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

 

[brandon]

I disagree. A Trump supporter with integrity would see how unjust the prosecution was and use the principle of jury nullification to refuse to convict.

How can you assume the prosecution is unjust without yet seeing the evidence? If you don’t even have to hear the case to know it’s unjust, doesn’t that prove your bias?

In the hypothetical posed in which the prosecution proves each and every count it alleges, with no evidence to counter it from the Trump side, I believe that some Trump supporters would vote to convict having believed the judge's attempt to nullify the idea of nullification (if she does) through her jury instructions. Doesn't mean the ones who decide on jury nullification will therefore have no integrity, as I assume your "no" above affirms.

Yes, it does.

In the real world, in which the defense will heavily cross-examine each and every witness the prosecution brings, and will present witnesses of their own, likely including Trump himself, there will be plenty of reasonable doubt for any Trump supporter to hang their hat on when trying to persuade other jurors.

(In your opinion)

 

[Snarky Sack]

So, I'm not confused,

How can you assume the prosecution is unjust without yet seeing the evidence? If you don’t even have to hear the case to know it’s unjust, doesn’t that prove your bias?

Because I am not seeing this indictment in a vacuum in which this special counsel is the first DOJ/FBI person to take a swing at stopping Trump. It wasn't like Jack Smith thought, 'I never imagined prosecuting a former president who is a front runner for the next presidential election.' It is exactly what they have been imagining since 2016.

This indictment is the current culmination of a going on eight year effort to "get Trump" that started with the FBI facilitating HRC's plan to turn fake opposition research into evidence of crimes. Sorry, but I'm not going to pretend that none of the next seven years happened and be shocked - shocked - that they finally succeeded in indicting him.

Maybe "succeeded" is not the right word. They finally decided to indict him, even though their nearly immediate request for a continuance shows that they are still not ready to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, and have the conviction survive appeal, which has been the standard for previous prosecutions back when the DOJ cared about its reputation.

Yes, it does.


(In your opinion)

Thank you, I always forget that part, since nobody else does it.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I disagree. A Trump supporter with integrity would see how unjust the prosecution was and use the principle of jury nullification to refuse to convict.

In the hypothetical posed in which the prosecution proves each and every count it alleges, with no evidence to counter it from the Trump side, I believe that some Trump supporters would vote to convict having believed the judge's attempt to nullify the idea of nullification (if she does) through her jury instructions. Doesn't mean the ones who decide on jury nullification will therefore have no integrity, as I assume your "no" above affirms.

There are indeed cases in which jury nullification is the only way for a person to maintain their integrity.

To avoid confusion, I will now depart from the counter-factual hypothetical in which the prosecution proves its case entirely and Trump is unable to show any flaws in the prosecution's case. It was a good question, and I answered it. But I don't want my willingness to answer a hypothetical to be taken as admitting that that is how the case will go, and I think some of the other posters are starting to do that.

In the real world, in which the defense will heavily cross-examine each and every witness the prosecution brings, and will present witnesses of their own, likely including Trump himself, there will be plenty of reasonable doubt for any Trump supporter to hang their hat on when trying to persuade other jurors.

What the hell world do you live in where a juror believes that the prosecution in a case has proven beyond a reasonable doubt 30+ crimes in which the defendant jeopardized national security with no defense and elects to acquit anyway is a person with integrity?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So, I'm not confused,

Because I am not seeing this indictment in a vacuum in which this special counsel is the first DOJ/FBI person to take a swing at stopping Trump. It wasn't like Jack Smith thought, 'I never imagined prosecuting a former president who is a front runner for the next presidential election.' It is exactly what they have been imagining since 2016.

This indictment is the current culmination of a going on eight year effort to "get Trump" that started with the FBI facilitating HRC's plan to turn fake opposition research into evidence of crimes. Sorry, but I'm not going to pretend that none of the next seven years happened and be shocked - shocked - that they finally succeeded in indicting him.

Maybe "succeeded" is not the right word. They finally decided to indict him, even though their nearly immediate request for a continuance shows that they are still not ready to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, and have the conviction survive appeal, which has been the standard for previous prosecutions back when the DOJ cared about its reputation.

Thank you, I always forget that part, since nobody else does it.

You haven't seen any evidence. You've made it abundantly clear that you haven't. How can you pass judgment without seeing evidence?

 

[Saintamaniac]

Look everyone. Sack has convinced himself that his take is the only correct one and that all of us are wrong to believe that trump is guilty. We should all ignore trump admitting to what he's been charged with. We should admit knowing that he had an employee move boxes that contained classified documents that trump was not supposed to have. We should believe that the entirety of the DOJ is corrupt and willing to put their careers on the line to falsify evidence against trump. We should ignore what we saw take place at the nation's capitol on J6. We should all just join him in his make believe world.

I'm sorry folks. I tried. Mark Twain famously said to never argue with stupid people; they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. In this case, Sack simply has too much experience.

 

[CoolBrees]

I can't wait to see him get indicted two more times this summer.

I love how Texans think they are what America is. You're not. We all look at you like the drunk uncle that talks like he's an automotive engineer but works at AutoZone.

You know the only good thing about Oklahoma? It keeps Texas from touching Colorado.

 

[MT15]

Are you willing to answer a hypothetical question?

Not going to call anyone out. If they want to, they can raise their hand.

Actually, if you look at your post right under that question, they may have already.

Are you going to have the courage to actually show me where I said that? Or are you going to continue your passive aggressive BS? How in holy hell could I have “threatened to systematically exclude Trump supporters from the jury”?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Are you going to have the courage to actually show me where I said that? Or are you going to continue your passive aggressive BS? How in holy hell could I have “threatened to systematically exclude Trump supporters from the jury”?

I hope you're joking, but in case you are not, what I said was:

Are they going to systematically exclude Trump supporters as people on this board have threatened to do?

Obviously, the DOJ, not posters on this board, would try to systematically exclude Trump supporters from the jury. Some posters on this board try to systematically exclude Trump supporters from this board.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I hope you're joking, but in case you are not, what I said was:


Obviously, the DOJ, not posters on this board, would try to systematically exclude Trump supporters from the jury. Some posters on this board try to systematically exclude Trump supporters from this board.

You misunderstand. We try to have civil, intelligent conversations. The Trump supporters we have had here have been incapable of that. If any Trump supporter feels excluded, it is not because they are a Trump supporter. It's because they lack the ability to behave like an adult.

 

[MT15]

Once again you miss apply another of your ridiculous stereotypes. I strongly opposed to death penalty, and I also strongly oppose incarceration for nonviolent crimes.

So no. No prison time for the crimes the indictment alleges.

I wasn’t talking about you, why do you always make it about you? (that is a call back joke)

I said MAGA. The ones who constantly talk about executing people - Pence, Obama, Hillary, Fauci. The ones who thirst for a modern day Nuremberg trial situation. The ones who send pictures of Nazi’s hanging in nooses to those they disagree with and tell them their time is coming.

So, yes, MAGAs fetishize the death penalty. To say otherwise is completely disingenuous. It’s not a stereotype if it is true.

 

[MT15]

I hope you're joking, but in case you are not, what I said was:


Obviously, the DOJ, not posters on this board, would try to systematically exclude Trump supporters from the jury. Some posters on this board try to systematically exclude Trump supporters from this board.

Such a poorly worded sentence. Also, how have I tried to exclude you from this board? I have put up with you targeting me quite a bit, and have never reported you once. I haven’t done a single thing to try to get you to leave.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Such a poorly worded sentence. Also, how have I tried to exclude you from this board? I have put up with you targeting me quite a bit, and have never reported you once. I haven’t done a single thing to try to get you to leave.

Rather than wade through all of your posts looking for the one that I mean, I will withdraw with apologies.

 

[FullMonte]

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?

May we ask how you arrived at "a substantial fine"? Trump is charged with 31 counts of willful retention of defense information. While Trump was president:

--Reality Winner pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Espionage Act and was sentenced to 5 years 3 months in prison. (Trump himself called that sentence "small potatoes)
--Harold Martin pleaded guilty to one count of willful retention of defense information and was sentenced to 9 years in prison.
--Weldon Marshall pleaded guilty to one count of willful retention of defense information and was sentenced to 3 years 5 months in prison.
--Nghia Pho pleaded guilty of one count of willful retention of defense information and was sentenced to 5 1/2 years in prison.

So, if these individuals all pleaded guilty to a single count and were sentenced to multiple years in prison, why should Trump get a "substantial fine" for being guilty of 31 such counts? Even if he agreed to plead guilty to 1 count, shouldn't he at least get the equivalent of the smallest sentence someone got while he was president for that? And, if he does not plead guilty, and goes to trial and is convicted of 31 counts, shouldn't he receive a longer sentence any anyone who saved the government the hassle and cost of a trial (that IS what guilty plea arrangements are designed to do, right)?

 

[FullMonte]

If convicted on all charges, he is facing 75 years. He wouldn't get that because that represents the max sentence for each count. I would settle for 25-30 years. Essentially, right now, Trump is lying for his life because if he's convicted, he will be coming out of prison feet-first.

According to a lawyer who is experienced with federal cases in a video I posted earlier, using the sentencing guidelines and all of the additional factors, he said that Trump's sentence would likely be in the 17-22 year range if he were convicted on all counts.

 

[FullMonte]

I would love to see Trump's lawyers float the idea of Trump agreeing to never running for office again in exchange for the charges being dropped or deferred so long as he doesn't just to see how quickly the Democrats would change their tune about crime and punishment.

I would say that ship has sailed. Too many people are smart enough to see what happens the instant a deal like that is agreed to. It's the same reason I think that Trump has little chance of arranging a guilty plea agreement.

 

[Snarky Sack]

May we ask how you arrived at "a substantial fine"? Trump is charged with 31 counts of willful retention of defense information. While Trump was president:

--Reality Winner pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Espionage Act and was sentenced to 5 years 3 months in prison. (Trump himself called that sentence "small potatoes)
--Harold Martin pleaded guilty to one count of willful retention of defense information and was sentenced to 9 years in prison.
--Weldon Marshall pleaded guilty to one count of willful retention of defense information and was sentenced to 3 years 5 months in prison.
--Nghia Pho pleaded guilty of one count of willful retention of defense information and was sentenced to 5 1/2 years in prison.

So, if these individuals all pleaded guilty to a single count and were sentenced to multiple years in prison, why should Trump get a "substantial fine" for being guilty of 31 such counts? Even if he agreed to plead guilty to 1 count, shouldn't he at least get the equivalent of the smallest sentence someone got while he was president for that? And, if he does not plead guilty, and goes to trial and is convicted of 31 counts, shouldn't he receive a longer sentence any anyone who saved the government the hassle and cost of a trial (that IS what guilty plea arrangements are designed to do, right)?

I don't believe in incarcerating people for non-violent crimes.

I'll sign off on releasing all of those people immediately with fines and community service, or for time served. In particular Reality Winner, but all of them really, though I don't know the details of the other cases.

Trump would need much larger fine for it to be "substantial" for him. Double it from whatever fine he would have been offered in exchange for a plea deal, I suppose.



Maybe the hypothetical should have also included my believing in prison for non-violent crimes, but it did not.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I would say that ship has sailed. Too many people are smart enough to see what happens the instant a deal like that is agreed to. It's the same reason I think that Trump has little chance of arranging a guilty plea agreement.

They would never agree to the deal, because that would mean admitting that interfering with democracy has been their goal the whole time.

 

[FullMonte]

They would never agree to the deal, because that would mean admitting that interfering with democracy has been their goal the whole time.

No, they would never agree to the deal because that is exactly what Trump and his cult would say.