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]

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

Wanna guess who made it a felony?

She can do community service for the misdemeanor then.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Do you think that happened?

I have no idea. It is the Justice Department's claim, not mine. I was asked to answer a very counter-factual hypothetical in which the DOJ is being honest.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Here's all you gotta do to get me to think Trump should go to prison:

Just erase my memory of the last seven years of the "Department of Just Us" (Just Us Democrats) and the Democrats in congress ineffectually pursuing Trump with a kitchen sink approach to denying the voters the right to vote him in for a second term.

Then I might believe that this latest one is any different.

Or . . . you could explain why I should believe that this latest is different from all the past attempts. I'd love to read that explanation.

 

[MT15]

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.

This is simply false. The investigation into Trump had begun long before he declared his candidacy. In fact, he declared his candidacy much earlier than is customary because he hoped it would make the DOJ stop its investigation. Revisionist.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This is simply false. The investigation into Trump had begun long before he declared his candidacy. In fact, he declared his candidacy much earlier than is customary because he hoped it would make the DOJ stop its investigation. Revisionist.

Incredibly dishonest. They've been going after him since 2016 with one lie after another and no one with more than three brain cells didn't know that Trump wanted to be president again and that a large percentage of the country's voters wanted him to.

 

[MT15]

Incredibly dishonest. They've been going after him since 2016 with one lie after another and no one with more than three brain cells didn't know that Trump wanted to be president again and that a large percentage of the country's voters wanted him to.

A large percentage? Lol

No, more revisionist stuff. There was a whole lot of discussion that Trump would never want to run again because he could never risk the blow to his ego that yet another loss would impose. And he wasn’t saying he wanted to run again either, until after the search warrant and after he realized he wasn’t just going to get away with his stolen documents.

 

[Snarky Sack]

A large percentage? Lol

No, more revisionist stuff. There was a whole lot of discussion that Trump would never want to run again because he could never risk the blow to his ego that yet another loss would impose.

Yes, from people who feared him running again.

And he wasn’t saying he wanted to run again either, until after the search warrant and after he realized he wasn’t just going to get away with his stolen documents.

Too absurd to respond to.

 

[Snarky Sack]

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.

Ordinarily, I would respond with some witty remarks about the greatness of Texas or a satirical video about west coastees coming to Texas to escape their heck hole cities and to vote for Democrats who want to make Texas the same as what they escaped from.

But then I see your own location, and remember that in 2020, Portland, Oregon showed itself to be the center of the butt crevasse of the United States, so no need to bother.

 

[FullMonte]

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.

Gotcha. The fact that Trump is running for president should not get him a pass 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.

Gotcha. The fact that Trump is running for president means that the DOJ should exercise proseuctorial discretion and give him a pass for a crime.

Wait...what?

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 matter how many times you say this, it simply isn't true. Let's make it simple. The affidavit for the search warrant was signed on August 5, 2022. Now I'm sure that there was plenty of investigation being done before that, but let's go with that date. Can you find ANYTHING from Trump that directly indicated he was going to run in 2024 prior to that date? Or, do you have a theory that doesn't relate the the criminal charges on why Trump announced his 2024 candidacy 8 months earlier than he did his 2016 candidacy?

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.

No, I'm aware that in banana republics opposition leaders are frequently jailed for speaking out against the current leaders. But, are you aware that in banana republics, political leaders often commit crimes because they know they will not be prosecuted simply because they are political leaders?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Gotcha. The fact that Trump is running for president should not get him a pass for a crime.



Gotcha. The fact that Trump is running for president means that the DOJ should exercise proseuctorial discretion and give him a pass for a crime.

Wait...what?



No matter how many times you say this, it simply isn't true. Let's make it simple. The affidavit for the search warrant was signed on August 5, 2022. Now I'm sure that there was plenty of investigation being done before that, but let's go with that date. Can you find ANYTHING from Trump that directly indicated he was going to run in 2024 prior to that date? Or, do you have a theory that doesn't relate the the criminal charges on why Trump announced his 2024 candidacy 8 months earlier than he did his 2016 candidacy?

If you are just going to continue with strawman arguments, you don't need me for that.

Trump is the frontrunner for the opposition party now, and before he was the frontrunner, he was the presumed frontrunner.

If you are claiming you really don't know the difference between a frontrunner and a guy who suddenly announces out of the blue to avoid prosecution, we're done.

No, I'm aware that in banana republics opposition leaders are frequently jailed for speaking out against the current leaders. But, are you aware that in banana republics, political leaders often commit crimes because they know they will not be prosecuted simply because they are political leaders?

Yes, the Bidens have been doing that for almost four years now.

 

[FullMonte]

If you are just going to continue with strawman arguments, you don't need me for that.

Trump is the frontrunner for the opposition party now, and before he was the frontrunner, he was the presumed frontrunner.

If you are claiming you really don't know the difference between a frontrunner and a guy who suddenly announces out of the blue to avoid prosecution, we're done.

Not even close to a straw man. I simply pointed out that your two consecutive statements were contradictory.

We have asked you repeatedly here how you quantify what makes someone the front runner (and therefore immune from prosecution), and you never have done so.

So, can you give me a simple yes or no answer to this question?

“Should the fact that Donald Trump is running for president mean that he should not be prosecuted for crimes?”

Yes, the Bidens have been doing that for almost four years now.

Ok. You have repeatedly claimed that you don’t believe that any of the evidence in the indictment of Trump is valued because you haven’t seen it.

So, what evidence have you actually seen that Biden has had ANYTHING to do with the prosecution of Donald Trump?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Not even close to a straw man. I simply pointed out that your two consecutive statements were contradictory.

We have asked you repeatedly here how you quantify what makes someone the front runner (and therefore immune from prosecution), and you never have done so.

So, can you give me a simple yes or no answer to this question?

“Should the fact that Donald Trump is running for president mean that he should not be prosecuted for crimes?”

I'll try once more, sure.

The fact that Donald Trump is the frontrunner for the opposition party means that this ongoing prosecution of him by the party in power is a terrible idea for the credibility of our democratic system.

If you want an adult discussion, stop inventing strawmen, and talk about what I actually say.

It is more than clear to anyone even semi-conscious, much less woke, that this prosecution is just the latest iteration of the seven years plus effort to "STOP it."

Ok. You have repeatedly claimed that you don’t believe that any of the evidence in the indictment of Trump is valued because you haven’t seen it.

No, I have never said that. Stop lying.

I said that I have not seen the evidence so I withhold judgement about it.

So, what evidence have you actually seen that Biden has had ANYTHING to do with the prosecution of Donald Trump?

None.

Therefore, I'm not recommending that Biden be prosecuted for having ANYTHING to do with the prosecution Trump. Where have I said that Biden has ANYTHING to do with the prosecution of Trump?

Stop inventing strawmen. I'm asking respectfully.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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.

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.

Except... they were investigating him before he announced his run for president. Ending the investigation for any reason, including prosecutorial discretion, would amount to failing to hold him accountable because he is running for president.

In fact, appointing a special counsel to take over is the DOJ doing everything possible to uphold the law while maintaining neutrality, given Trump's announcement.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I'll try once more, sure.

The fact that Donald Trump is the frontrunner for the opposition party means that any prosecution of him by the party in power is a terrible idea for the credibility of our democratic system.

If you want an adult discussion, stop inventing strawmen, and talk about what I actually say.

It is more than clear to anyone even semi-conscious, much less woke, that this prosecution is just the latest iteration of the seven years plus effort to "STOP it."

No, I have never said that. Stop lying.

I said that I have not seen the evidence so I withhold judgement about it.

None.

Therefore, I'm not recommending that Biden be prosecuted for having ANYTHING to do with the prosecution Trump. Where have I said that Biden has ANYTHING to do with the prosecution of Trump?

Stop inventing strawmen. I'm asking respectfully.

You are still dodging the question that has been asked: what is the criteria to declare someone the frontrunner? I presume actively running is involved, right?

 

[FullMonte]

I'll try once more, sure.

The fact that Donald Trump is the frontrunner for the opposition party means that any prosecution of him by the party in power is a terrible idea for the credibility of our democratic system.

Interesting. You couldn't answer yes or no, could you? Why is that?

It is more than clear to anyone even semi-conscious, much less woke, that this prosecution is just the latest iteration of the seven years plus effort to "STOP it."

Ok, so this is a fake prosecution in order to prevent Trump from becoming president.

No, I have never said that. Stop lying.

You..you LITERALLY just said that this is a fake prosecution just to stop Trump from becoming president.

I said that I have not seen the evidence so I withhold judgement about it.

That's splitting hairs. You said that you have not seen the evidence, so it must be all a plan to stop Trump from becoming president. That means that you believe the evidence is false. You can't say "this is all a plan to stop Trump...but, the evidence might be real and he might be guilty."

"I understand that that is the allegation...Until I see the evidence, my assumption is that this is just "We'll stop it" 2.0."
""The search warrant was unjustified because it was motivated by nothing more than a desire to fulfill the promise that "we'll stop it," meaning Trump becoming president."

None.

Therefore, I'm not recommending that Biden be prosecuted for having ANYTHING to do with the prosecution Trump. Where have I said that Biden has ANYTHING to do with the prosecution of Trump?

Stop inventing strawmen. I'm asking respectfully.

I'm not inventing a strawman. I'm pointing out the rampant hypocrisy of you claiming that the DOJ has filed court documents claiming they have evidence that they showed to a grand jury to get an indictment, but that evidence might all be fake.....while you turn around and accuse the president of directing the prosecution of Donald Trump without even a hint of evidence that happened.

If you want to question evidence you haven't seen, fine. But, you lose a lot of credibility when you also accuse the other side of things without any evidence to back it up. Either be a cynic or don't.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Interesting. You couldn't answer yes or no, could you? Why is that?

Because you misstating my position is no more valid if you put it in the form of a yes or no question. If you were actually interested in debating my actual position, then when I tell it to you would say, "I think that position is incorrect because . . . "

The only reason you would try to get me to agree to a different position is that you are unwilling to refute my actual position.

Ok, so this is a fake prosecution in order to prevent Trump from becoming president.



You..you LITERALLY just said that this is a fake prosecution just to stop Trump from becoming president.



That's splitting hairs. You said that you have not seen the evidence, so it must be all a plan to stop Trump from becoming president. That means that you believe the evidence is false. You can't say "this is all a plan to stop Trump...but, the evidence might be real and he might be guilty."

"I understand that that is the allegation...Until I see the evidence, my assumption is that this is just "We'll stop it" 2.0."
""The search warrant was unjustified because it was motivated by nothing more than a desire to fulfill the promise that "we'll stop it," meaning Trump becoming president."

I never said that the evidence "might all be fake." I said that I have not seen the evidence so I withhold judgement about it. That is in the post you just quoted.

Now, feel free to explain why I should accept evidence that I've never seen.

I'm not inventing a strawman. I'm pointing out the rampant hypocrisy of you claiming that the DOJ has filed court documents claiming they have evidence that they showed to a grand jury to get an indictment, but that evidence might all be fake.....while you turn around and accuse the president of directing the prosecution of Donald Trump without even a hint of evidence that happened.

If you want to question evidence you haven't seen, fine. But, you lose a lot of credibility when you also accuse the other side of things without any evidence to back it up. Either be a cynic or don't.

A guy giving his opinion on a message board is not held to the same standard as a Department of Justice going after a former president who is the frontrunner for the opposition party.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Because you misstating my position is no more valid if you put it in the form of a yes or no question. If you were actually interested in debating my actual position, then when I tell it to you would say, "I think that position is incorrect because . . . "

The only reason you would try to get me to agree to a different position is that you are unwilling to refute my actual position.

I never said that the evidence "might all be fake." I said that I have not seen the evidence so I withhold judgement about it. That is in the post you just quoted.

Now, feel free to explain why I should accept evidence that I've never seen.


A guy giving his opinion on a message board is not held to the same standard as a Department of Justice going after a former president who is the frontrunner for the opposition party.

Which opinion is more logical:

"I have not seen the evidence so I withhold judgement about it."

OR:

"I have not seen the evidence but this is clearly Operation: We'll Stop Him 2.0"

 

[superchuck500]

I think the Democrats welcome Trump running - he already lost to Biden by 7 million votes and 74 electoral votes in 2020. And that was before he tried to pressure states to undo their results and then launched a failed insurrection.

This idea that DOJ made up a case against Trump because the Democrats feared Trump in 2024 is pretty silly. It’s far more logical that his resistance to returning the material became criminal and they aren’t going let him do criminal acts simply because he’s Donald Trump.