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]

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

Because it would be true.

Why else would the DOJ ever let Trump off with an agreement not to be president?

Maybe it is the phrase "interfere with democracy" you disagree with? How about "keeping Trump form being president" has been the goal the whole time? Why would they agree to that alone if it was not the goal?

 

[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)?

Let me expand on my answer about Reality Winner since I know a little bit about her case and I've known people like her so I know a little about how she ticks.

Trump is not accused of mailing classified material to a journalist for publication. He is accused of showing a couple of journalists that he had a document that was national security, by showing it to them from a distance and telling them it was off the record. So, if I don't think Reality Winner should be in prison, I sure don't think Trump should be.

Say I did think that non-violent crimes, such as passing classified information to journalists and mishandling of defense information should result in jail time. There are plenty of extenuating circumstances to say Trump should not be incarcerated. The big one is how bad it would be for the process of democracy for the leader of the opposition party to be imprisoned by the party in power. That's some banana republic shirt that would damage our standing in the eyes of the world and end what little trust their is for fairness in our system.

It isn't worth all that for the Democrats to win one election.

 

[CoolBrees]

No he is accused of stealing government documents and repeatedly lying to the FBI after refusing to comply with a NARA request for over a year.

 

[Lapaz]

Let me expand on my answer about Reality Winner since I know a little bit about her case and I've known people like her so I know a little about how she ticks.

Trump is not accused of mailing classified material to a journalist for publication. He is accused of showing a couple of journalists that he had a document that was national security, by showing it to them from a distance and telling them it was off the record. So, if I don't think Reality Winner should be in prison, I sure don't think Trump should be.

Say I did think that non-violent crimes, such as passing classified information to journalists and mishandling of defense information should result in jail time. There are plenty of extenuating circumstances to say Trump should not be incarcerated. The big one is how bad it would be for the process of democracy for the leader of the opposition party to be imprisoned by the party in power. That's some banana republic shirt that would damage our standing in the eyes of the world and end what little trust their is for fairness in our system.

It isn't worth all that for the Democrats to win one election.

Do you realize that that's not why Trump was indicted? He would not be indicted just for showing the documents and mishandling them. Many people would be indicted for that, but Trump wouldn't have been indicted for that. He is being indicted for repeatedly refusing to return the documents, violating a subpoena, obstruction, and lying to the FBI. Showing the documents and mishandling them are just on top of the more serious crimes.

By the way, mishandling top secrets can result in violence visited upon the subjects of those secrets. It is very dangerous, and you seem very cavalier about those dangers. Poeple could be killed if the wrong people get those secrets.

 

[Snarky Sack]

No he is accused of stealing government documents and repeatedly lying to the FBI after refusing to comply with a NARA request for over a year.

Then his public service should be the same length of time that he withheld the documents - if they can prove it.

HRC owes since about 2015, IIRC.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

It isn't worth all that for the Democrats to win one election.

It isn't about winning an election. It's about what Trump did with classified information.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Do you realize that that's not why Trump was indicted? He would not be indicted just for showing the documents and mishandling them. Many people would be indicted for that, but Trump wouldn't have been indicted for that. He is being indicted for repeatedly refusing to return the documents, violating a subpoena, obstruction, and lying to the FBI. Showing the documents and mishandling them are just on top of the more serious crimes.

It as another poster who brought up Reality Winner in comparison to Trump. When you come in the middle of a conversation, it is easy to be confused.

By the way, mishandling top secrets can result in violence visited upon the subjects of those secrets. It is very dangerous, and you seem very cavalier about those dangers. Poeple could be killed if the wrong people get those secrets.

Let me know when that happens with the documents in Mar-a-Lago.

 

[FullMonte]

There are plenty of extenuating circumstances to say Trump should not be incarcerated. The big one is how bad it would be for the process of democracy for the leader of the opposition party to be imprisoned by the party in power.

And THAT is the problem here. You are saying, directly, that Trump should not be punished for crimes simply because he is running for president. In other words, Trump running for president means the laws should not apply to him.

That's some banana republic shirt

No. Banana republics are when the person in power can break the law without worrying about getting prosecuted. It is the opposite of a banana republic when being a political leader does not excuse you from prosecution for crimes.

that would damage our standing in the eyes of the world and end what little trust there is for fairness in our system.

I would love to meet these people around the world who would see us negatively for applying our laws to everyone and not giving former presidents a pass when they break the law.

It isn't worth all that for the Democrats to win one election.

It isn’t worth the damage to our democracy that allowing Trump to break the law with impunity simply because he is running for president.

 

[Lapaz]

No he is accused of stealing government documents and repeatedly lying to the FBI after refusing to comply with a NARA request for over a year.

I think we've told Snark repeatedly that Trump was indicted for taking government documents that he had no right to have, and repeatedly lying to the FBI after refusing to comply with a NARA request for over a year. I just posted pretty much the same thing, except I also added obstruction. He broke other laws that Snark mentioned, but he wouldn't have been indicted just for that. He probably wouldn't have been indicted if he had taken his lawyer's advice to just return the documents. Snark doesn't seem dumb, but I think he's intentionally being obtuse about the crimes.

 

[Lapaz]

Then his public service should be the same length of time that he withheld the documents - if they can prove it.

HRC owes since about 2015, IIRC.

Do you not understand that it isn't JUST the taking of the documents?

 

[Lapaz]

It as another poster who brought up Reality Winner in comparison to Trump. When you come in the middle of a conversation, it is easy to be confused.

Let me know when that happens with the documents in Mar-a-Lago.

It doesn't matter what conversation you were having, because you were misrepresenting and minimizing what Trump is being indicted for.

 

[CoolBrees]

Then his public service should be the same length of time that he withheld the documents - if they can prove it.

HRC owes since about 2015, IIRC.

Regardless of your straw man, It wasn't a felony when HRC was involved.

Wanna guess who made it a felony?

 

[J-DONK]

Regardless of your straw man, It wasn't a felony when HRC was involved.

Wanna guess who made it a felony?

One of the funniest self owns of this entire drama.

 

[superchuck500]

He is accused of showing a couple of journalists that he had a document that was national security, by showing it to them from a distance and telling them it was off the record.

Do you think that happened?

 

[Optimus Prime]

When Merrick Garland was nominated to the US supreme court by Barack Obama, Republicans refused to grant him a hearing. Now that Garland is the top law enforcement official in America, the party seems ready to give him one after all – an impeachment hearing.

Republicans on Capitol Hill are moving up a gear in a wide-ranging assault on the justice department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that would have been unthinkable before the rise of Donald Trump.

The party that for half a century claimed the mantle of law and order has, critics say, become a cult of personality intent on discrediting and dismantling institutions that get in Trump’s way.

“I often think, what would Richard Nixon say?” observed Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “He was the original ‘law and order’ president, with that slogan. What would he think now the party is going after the primary institutions of law and order, at least at the federal level? The law and order party has become the paranoid party.”

The trend, apparent for years, has become palpable since Republicans gained narrow control of the House of Representatives in January. Within a month they had set up a panel, chaired by Trump loyalist Jim Jordan, to investigate “the Weaponization of the Federal Government” and examine what they allege is the politicisation of the justice department and FBI against conservatives.

Their frustrations intensified last month when Trump became the first former president to face federal criminal charges, over his alleged mishandling of classified documents. Far from condemning a potential law-breaker in their own ranks, nearly all Trump’s rivals for the presidential nomination in 2024 accused the FBI of political bias, with some even calling for its abolition and vowing to pardon him if elected.

Many Republicans then spoke of a “two-tiered” justice system when Joe Biden’s son Hunter struck a plea deal with federal prosecutors over tax evasion and gun possession charges that will keep him out of prison. A former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employee has alleged political interference in the investigation and accused Garland of failing to tell Congress the truth, a claim Garland denies.

Some Republicans, especially on the far right, are now demanding Garland’s impeachment, a sanction that no cabinet official has suffered since 1876. Kevin McCarthy, the House speaker, told the conservative Fox News network recently: “Someone has lied here. If we find that Garland has lied to Congress, we will start an impeachment inquiry.”

Meanwhile, Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI, is discovering that his status as a Trump appointee offers no immunity against the Republican onslaught.

In May congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a leading Trump ally, introduced articles of impeachment against him, claiming that “the FBI has intimidated, harassed, and entrapped American citizens that have been deemed enemies of the Biden regime” and that he “has turned the FBI into Joe Biden and Merrick Garland’s personal police force” with “Soviet-style tactics”.……

With Trump in trouble, Republicans step up assault on DoJ and FBI

Critics say party that touted its law-and-order credentials now intent on wrecking institutions that get in Donald Trump’s way

www.theguardian.com

 

[MT15]

Then his public service should be the same length of time that he withheld the documents - if they can prove it.

HRC owes since about 2015, IIRC.

Trump cannot perform any public service. He’s incapable of it. It would be worthless to America.

And you are just hilariously unable to discuss what Trump did without bringing up Clinton.

And, what is up with you pretending you are having a single conversation with a single person on here? We can all see what everyone else says, and commenting on any post isn’t coming in a conversation in the middle, because we can see the entire conversation. Maybe you just don’t get the message board format?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Trump cannot perform any public service. He’s incapable of it. It would be worthless to America.

And you are just hilariously unable to discuss what Trump did without bringing up Clinton.

And, what is up with you pretending you are having a single conversation with a single person on here? We can all see what everyone else says, and commenting on any post isn’t coming in a conversation in the middle, because we can see the entire conversation. Maybe you just don’t get the message board format?

I support the public service idea. And since Hilary's transgression came first and lasted longer, as Snarky keeps pointing out, she should go first. Eight years of Hilary in the White House.

 

[Snarky Sack]

And THAT is the problem here. You are saying, directly, that Trump should not be punished for crimes simply because he is running for president. In other words, Trump running for president means the laws should not apply to him.

Nope.

I've said before that a person can't just suddenly announce that the are running for president to get out of being prosecuted for a crime. In the case of Trump, the DOJ should be exercising prosecutorial discretion and understanding that there are plenty of other crimes to prosecute, crimes in which actual people got hurt, and they don't need to pretend that they are these non-partisan enforcers of every violation of every single law.

They are going after him because he is running for president, and because he might win, not in spite of his running for president.

No. Banana republics are when the person in power can break the law without worrying about getting prosecuted. It is the opposite of a banana republic when being a political leader does not excuse you from prosecution for crimes.

Are you seriously unaware that in banana republics, opposition leaders are frequently jailed? No, you are not unaware of it, you choose to dishonestly ignore it.