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

 

[Snarky Sack]

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

If they checked, why did they accept it? Wouldn't they say, "go back and get someone on record telling the answer to what we're asking." If the NBC description is correct, then it was nothing more than Bobb verifying that Corcoran told her something.

I don't see them able to finally "get Trump" on something that slim.

If Corcoran testifies that Trump told him to lie to Bobb, and that he did lie to Bobb, there may be a crime in that, you're the lawyer. I'll assume that what Corcoran will claim happened was a crime, since it's an important part of the case.

But how is the jury going to take that? I picture one of the Trump supporters on the jury saying "So, this guy admits that he lied and told another lawyer to lie. She did not lie, but now he's telling us that it was Trump who told him to lie? Why are we supposed to believe this admitted liar this time, when he's not even charged with this lie we're supposed to convict Trump for?

The petit jury is not like a message board, where they can just run all the Trump supporter out to achieve consensus.

 

[brandon]

But how is the jury going to take that? I picture one of the Trump supporters on the jury saying "So, this guy admits that he lied and told another lawyer to lie. She did not lie, but now he's telling us that it was Trump who told him to lie? Why are we supposed to believe this admitted liar this time, when he's not even charged with this lie we're supposed to convict Trump for?

The petit jury is not like a message board, where they can just run all the Trump supporter out to achieve consensus.

Again, you're back to depending on the lack of integrity of Trump supporters.

Which, to be fair, is a logical presumption. But, of course, you have to admit that Trump supporters lack integrity to make this jump.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Again, you're back to depending on the lack of integrity of Trump supporters.

Which, to be fair, is a logical presumption. But, of course, you have to admit that Trump supporters lack integrity to make this jump.

How does it indicate a lack of integrity for a Trump supporter to question whether an admitted liar is lying now?

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

An online article relating to this thread...
*

A New Poll on the Trump Indictments Has a Surprising Result

A new POLITICO Magazine/Ipsos poll finds one thing that unites people on the Trump indictments.

www.yahoo.com

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

An online article relating to this thread...
*

A New Poll on the Trump Indictments Has a Surprising Result

A new POLITICO Magazine/Ipsos poll finds one thing that unites people on the Trump indictments.

www.yahoo.com

Many people wish for a speedy trial so the verdict will be known to the voters before they vote in the primaries. There are of course many obstacles to this.

 

[brandon]

How does it indicate a lack of integrity for a Trump supporter to question whether an admitted liar is lying now?

Sorry, I thought we were having the jury nullification discussion again.

On its face, it's not a lack of integrity to wonder if a known liar is lying now. But what's really happening here is you're describing the defense mechanisms inherent in resisting cognitive dissonance, rather than rational decision-making.

You've suggested multiple times that there's no amount of evidence that would convince a Trump-supporting juror to convict. That implies a lack of integrity or an inability to process information rationally.

 

[Snarky Sack]

An online article relating to this thread...
*

A New Poll on the Trump Indictments Has a Surprising Result

A new POLITICO Magazine/Ipsos poll finds one thing that unites people on the Trump indictments.

www.yahoo.com

Very good article for us to consider. A lot to unpack. Too much for one post, so I'll chunk it.

According to a new poll commissioned by POLITICO Magazine and conducted by Ipsos, most Americans — including a large number of Republicans, who the former president is currently courting for his 2024 campaign — believe that the trial in the pending federal case against Trump for mishandling classified documents should occur before the GOP primaries and well before the general election.

This makes sense. Americans are tired of the endless attempts to get Trump. Even Democrats must be frustrated with the lack of results going on eight years. They'd like to see Trump "gotten" sooner rather than later if he can be gotten at all.

I think that the Democrats at the DOJ and the Democrat prosecutor in Manhatten see the indictments themselves as the great "gotcha," and the trials, if they ever happen, just part of the victory lap. Their followers seem to agree, if the members of this board are any indication. The charges in the indictments are presumed to be true, and there is surprise that anyone would question their absolute accuracy.

This part though:

The findings could bolster the position of federal prosecutors, who have been pushing for a trial date as early as this December. Trump is expected to try to drag out the proceedings for as long as possible, particularly because he would likely be able to shut the prosecution down if reelected. But the federal statute that governs the setting of trial dates requires judges to account for not only the defendant’s interest but “the best interest of the public” as well.

is laughable for what blatant spin it is. Prosecutors have not been pushing for a trial date as early as this December. The judge set a trial date of August 14th, based on the prosecution's assurance to the Grand Jury that they had the evidence ready. Then the prosecution asked for a delay until at least December, not "as early as" December.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Sorry, I thought we were having the jury nullification discussion again.

No, that is a different issue. You'd at least be logical in attributing jury nullification to lack of integrity, even if I wouldn't agree with that conclusion.

On its face, it's not a lack of integrity to wonder if a known liar is lying now. But what's really happening here is you're describing the defense mechanisms inherent in resisting cognitive dissonance, rather than rational decision-making.

I don't think so. They jury will know that the guy is out to save his own bacon, and they will know that he is a self-admitted liar. It is figuratively putting two and two together to believe that he would lie to save his own bacon.

It's not just that he lied, it's that he lied to have another lawyer fall on the sword that Trump set up for him. It's no great leap to think that he would help push Trump on the sword. Anything to help himself.

Mind you, this is all based on what the prosecution says they will show happened. I have no way of knowing if it did.

You've suggested multiple times that there's no amount of evidence that would convince a Trump-supporting juror to convict. That implies a lack of integrity.

Again, that is a logical interpretation, but not my interpretation.

 

[brandon]

Again, that is a logical interpretation, but not my interpretation.

I'm going to make this my forum signature.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Very good article for us to consider. A lot to unpack. Too much for one post, so I'll chunk it.

According to a new poll commissioned by POLITICO Magazine and conducted by Ipsos, most Americans — including a large number of Republicans, who the former president is currently courting for his 2024 campaign — believe that the trial in the pending federal case against Trump for mishandling classified documents should occur before the GOP primaries and well before the general election.

This makes sense. Americans are tired of the endless attempts to get Trump. Even Democrats must be frustrated with the lack of results going on eight years. They'd like to see Trump "gotten" sooner rather than later if he can be gotten at all.

I think that the Democrats at the DOJ and the Democrat prosecutor in Manhatten see the indictments themselves as the great "gotcha," and the trials, if they ever happen, just part of the victory lap. Their followers seem to agree, if the members of this board are any indication. The charges in the indictments are presumed to be true, and there is surprise that anyone would question their absolute accuracy.

This part though:

The findings could bolster the position of federal prosecutors, who have been pushing for a trial date as early as this December. Trump is expected to try to drag out the proceedings for as long as possible, particularly because he would likely be able to shut the prosecution down if reelected. But the federal statute that governs the setting of trial dates requires judges to account for not only the defendant’s interest but “the best interest of the public” as well.

is laughable for what blatant spin it is. Prosecutors have not been pushing for a trial date as early as this December. The judge set a trial date of August 14th, based on the prosecution's assurance to the Grand Jury that they had the evidence ready. Then the prosecution asked for a delay until at least December, not "as early as" December.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I would like to see the trial take place in December 2023. It would be nice to have some closure ( if possible) by the end of this calendar year.

 

[FullMonte]

If they checked, why did they accept it? Wouldn't they say, "go back and get someone on record telling the answer to what we're asking."

Exactly how do you “get someone on record” better than a sworn court filing?

But how is the jury going to take that? I picture one of the Trump supporters on the jury saying "So, this guy admits that he lied and told another lawyer to lie. She did not lie, but now he's telling us that it was Trump who told him to lie? Why are we supposed to believe this admitted liar this time, when he's not even charged with this lie we're supposed to convict Trump for?

That would all be dependent upon how it is presented. I suspect it’s more likely that Corchrane will testify to something more like Trump told him to draft the certification saying that the search was done, which he did. Then Trump told him to sign it and submit it, and Corchrane said that he needed to search the areas he wasnt allowed to search before he could sign it. Trump called in Bobb and told her to sign it. She amends the language. Corchrane realized what was going on, and went to the FBI as soon as was practical to inform them of what was going on.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Exactly how do you “get someone on record” better than a sworn court filing?

That is the way to do it. But in that case, they did not get anyone on record saying anything except that somebody else told them something. They didn't even swear to who told them. Wouldn't they have wanted somebody on record saying that they swear that all the required documents have been turned in?

That would all be dependent upon how it is presented. I suspect it’s more likely that Corchrane will testify to something more like Trump told him to draft the certification saying that the search was done, which he did. Then Trump told him to sign it and submit it, and Corchrane said that he needed to search the areas he wasnt allowed to search before he could sign it. Trump called in Bobb and told her to sign it. She amends the language. Corchrane realized what was going on, and went to the FBI as soon as was practical to inform them of what was going on.

It's fine that you're speculating; I have been also. But I do want to point out that this speculation runs counter to the NBC report I posted, which is in line with other reports I have seen. I've never seen anywhere that Trump called Bobb in. The reports say Trump talked to Corcoran and Corcoran talked to Bobb.

 

[brandon]

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?

Not touching this one, I see.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Not touching this one, I see.

I missed it, actually. Always happy to answer a question, of course. Who do you think I am, a Biden nominee?

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?

If that happens, a substantial fine so that no one thinks they can get away with what Trump did (in your hypothetical). Also, four years of community serviced in the White House, being required to turn over his presidential salary to some apolitical good cause?

If HRC had been given a significant fine, I don't think that Trump would have assumed that he could get away with withholding documents lawfully demanded of him as Clinton did.

 

[brandon]

If that happens, a substantial fine so that no one thinks they can get away with what Trump did (in your hypothetical). Also, four years of community serviced in the White House, being required to turn over his presidential salary to some apolitical good cause?

So for you, the appropriate punishment for sharing national security secrets and obstruction of the Department of Justice is the same as aggravated jaywalking?

 

[DaveXA]

I missed it, actually. Always happy to answer a question, of course. Who do you think I am, a Biden nominee?

If that happens, a substantial fine so that no one thinks they can get away with what Trump did (in your hypothetical). Also, four years of community serviced in the White House, being required to turn over his presidential salary to some apolitical good cause?

If HRC had been given a significant fine, I don't think that Trump would have assumed that he could get away with withholding documents lawfully demanded of him as Clinton did.

Clinton didn't get away with withholding docs no matter how many times you say it. Her lawyers returned or disposed as they were instructed to per request and regulations.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

@Snarky Sack .....IF....IF....ALL of what Trump is accused of is true, the consequences you suggest fall short of appropriate sentencing.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

@Snarky Sack .....IF....IF....ALL of what Trump is accused of is true, the consequences you suggest fall short of appropriate sentencing.

Attention please....let the record show that on the afternoon on Friday July 7th, @Saintamaniac gave my prior post a thumbs up reaction emoji