Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (4 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

 

[Snarky Sack]

Which contradicts your earlier post.

No.. my previous post implied that I was not welcome here, not that I was violating the terms of service here. By allah! If it weren't for arguing with strong men some posters would never say anything at all.

 

[DaveXA]

No.. my previous post implied that I was not welcome here, not that I was violating the terms of service here. By allah! If it weren't for arguing with strong men some posters would never say anything at all.

No one said you aren't welcome here, so your point isn't true. But keep saying that if it makes you feel better.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I personally think Democrats want Trump to run, they always have. He’s DOA in a general election. I think Dem strategists welcome Trump running. So I just don’t see that it’s a political prosecution.

I think the problem with the dossier with respect to the FISA warrant is that the FBI did not fully vet it and did notify the court of some inconsistencies - as the Durham investigation concluded. There was other probable cause for the Page warrant, but the court should have been advised.

I appreciate the very lawyerly answer. If I were ever vile enough to swear under oath that a patriotic man who served his country was in fact not serving his country in order to give the FBI an opening to rob him of his privacy in hopes of putting him in prison likely with more lies, I would hope that my lawyer could explain it to the jury in such an innocent sounding way as the court should have been advised.

I think DOJ is very large. And I don’t think everything DOJ does is coordinated at the very top. I think DOJ is generally made up of very good lawyers - I have worked with DOJ many times. I think there can always be errors in judgment or even bad actors and they should be held accountable.

I also believe that the overwhelming majority of the doj and the FBI consist of people who are poring over records looking for signs of criminal activity or other such tedious but important work. I believe that there is a small faction of the FBI that is engaged in Daring Do such as infiltrating motorcycle gains and going undercover with organized crime. I applaud all of those activities.

However.. it is painfully obvious that the people at the top have become much more politicized than even political appointees are supposed to be. Kevin Clinesmith is extremely unlikely to have acted on his own in falsifying that warrant application.

The FBI lawyer (note that is an agency lawyer not a Justice Department attorney) that altered the email was prosecuted, sentenced, and had his bar license suspended. Altering evidence is a very big deal and I assure you the percentage of DOJ lawyers who would engage in that kind of activity knowing the risk (and they all know the risk) is minuscle.

Do you feel that the 400 hours of community service is an appropriate punishment? When his bar license suspension is over will you be happy to welcome him back to the fold?

Most DOJ attorneys are “career” professionals, not political appointees. Only the US Attorneys and the political staff at Main DOJ are politicals. All of the other lawyers have long-term careers at DOJ. A federal conviction for altering evidence stays with you forever.

I think you are probably right about the Democrats hoping it will be Trump in the general election. They have to figure who else could Biden beat except a guy under indictment that might go to prison?

As to your reasoning that the miniscule number of DOJ and FBI agents who would do things like forging documents and going after perceived political enemies, that is almost certainly true. But that doesn't mean that there are not too many people doing that. Such people would of course be concentrated within the various anti-trump investigations.

How can I believe that the FBI and DOJ would not do things that they are proven to have been doing?

 

[superchuck500]

I appreciate the very lawyerly answer. If I were ever vile enough to swear under oath that a patriotic man who served his country was in fact not serving his country in order to give the FBI an opening to rob him of his privacy in hopes of putting him in prison likely with more lies, I would hope that my lawyer could explain it to the jury in such an innocent sounding way as the court should have been advised.

I also believe that the overwhelming majority of the doj and the FBI consist of people who are poring over records looking for signs of criminal activity or other such tedious but important work. I believe that there is a small faction of the FBI that is engaged in Daring Do such as infiltrating motorcycle gains and going undercover with organized crime. I applaud all of those activities.

However.. it is painfully obvious that the people at the top have become much more politicized than even political appointees are supposed to be. Kevin Clinesmith is extremely unlikely to have acted on his own in falsifying that warrant application.

Do you feel that the 400 hours of community service is an appropriate punishment? When his bar license suspension is over will you be happy to welcome him back to the fold?


I think you are probably right about the Democrats hoping it will be Trump in the general election. They have to figure who else could Biden beat except a guy under indictment that might go to prison?

As to your reasoning that the miniscule number of DOJ and FBI agents who would do things like forging documents and going after perceived political enemies, that is almost certainly true. But that doesn't mean that there are not too many people doing that. Such people would of course be concentrated within the various anti-trump investigations.

How can I believe that the FBI and DOJ would not do things that they are proven to have been doing?

Well, we have to presume they’re not doing it - because we both agree that the vast majority take unethical and criminal activity by counsel to be very seriously wrong. Beyond that, you simply have to look at the quality of the evidence and how it fits up with known facts and admissions.

I have said this over and over but so much of the Trump allegations are known to have happened. It’s not some ambiguous source on clandestine activity in another country.

But we’ll have to see how the evidence is presented as to its reliability.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I appreciate the very lawyerly answer. If I were ever vile enough to swear under oath that a patriotic man who served his country was in fact not serving his country in order to give the FBI an opening to rob him of his privacy in hopes of putting him in prison likely with more lies, I would hope that my lawyer could explain it to the jury in such an innocent sounding way as the court should have been advised.

Do you have a problem with people that disparage patriotic military personnel?

 

[MT15]

I appreciate your being honest about your reasons to oppose the normal democratic process we use to select the president, and prefer that the DOJ simply "STOP it."

I think what you may want to consider is how you will ensure that this is a one off. If the DOJ succeeds in stopping Trump from being elected, what will then stop the DOJ from exercising this veto power you would grant them against other frontrunners, maybe next time a Democrat that you support?

This is rich coming from a person who still supports Trump after he tried a multi-faceted scheme to overturn an election that he lost. A person who, for the first time in our history as a nation, refuses to acknowledge the results of a valid election. We’ve already seen how Trump has nothing but disdain for our elections, your indignant tut-tutting is misplaced.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This is rich coming from a person who still supports Trump after he tried a multi-faceted scheme to overturn an election that he lost. A person who, for the first time in our history as a nation, refuses to acknowledge the results of a valid election. We’ve already seen how Trump has nothing but disdain for our elections, your indignant tut-tutting is misplaced.

More whataboutism.

 

[MT15]

More whataboutism.

Lol, no, you support someone who actually did exactly what you are doomsaying about the democrats. When it isn’t even the democrats doing anything - it is the DOJ, free from political interference. Garland is probably the least political AG we’ve had in decades.

This is exactly pertinent to your false assertions about the reason Trump is going to be convicted of multiple felonies.

 

[FullMonte]

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 . . . "

I did that, and you told me that what I said was not what you had said. That is why I asked you to clarify your position.

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 didn't try to get you to agree to a different position. I asked you to clarify your position, which you were unwilling to do, apparently. To recap:

--I stated what I thought was your position ("You are saying, directly, that Trump should not be punished for crimes simply because he is running for president.")
--You said I was wrong ( "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." )
--You then immediately followed that with what appeared to be a direct contradiction to that statement ( " In the case of Trump, the DOJ should be exercising prosecutorial discretion and understanding that there are plenty of other crimes to prosecute")
--I pointed out that contradiction and you accused me of a strawman argument.
--I then asked you to clarify your position ( "“Should the fact that Donald Trump is running for president mean that he should not be prosecuted for crimes?”)
--You didn't answer that question to clarify your position, and again accused me of inventing a strawman, and now you are saying that I am misstating your position by asking you a yes or no question about your position.

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.

That's entirely true. One of those two individuals can lose their career and actually go to jail for doing what you are trying to imply they are doing.

Let me try a different tack. You said, directly, that this is "stop trump 2.0." What do you base that on? The people involved in what you call "stop trump 1.0" (Comey, Paige, Stzrok) have not worked for the DOJ for something like 5 or 6 years. Who is it that you think that is involved in the current prosecution of Trump that is part of "stop trump 2.0"? Who is it that you think is willing to lie in court to stop Trump? And, what is your evidence for that?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Well, we have to presume they’re not doing it - because we both agree that the vast majority take unethical and criminal activity by counsel to be very seriously wrong. Beyond that, you simply have to look at the quality of the evidence and how it fits up with known facts and admissions.

I do presume that the majority of the DOJ and FBI are fighting actual crime. But I also presume that the tiny percent who are known to have engaged in lying and use of false evidence use to get Trump continue to do what they have been doing. The legal principles may be different, but in my field of behavioral psychology, the best guide to future behavior is past behavior, unless thoughtful and deliberate interventions take place.

Cheering them on, is not that.

It does appear that the minority is expanding its operations to the point that it is involving some of those honest, and hardworking crime fighters. Some of them are not going along with it, and have become whistle blowers.

I have said this over and over but so much of the Trump allegations are known to have happened. It’s not some ambiguous source on clandestine activity in another country.

But we’ll have to see how the evidence is presented as to its reliability.

I think that is true for a lot of the allegations. I don't doubt that Trump had classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, since he has talked openly about his right to have them. I don't doubt that some of those classified documents were national security documents.

He probably "showed them" to people that he should not have, but the DOJ has not indicated that it has evidence that he "provided them," to unauthorized people in in the same way that Reality Winner did, for example. Did he wave them around or give copies to people? That is the evidence I mean when I say I am waiting to see the evidence.

As far as his refusal to give the documents back, I believe that the prosecution likely can make a case that - if unanswered - would be enough for a conviction. I think there is a legal term for that. But that is the part that the anti-Trumpers on here seem to forget. Trump's team gets to rebutt that case as well as presenting its own evidence, if any. They seem to imagine the prosecutor reading the indictment to the jury and the jury immediately retiring to decided whether those accusations are crimes. There will be a fight over the admission, interpretation and weight for each piece of evidence the prosecution presents.

As I said before that for some reason offended another poster: Popcorn Time!

What the DOJ will have to prove to the jury composed of Trump supporters, Trump haters, and Trump neutral folk is that this is unique among ex-presidents, and that Trump actually provided documents to people with the intent to do some kind of harm to the country. I expect you to say as a lawyer that no, they are not legally required to prove those things. I agree that is the law, but the jury will be composed of non-lawyers, like me, who will have varying levels of knowledge of this case and the previous anti-Trump efforts.

That they law Trump is charged under is called the "Espionage Act" will be brought up in the jury room. "How is that espionage?" someone will say, no matter what the jury instructions say.

From what I have seen on this board and others, people with anti-Trump feelings are much less likely to know basic facts about the various investigations that they DOJ and FBI have been conducting and about the corrupt manner in which they have been conducted. Trump supporters are much more aware of those things for obvious reasons. All it will take is for the Trump supporters to explain it to the neutral jurors in order to get a hung jury. I don't know if only one or two pro-Trumpers could hold out alone, so a lot depends on the composition of the jury.

I doubt Trump would get an outright acquittal unless anti-Trumpers are excluded, which I don't see happening.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I did that, and you told me that what I said was not what you had said. That is why I asked you to clarify your position.



I didn't try to get you to agree to a different position. I asked you to clarify your position, which you were unwilling to do, apparently. To recap:

--I stated what I thought was your position ("You are saying, directly, that Trump should not be punished for crimes simply because he is running for president.")
--You said I was wrong ( "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." )
--You then immediately followed that with what appeared to be a direct contradiction to that statement ( " In the case of Trump, the DOJ should be exercising prosecutorial discretion and understanding that there are plenty of other crimes to prosecute")
--I pointed out that contradiction and you accused me of a strawman argument.
--I then asked you to clarify your position ( "“Should the fact that Donald Trump is running for president mean that he should not be prosecuted for crimes?”)
--You didn't answer that question to clarify your position, and again accused me of inventing a strawman, and now you are saying that I am misstating your position by asking you a yes or no question about your position.

This endless re-hash is incredibly boring. I'm surprised we both haven't been warned by the mods to stop clogging the board with it.

Let me try a different tack. You said, directly, that this is "stop trump 2.0." What do you base that on? The people involved in what you call "stop trump 1.0" (Comey, Paige, Stzrok) have not worked for the DOJ for something like 5 or 6 years. Who is it that you think that is involved in the current prosecution of Trump that is part of "stop trump 2.0"? Who is it that you think is willing to lie in court to stop Trump? And, what is your evidence for that?

Now, we get somewhere. Yes, it is true that many of those lying weasels who tried to overturn the 2016 election have now left the taxpayer dime. It is also true that many of the FBI agents and employees who were saying things just as vile about Trump on their official devices are still there. We won't know who they are because their identities were hidden under designations of "Agent 3" and the like. A few lambs were sacrificed, but there was no house cleaning of the Trump Deranged.

I am not going to say, "well sure, there was dishonesty, and extreme partisan bias in the past, but those dudes are gone, man! Moveon.org, son, we got whole new peeps and they are just these non-partisan crime fighters who happened upon crimes being committed by a guy who happens to be the same guy those other weasels lied about. Nothing to see there, look over here!" Not buying it.

I'm actually amazed that a member of this board is willing to admit . . . well, wait a minute . . . what are you admitting, exactly?

Let me know your exact thoughts on "We'll STOP it" and I'll talk about "We'll STOP it 2.0."

 

[FullMonte]

What the DOJ will have to prove to the jury composed of Trump supporters, Trump haters, and Trump neutral folk is that this is unique among ex-presidents, and that Trump actually provided documents to people with the intent to do some kind of harm to the country. I expect you to say as a lawyer that no, they are not legally required to prove those things. I agree that is the law, but the jury will be composed of non-lawyers, like me, who will have varying levels of knowledge of this case and the previous anti-Trump efforts.

I don't see why they would have to prove that to anyone. They have to prove that Donald Trump willfully withheld national defense information. That's it. They have to prove that Trump intentionally refused to return documents containing defense information.

that they law Trump is charged under is called the "Espionage Act" will be brought up in the jury room. "How is that espionage?" someone will say, no matter what the jury instructions say.

Why? If the jury instructions say "If you determine that Donald Trump willfully refused to return defense information, you should return a verdict of guilty," why would someone hear that instruction after reviewing the evidence and testimony, and then say "How is that espionage"?

 

[Snarky Sack]

I don't see why they would have to prove that to anyone. They have to prove that Donald Trump willfully withheld national defense information. That's it. They have to prove that Trump intentionally refused to return documents containing defense information.

Willfully retained is the phrase you're looking for. That's counts 1 through 31. If Trump requested a bench trial, with no jury (if those are allowed), and it was the judge who decided guilty or not guilty, that would be enough. Even if it would be this Trump appointee who has the case now, I believe that she would decide guilty if the DOJ could prove beyond a reasonable doubt even one of those counts. If not, she could be impeached for not following the law. If it were blatant enough, I would guess she would be.

But it will be a jury trial. Twelve individuals with their own ideas, their own experience and their own levels of knowledge of how the various Trump investigations have been run. Just as the DOJ and FBI plainly allowed biases of individuals within to determine the agencies' actions, so might the jury let biases and pre-existing knowledge of individual jurors determine the jury's actions.

Do you think that FBI agents and Democrat heads of agencies are the only ones who can let bias influence their exercise of power?

Why? If the jury instructions say "If you determine that Donald Trump willfully refused to return defense information, you should return a verdict of guilty," why would someone hear that instruction after reviewing the evidence and testimony, and then say "How is that espionage"?

Because the law is called "The Espionage Act." If I'm on the jury, you bet I'd say, "if we know that he didn't commit espionage, how can we find him guilty under 'The Espionage Act?' Why would they charge him with that, instead of stealing classified documents if that's what they think he did. Something's hinky about that. Also . . . "

How long do you think that the jury will deliberate? Just long enough to select a foreperson and have the foreperson say, "well, we all know the government has proven its case, but we have to vote as a formality. Let's get that done real quick and then I'll let the judge know we're ready."

No.

Juries don't work that way, because no case is so open-and-shut, as the months of anti-Trump media coverage and leaks have convinced you that this one is.

Suppose the case does seem so open and shut, but the jury returns a verdict of not guilty. What is the penalty for the jury for doing that?

 

[superchuck500]

I do presume that the majority of the DOJ and FBI are fighting actual crime. But I also presume that the tiny percent who are known to have engaged in lying and use of false evidence use to get Trump continue to do what they have been doing. The legal principles may be different, but in my field of behavioral psychology, the best guide to future behavior is past behavior, unless thoughtful and deliberate interventions take place.

Well then, consider that there are around 150,000 new federal prosecutions filed every year. A great many of them involve immigration crimes. Many of them involve interstate human trafficking. Many of them involve violent drug rings.
As a ratio, almost none of them involves claims of prosecutorial misconduct. Surely you don’t think that the prosecution of thousands of illegal immigrants and human traffickers should be undone because the prosecutors are falsifying evidence.

So if past behavior is the best guide to future behavior, it’s exceedingly unlikely that there will be prosecutorial misconduct. Also keep mind mind that warrant applications and trial evidence are two very different things.

And tbh, your continued presumption that the “Trump supporter” jurors will violate their sworn duty could not be a more perfect illustration of how Trump supporters really think about criminal justice.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Well then, consider that there are around 150,000 new federal prosecutions filed every year. A great many of them involve immigration crimes. Many of them involve interstate human trafficking. Many of them involve violent drug rings.
As a ratio, almost none of them involves claims of prosecutorial misconduct. Surely you don’t think that the prosecution of thousands of illegal immigrants and human traffickers should be undone because the prosecutors are falsifying evidence.

So if past behavior is the best guide to future behavior, it’s exceedingly unlikely that there will be prosecutorial misconduct. Also keep mind mind that warrant applications and trial evidence are two very different things.

Yes, I'd definitely want you as my lawyer. The jury would be too confused to find me guilty.

I said already, and I say now that the overwheming majority of the FBI and the DOJ are honest, hardoworking and non-partisan. They don't need to falsify evidence because there are so many real criminals committing real crimes that they are overworked processing the real evidence. Those are the ones going after the gangs, as I'm pretty sure I mentioned. It wasn't long ago, I'm surprised you forgot already.

But, those are not the agents who are involved in this endless Operation Get Trump.

And tbh, your continued presumption that the “Trump supporter” jurors will violate their sworn duty could not be a more perfect illustration of how Trump supporters really think about criminal justice.

I think it is an illustration of the reputation that a few bad actors have earned for the FBI and the DOJ. They cannot and should not be trusted with anything to do with Donald Trump. Their past behavior is my guide to their current and future behavior.

 

[DaveXA]

Yes, I'd definitely want you as my lawyer. The jury would be too confused to find me guilty.

I said already, and I say now that the overwheming majority of the FBI and the DOJ are honest, hardoworking and non-partisan. They don't need to falsify evidence because there are so many real criminals committing real crimes that they are overworked processing the real evidence. Those are the ones going after the gangs, as I'm pretty sure I mentioned. It wasn't long ago, I'm surprised you forgot already.

But, those are not the agents who are involved in this endless Operation Get Trump.

I think it is an illustration of the reputation that a few bad actors have earned for the FBI and the DOJ. They cannot and should not be trusted with anything to do with Donald Trump. Their past behavior is my guide to their current and future behavior.

Thankfully, the judge and most likely all of the jury won't have that guiding their decisions in court.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Willfully retained is the phrase you're looking for. That's counts 1 through 31. If Trump requested a bench trial, with no jury (if those are allowed), and it was the judge who decided guilty or not guilty, that would be enough. Even if it would be this Trump appointee who has the case now, I believe that she would decide guilty if the DOJ could prove beyond a reasonable doubt even one of those counts. If not, she could be impeached for not following the law. If it were blatant enough, I would guess she would be.

But it will be a jury trial. Twelve individuals with their own ideas, their own experience and their own levels of knowledge of how the various Trump investigations have been run. Just as the DOJ and FBI plainly allowed biases of individuals within to determine the agencies' actions, so might the jury let biases and pre-existing knowledge of individual jurors determine the jury's actions.

Do you think that FBI agents and Democrat heads of agencies are the only ones who can let bias influence their exercise of power?

This is when their personal integrity will come into play.

United States[edit]​

Jury instructions sometimes make reference to the juror's oath. For example, the Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions developed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit for use by U.S. District Courts state:[14]

You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determining what actually happened–that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts–it is your sworn duty to follow all of the rules of law as I explain them to you.
You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you. You must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be. It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences. However, you should not read into these instructions, or anything else I may have said or done, any suggestion as to what your verdict should be. That is entirely up to you.
It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took.

Because the law is called "The Espionage Act." If I'm on the jury, you bet I'd say, "if we know that he didn't commit espionage, how can we find him guilty under 'The Espionage Act?' Why would they charge him with that, instead of stealing classified documents if that's what they think he did. Something's hinky about that. Also . . . "

Then that it is on you for concentrating on the the title of the act and not its contents. You would be putting yourself in legal jeopardy by ignoring the LAWS within the Espionage Act.

How long do you think that the jury will deliberate? Just long enough to select a foreperson and have the foreperson say, "well, we all know the government has proven its case, but we have to vote as a formality. Let's get that done real quick and then I'll let the judge know we're ready."

No.

Hey!!!! You got one right!!!!!!

They will have a discussion about each individual count and compare the evidence against the law and reach a conclusion for each count. Based off of the Judge's instruction, if 1+1=2 you MUST find the defendant ____.

 

[superchuck500]

Yes, I'd definitely want you as my lawyer. The jury would be too confused to find me guilty.

I said already, and I say now that the overwheming majority of the FBI and the DOJ are honest, hardoworking and non-partisan. They don't need to falsify evidence because there are so many real criminals committing real crimes that they are overworked processing the real evidence. Those are the ones going after the gangs, as I'm pretty sure I mentioned. It wasn't long ago, I'm surprised you forgot already.

But, those are not the agents who are involved in this endless Operation Get Trump.

I think it is an illustration of the reputation that a few bad actors have earned for the FBI and the DOJ. They cannot and should not be trusted with anything to do with Donald Trump. Their past behavior is my guide to their current and future behavior.

This is utter nonsense. You’re basically saying that Trump should be free to commit whatever federal crimes he wants because DOJ was not complete in a warrant application for surveillance on Carter Page - not Donald Trump but Carter Page (who even is Carter Page in Trump world?). And then a subsequent email was altered by an FBI agency counsel who isn’t even supervised by DOJ criminal division.

You continue to paint these examples - highly tangential to Donald Trump - as the primary evidence that Trump should have carte blanche to break whatever federal criminal law he wishes because DOJ can’t be trusted.

I think you need to put these pieces together so that you can hang on to your dogged belief that Trump is innocent - fine, do what you need to do. But objectively, it’s nonsense in relationship to the current prosecution. It’s pure bullshirt.