prosecutors at any level in this country don't make a habit of trying their case in public and detailing to the defense every move they're going to make. What you're expecting the DOJ to do is ridiculous and would be the definitionof giving Trump special and unequal treatment before the law. You'll have to wait for the trial, just like the jury and everybody else.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Of course it is my opinion.

Aaaaah, I'll miss you guys . . .

If it's your opinion then say it's your opinion. Otherwise it's just another lie believed by a Trump supporter.

 

[Snarky Sack]

If it's your opinion then say it's your opinion. Otherwise it's just another lie believed by a Trump supporter.

As I never tire of explaining, in a debate it is not necessary to start every sentence with "in my opinion."

Just like you did not.

 

[superchuck500]

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?

This thread details the allegations, evidence, and timeline on Nauta.




Many observers have noted that Trump runs his circle like a mob boss. He pathologically demands loyalty. He believes the law doesn't apply to him. I'm not breaking new ground here. If you want to me to quote/cite thread I will but come on. It's not saying he's a mob boss and kills people, it's talking about the manner in which he seems to govern the circles around him.

And the whole point was simply that in most business or government organizations, you typically see lower level participants flip when they get charged, because they know what they did and they rarely have a compelling reason to stick with the big fish that the prosecution is after.

But in an environment like the one around Trump (or, also, like you sometimes see in mob prosecutions), the loyalty can be far more intense. I wouldn't be surprised to see a person like Nauta roll the dice with the Trump defense out of loyalty, even if it means substantial risk for a conviction on conduct that seems reasonably well confirmed at this point. Or he might be sensible and take a deal - because really he was just being a good servant, he had no real personal interest in the national security material.

I think Nuata is actually a huge figure in this. You can argue all night and day about what constitutes material an ex-president shouldn't have or has or hasn't had in the past, but once there is a proper federal investigation, you can't ignore subpoenas, misrepresent affidavits regarding relevant material, and attempt to physically conceal the material from investigators. Those things are patent violations of federal criminal statutes where "we don't think we should have to respond to this" isn't a defense. Those are sticky charges. He's got a really big choice to make.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This thread details the allegations, evidence, and timeline on Nauta.

I'll read the thread to see the allegations and the evidence, so long as you are telling me that it is evidence, not just DOJ claims of evidence they might show somebody some day. I'll take my time and give it thoughtful consideration, as much so as possible, given I only have three days.

EDIT: Are you sure there is a lot of evidence in that thread? I just took a brief look and what I saw was all the same kind of ridicule of Nauta's attorney as I saw from the armchair Perry Masons on this board.

I'll keep looking but I'm not wading through a lot of the same nonsense I see here.

Many observers have noted that Trump runs his circle like a mob boss. He pathologically demands loyalty. He believes the law doesn't apply to him. I'm not breaking new ground here. If you want to me to quote/cite thread I will but come on. It's not saying he's a mob boss and kills people, it's talking about the manner in which he seems to govern the circles around him.

And the whole point was simply that in most business or government organizations, you typically see lower level participants flip when they get charged, because they know what they did and they rarely have a compelling reason to stick with the big fish that the prosecution is after.

Do you totally discount the possibility that Nauta is sticking with "the big fish," because both are innocent and unwilling to plead guilty to satisfy a DOJ/FBI that has been trying to land the big fish ineffectually for going into the eighth year?

But in an environment like the one around Trump (or, also, like you sometimes see in mob prosecutions), the loyalty can be far more intense. I wouldn't be surprised to see a person like Nauta roll the dice with the Trump defense out of loyalty, even if it means substantial risk for a conviction on conduct that seems reasonably well confirmed at this point.

All of that assumes that they are both guilty, which isn't the way it works in this country. I don't need a law degree to know that.

However . . . I'm not emotionally invested in Trump and Nauta being innocent, and I don't think it will matter to his election chances, other than if he is found guilty and loses, he is unlikely to be pardoned.

If they are indeed guilty, my guess at Nauta's motives for staying loyal are simply that he expects life to be better for him after the trial if he stays loyal no matter how the trial goes. Rightly or wrongly, he expects Trump to reward his loyalty after the trial. Rightly, he knows that if he isn't loyal, Trump won't give him the sweat of his butt crevase.

Nauta is not going to do any prison time if Trump doesn't. That would be the ultimate admission of the multi-tiered justice system. Trump isn't going to prison, the DOJ isn't that stupid. Best they could ever hope for is house arrest, with Nauta "arrested" with him serving as his loyal Valet and cashing whatever loyalty points Trump is willing to honor.

 

[superchuck500]

I'll read the thread to see the allegations and the evidence, so long as you are telling me that it is evidence, not just DOJ claims of evidence they might show somebody some day. I'll take my time and give it thoughtful consideration, as much so as possible, given I only have three days.

Do you totally discount the possibility that Nauta is sticking with "the big fish," because both are innocent and unwilling to plead guilty to satisfy a DOJ/FBI that has been trying to land the big fish ineffectually for going into the eighth year?


All of that assumes that they are both guilty, which isn't the way it works in this country. I don't need a law degree to know that.

However . . . I'm not emotionally invested in Trump and Nauta being innocent, and I don't think it will matter to his election chances, other than if he is found guilty and loses, he is unlikely to be pardoned.

If they are indeed guilty, my guess at Nauta's motives for staying loyal are simply that he expects life to be better for him after the trial if he stays loyal no matter how the trial goes. Rightly or wrongly, he expects Trump to reward his loyalty after the trial. Rightly, he knows that if he isn't loyal, Trump won't give him the sweat of his butt crevase.

Nauta is not going to do any prison time if Trump doesn't. That would be the ultimate admission of the multi-tiered justice system. Trump isn't going to prison, the DOJ isn't that stupid. Best they could ever hope for is house arrest, with Nauta "arrested" with him serving as his loyal Valet and cashing whatever loyalty points Trump is willing to honor.

Right - do you whatever framing you wish. Like I said, the facts around most the Nauta allegations seem fairly well documented at this point. Those simply relate to how Trump responded to what were originally ministerial requests and inquiries by deciding to resist, and that led to a formal federal investigation that is clearly on solid legal ground. Trump had chances to fill proper legal objections to those activities but he chose instead to delay, obfuscate, and hide material.

You can't do that with any material that has been identified as evidence in a federal investigation - it could have been Trump's baseball cards, they've been identified as relevant material, demanded by informal process, and then demanded by subpoena . . . none of which prompted a full and honest response from Trump. The national security stuff is irrelevant to the obstruction charges.

How it all plays out, I don't know - say what you want to say. I'm just pretty confident in the basics here. It's all already in the record.

 

[Lapaz]

I'll read the thread to see the allegations and the evidence, so long as you are telling me that it is evidence, not just DOJ claims of evidence they might show somebody some day. I'll take my time and give it thoughtful consideration, as much so as possible, given I only have three days.

EDIT: Are you sure there is a lot of evidence in that thread? I just took a brief look and what I saw was all the same kind of ridicule of Nauta's attorney as I saw from the armchair Perry Masons on this board.

I'll keep looking but I'm not wading through a lot of the same nonsense I see here.

Do you totally discount the possibility that Nauta is sticking with "the big fish," because both are innocent and unwilling to plead guilty to satisfy a DOJ/FBI that has been trying to land the big fish ineffectually for going into the eighth year?


All of that assumes that they are both guilty, which isn't the way it works in this country. I don't need a law degree to know that.

The evidence is overwhelming that Trump and Nauta are guilty, but they'll get their chance to defend themselves.

However . . . I'm not emotionally invested in Trump and Nauta being innocent, and I don't think it will matter to his election chances, other than if he is found guilty and loses, he is unlikely to be pardoned.

If they are indeed guilty, my guess at Nauta's motives for staying loyal are simply that he expects life to be better for him after the trial if he stays loyal no matter how the trial goes. Rightly or wrongly, he expects Trump to reward his loyalty after the trial. Rightly, he knows that if he isn't loyal, Trump won't give him the sweat of his butt crevase.

Nauta is not going to do any prison time if Trump doesn't. That would be the ultimate admission of the multi-tiered justice system. Trump isn't going to prison, the DOJ isn't that stupid. Best they could ever hope for is house arrest, with Nauta "arrested" with him serving as his loyal Valet and cashing whatever loyalty points Trump is willing to honor.

I don't know whether Trump will go to jail, but Cohen went to jail for being a co-conspirator of Trumps', so I wouldn't bank on Nauta getting out of jail based on whether Trump does or not, particularly because the crimes are far worse. Trump has gotten away with many crimes, as do many powerful people, so it is well known that the justice system favors the rich and powerful. What happens to Nauta isn't going to suddenly be a revelation. Perhaps Nauta thinks going to jail is better than the alternative of testifying against Trump due to the spell he's under, or he maybe he fears for his life if he testifies, otherwise I can't imagine how potentially decades of jail time could be better.

 

[Snarky Sack]

The evidence is overwhelming that Trump and Nauta are guilty, but they'll get their chance to defend themselves.

I don't know whether Trump will go to jail, but Cohen went to jail for being a co-conspirator of Trumps', so I wouldn't bank on Nauta getting out of jail based on whether Trump does or not, particularly because the crimes are far worse. Trump has gotten away with many crimes, as do many powerful people, so it is well known that the justice system favors the rich and powerful. What happens to Nauta isn't going to suddenly be a revelation. Perhaps Nauta thinks going to jail is better than the alternative of testifying against Trump due to the spell he's under, or he maybe he fears for his life if he testifies, otherwise I can't imagine how potentially decades of jail time could be better.

Cohen went to jail for what Cohen did. If there was evidence that Trump did it also, or ordered Cohen to do it, they'd have indicted Trump as soon as Biden took office. Cohen would have happily cooperated, lying weasel that he is.

 

[superchuck500]

I'll read the thread to see the allegations and the evidence, so long as you are telling me that it is evidence, not just DOJ claims of evidence they might show somebody some day. I'll take my time and give it thoughtful consideration, as much so as possible, given I only have three days.

EDIT: Are you sure there is a lot of evidence in that thread? I just took a brief look and what I saw was all the same kind of ridicule of Nauta's attorney as I saw from the armchair Perry Masons on this board.

I'll keep looking but I'm not wading through a lot of the same nonsense I see here.

Yeah, that twitter thread has a lot of noise, it just seemed to have some of the screen shots from the filings. I grabbed it quickly. But it's "evidence" (for discussion) to the extent that it is described and ostensibly legit evidence - like timelines of events, movements of material, and answers to federal investigators (recorded). The kind of stuff that makes quality evidence at trial but no, it's not "evidence" (courtroom) if it's simply a description of those things.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Yeah, that twitter thread has a lot of noise, it just seemed to have some of the screen shots from the filings. I grabbed it quickly. But it's "evidence" (for discussion) to the extent that it is described and ostensibly legit evidence - like timelines of events, movements of material, and answers to federal investigators (recorded). The kind of stuff that makes quality evidence at trial but no, it's not "evidence" (courtroom) if it's simply a description of those things.

Fair enough.

But we've been gaslit so many times by descriptions of evidence against Trump, that I'm actually hoping there will be a trial so we finally get to see the claimed evidence in a forum where it can be questioned and examined and judged.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

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."

so what you are saying is he should get special treatment that you or I wouldn't get?

 

[Snarky Sack]

so what you are saying is he should get special treatment that you or I wouldn't get?

You or I would never have partisan hacks promoted to senior intelligence positions banging each other and talking about how "we'll stop it," meaning whatever ambitions we were pursuing at the moment.

Dadgum skippy the should treat Trump differently than they would treat an unknown private citizen who was accused under the espionage act. They have built up a record of malfeasance that renders them unfit to even be in their jobs, much less fit to credibly go after the senior member of the opposition party.

 

[superchuck500]

Fair enough.

But we've been gaslit so many times by descriptions of evidence against Trump, that I'm actually hoping there will be a trial so we finally get to see the claimed evidence in a forum where it can be questioned and examined and judged.

We very well might - but I think you should always consider what the elements of the individual crimes are (their components), what kind of evidence it would take to prove those elements, and how likely it is the known description of the evidence is to be wrong, based on what we do know to have happened.

For example, the primary obstruction charge (Count 32) details what happened when Trump received the May 11 2022 subpoena. The indictment alleges that Trump instructed Lawyer 1 (now determined to be Evan Cochran) to misrepresent to the FBI about the full scope of documents held at Mar-a-Lago, causing a false certification to be made, and that additional steps were taken to hide material.

We already know that the certification was false for two reasons. First, obviously, the material found at MAL at the time of the search was relevant, not turned over to FBI, and not on the certification . . . ergo, the certification was false. And supporting that, the lawyer that signed the certification at Evan Corcoran's request (Christina Bobb) has made it known that she told DOJ that she wouldn't sign it based on her personal knowledge and only on "information provided to me" because she had strong reason to believe the accounting of material was not accurate or complete. And we also know that the prosecution has Corcoran's notes because Trump asserted they were privileged and lost. Corcoran has said that he keeps detailed notes. Testimony from Bobb and Corcoran that Trump instructed them, corroborated by the contemporaneous notes and sworn, photo-documented testimony from investigators, it appears easy for DOJ to prove that the certification was false. And with Bobb and Corcoran testifying for the government that he instructed it, Trump's only defense is that they're lying (even having planned it at the time of Corcoran's notes).

So sure, you can sit there and ponder some possible scenario where DOJ's evidence goes down in flames and who knows - but just objectively looking at the case, in the same lens you would look at any prosecution, it seems pretty damn solid. But who knows, maybe all the conspiracies are real

 

[Snarky Sack]

We very well might - but I think you should always consider what the elements of the individual crimes are (their components), what kind of evidence it would take to prove those elements, and how likely it is the known description of the evidence is to be wrong, based on what we do know to have happened.

For example, the primary obstruction charge (Count 32) details what happened when Trump received the May 11 2022 subpoena. The indictment alleges that Trump instructed Lawyer 1 (now determined to be Evan Cochran) to misrepresent to the FBI about the full scope of documents held at Mar-a-Lago, causing a false certification to be made, and that additional steps were taken to hide material.

We already know that the certification was false for two reasons. First, obviously, the material found at MAL at the time of the search was relevant, not turned over to FBI, and not on the certification . . . ergo, the certification was false. And supporting that, the lawyer that signed the certification at Evan Corcoran's request (Christina Bobb) has made it known that she told DOJ that she wouldn't sign it based on her personal knowledge and only on "information provided to me" because she had strong reason to believe the accounting of material was not accurate or complete. And we also know that the prosecution has Corcoran's notes because Trump asserted they were privileged and lost. Corcoran has said that he keeps detailed notes. Testimony from Bobb and Corcoran that Trump instructed them, corroborated by the contemporaneous notes and sworn, photo-documented testimony from investigators, it appears easy for DOJ to prove that the certification was false. And with Bobb and Corcoran testifying for the government, Trump's only defense is that they're lying (even having planned it at the time of Corcoran's notes).

So sure, you can sit there and ponder some possible scenario where DOJ's evidence goes down in flames and who knows - but just objectively looking at the case, in the same lens you would look at any prosecution, it seems pretty damn solid. But who knows, maybe all the conspiracies are real

My understanding, based on news accounts, of the Trump-Corcoran-Bobb communication about creating and signing a certification is that Trump told Corcoran to to create and sign the certification, and that Corcoran drafted the certification and presented it to Bobb. Bobb then changed to draft to show that she was only certifying that she had been told something, not that she had personal knowledge of something.

Bobb, who was Trump’s custodian of record at the time, did not draft the statement, according to the three sources who do not want to comment publicly because of the sensitive nature of the sprawling federal investigation.

Instead, Trump’s lead lawyer in the case at the time, Evan Corcoran, drafted it and told her to sign it, Bobb told investigators according to the sources. Bobb also spoke to investigators about Trump legal adviser Boris Epshteyn, who she said did not help draft the statement but was minimally involved in discussions about the records, according to the sources.

. . .

Before Bobb signed the document, she insisted it be rewritten with a disclaimer that said she was certifying Trump had no more records “based upon the information that has been provided to me,” the sources said of what she told investigators. Bobb identified the person who gave her that “information” as Corcoran, the sources said.

You could argue that this is Trump telling his lawyers to lie. But you could also argue that this is two lawyers trying to comply with their clients' wishes as well as they could legally and creating a document that was true in that Bobb was indeed told whatever the document says she was told. If they did not follow his word exactly, but did the closest legal thing, that was good lawyering in protecting their client from breaking the law.

That is the kind of thing that the FBI or DOJ should have checked before accepting the statement, if they expected to be able to hold someone accountable for falsifying a document.

 

[superchuck500]

My understanding, based on news accounts, of the Trump-Corcoran-Bobb communication about creating and signing a certification is that Trump told Corcoran to to create and sign the certification, and that Corcoran drafted the certification and presented it to Bobb. Bobb then changed to draft to show that she was only certifying that she had been told something, not that she had personal knowledge of something.

Bobb, who was Trump’s custodian of record at the time, did not draft the statement, according to the three sources who do not want to comment publicly because of the sensitive nature of the sprawling federal investigation.

Instead, Trump’s lead lawyer in the case at the time, Evan Corcoran, drafted it and told her to sign it, Bobb told investigators according to the sources. Bobb also spoke to investigators about Trump legal adviser Boris Epshteyn, who she said did not help draft the statement but was minimally involved in discussions about the records, according to the sources.

. . .

Before Bobb signed the document, she insisted it be rewritten with a disclaimer that said she was certifying Trump had no more records “based upon the information that has been provided to me,” the sources said of what she told investigators. Bobb identified the person who gave her that “information” as Corcoran, the sources said.

You could argue that this is Trump telling his lawyers to lie. But you could also argue that this is two lawyers trying to comply with their clients' wishes as well as they could legally and creating a document that was true in that Bobb was indeed told whatever the document says she was told. If they did not follow his word exactly, but did the closest legal thing, that was good lawyering in protecting their client from breaking the law.

That is the kind of thing that the FBI or DOJ should have checked before accepting the statement, if they expected to be able to hold someone accountable for falsifying a document.

They checked. I promise you. Corcoran’s will be important here.

 

[Saintamaniac]

As I never tire of explaining, in a debate it is not necessary to start every sentence with "in my opinion."

Just like you did not.

We are not debating. You're pulling shirt out of your arse because that's all you have to defend the indefensible and others are calling you on your BS. You tried to hide your true Trump supporting self but in the end you couldn't so you gave up trying and just let it all out.

Debating is forming opinions based on facts. You sir, have no facts to support anything you have put forth. Instead you have repeated the same old tired Trump supporter lies as the others.

I will give you credit for for your veracity in maintaining those lies. You are a true believer and in the end, you may not meet the faith that the Jim Jones followers met but the end result is that you'll realize exactly how taken you have been. I feel sad for anyone you have "educated" in light of the lies you've attempted to spread here.

 

[brandon]

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.

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.

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.

Can we work through a hypothetical for a second?

Consider the option that all of what the DOJ is alleging they have for evidence is completely, wholly true, with no other interpretation than the one they have given. Considering how brazen it would be to come at a former president without having every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed, this is a distinct possibility.

What should happen to Trump then?

 

[MT15]

The FBI is basically a conservative-leaning organization as is the DOJ, to an extent. The idea, based wholly on texts from 7 years ago between one agent and one lawyer, that the FBI is manufacturing evidence and that the DOJ is indicting based on manufactured evidence is looney tunes level shirt.