Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (3 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
    SteveSBrickNJ

    SteveSBrickNJ

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Jan 7, 2022
    Messages
    1,664
    Reaction score
    776
    Age
    62
    Location
    New Jersey
    Offline
    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? :unsure:
    *
    This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
    *
    www.yahoo.com

    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 www.yahoo.com
     
    Snarky Sack said:
    I give you credit for bringing facts.

    However, Page was only on leave from the campaign, in spite of what the staffers said
    Click to expand...

    Interesting...so, Trump's campaign manager and two other campaign spokespersons were all lying about Carter Page not being a part of the campaign a month before the FBI applied for the warrant? I wonder why that is.


    Snarky Sack said:
    The reason that he was on leave was due to the FBI's hostile investigation him while he was working the campaign.
    Click to expand...

    And, yet, the FBI still applied for the warrant to, as you say, "spy on Trump's campaign" AFTER it was public knowledge that Page was no longer a part of the campaign? Man, for a group that did this clandestine operation to prevent Trump from getting elected...they were really really bad at doing it.

    Snarky Sack said:
    It was Trump, not Page, that they were going after to "STOP it," as we have in the FBI's own words.
    Click to expand...

    So, three different campaign officials saying Page was not a part of the campaign weren't accurate when they said that, but one comment in a private text from one FBI official to another is speaking for the entire FBI.
     
    FullMonte said:
    Interesting...so, Trump's campaign manager and two other campaign spokespersons were all lying about Carter Page not being a part of the campaign a month before the FBI applied for the warrant? I wonder why that is.

    And, yet, the FBI still applied for the warrant to, as you say, "spy on Trump's campaign" AFTER it was public knowledge that Page was no longer a part of the campaign? Man, for a group that did this clandestine operation to prevent Trump from getting elected...they were really really bad at doing it.
    Click to expand...
    They were actually, that's why they got caught. The FBI probably did think the Trump campaign was lying because they only announced that Page was not part of the campaign after it was reported that he was under investigation. I'm sure they though he would still have some unofficial role, if nothing else.

    What other interest would they have in a man they knew to be a CIA asset, if not his relationship to Trump? Unless . . . they were hoping to smear Page about his foreign contacts, knowing that he was too patriotic to reveal that he was a CIA assett. Since his record was unblemished until they tried to blemish it, that would make sense.
    FullMonte said:
    So, three different campaign officials saying Page was not a part of the campaign weren't accurate when they said that, but one comment in a private text from one FBI official to another is speaking for the entire FBI.
    Click to expand...
    Peter Strzok was not some low-level FBI guy. He was the one who pushed Crossfire-Hurricane when others wanted to drop it, and he had enough clout to be listened to.
     
    Remember when we were told ad nauseum that it would be the prosecution who actually wants to delay the trial? Nauta tried to delay his hearing indefinitely today, and Smith’s team vehemently objected, so they compromised by delaying the hearing from this Friday to next Tuesday. Prosecution also complained that Nauta’s counsel has yet to fill out form for clearance (not the new one, the one that‘s been on the case since early June).

    Also, now Trump’s team has just filed this:

     
    I was just coming to post it.


    A few notes. First, it says that the government has turned over nine months worth of closed-circuit TV footage, presumably from Mar-a-Lago. That's interesting in and of itself, as we knew there was video that would likely support the prosecution's case but we didn't know the full extent of it.

    Another element is Trump, several times, makes reference to the court having a case of 'first impression' because no case has ever dealt with the Presidential Records Act in the context of these criminal charges. This may be a framing of one of Trump's key defenses, but it sure sounds bogus to me. For the obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct charges, it doesn't matter what the PRA says. The material was subject to federal subpoena - there's nothing about presidential records that allows someone to ignore a subpoena, mislead investigators with incomplete certifications, and active effort to conceal the material. I suspect DOJ will respond that this is entirely red herring - the PRA is clear about what constitutes presidential records and there's nothing "first impression" about it b/c Trump had no legal right to possess those records, and the other charges relate to the defendants' conduct with respect to material they knew was subject to a federal investigation and federal subpoena - it doesn't matter that it was presidential records.
     
    FullMonte said:
    For clarification, between Sept 23 and Sept 25,2016, three different spokespeople for Trumps campaign said publicly thst Page was not a part of Trumps campaign. On Sept 26,2016, Page told the Washington Post that he had taken a leave of absence from Trumps campaign.

    On Oct 21, 2016, the FBI applied for, and was granted, a warrant to surveil Page.

    They were not, in any way, spying on Trumps campaign. They were performing surveillance on an individual who three people said was not a member of the campaign, and who himself had said he was no longer a member of the campaign almost a month earlier.

    www.justsecurity.org

    Timeline of Carter Page’s Contacts with Russia [Updated]

    At the heart of the recent Nunes memo controversy lies a FISA order application for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. But Page had piqued the interest of FBI investigators long before the Trump campaign, owing to his contacts with the Russian government and energy sector. For example, his...
    www.justsecurity.org www.justsecurity.org
    Click to expand...
    We've been over this exact same subject in the past. They were spying on the Trump campaign. My previous post on the subject:

    The FISA warrants gave the FBI the authority to spy on Page and it gave them access to internal Trump communications. The FISA warrants also authorized physical searches.

    The FISA warrants gave the FBI access to Pages emails, which includes emails from when he was a member of the Trump campaign, phone records, and also physical searches. It doesn't matter that he wasn't a member of the campaign for the time period that you are referring to. They could go back and look at all his emails or any emails that he was CC'd on.

    The FISA Two hop rule also gave the FBI access to even more people than just Page:

    While most FISC warrants remain classified, the few which have emerged through leaks, or been forced into the public domain by First Amendment lawsuits, paint a rather bleak picture. These warrants tell us the FISC has issued “mass” warrants which permit government surveillance based on statistical “selectors.”

    These documents also tell us the FISC routinely includes authorization in their warrants for the government to surveil people in contact with their target, and people in contact with the contact; in a scheme referred to as “chaining,” these authorizations will include 2 or 3 “hops.” While the text of the Carter Page warrant application, and court approval, remain a secret, one shudders to think this authority was used to spy upon other members of the Trump campaign team who were in contact with Page.
    www.nbcnews.com

    Opinion | The FBI's secret warrant against Carter Page should scare us

    A secret, non-adversarial system of judicial review is an insufficient check to our intelligence agencies and law enforcement.
    www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com


    According to the IG report: Gabriel Sanz-Rexach, the chief of the Office of Intelligence’s Operations Section, said “that the evidence collected during the first FISA application time period demonstrated that Carter Page had access to individuals in Russia and he was communicating with people in the Trump campaign.”


    https://madaboutpolitics.com/threads/durham-investigation-update-sussman-acquitted.83966/post-124012
     
    Last edited:
    superchuck500 said:
    I was just coming to post it.


    A few notes. First, it says that the government has turned over nine months worth of closed-circuit TV footage, presumably from Mar-a-Lago. That's interesting in and of itself, as we knew there was video that would likely support the prosecution's case but we didn't know the full extent of it.

    Another element is Trump, several times, makes reference to the court having a case of 'first impression' because no case has ever dealt with the Presidential Records Act in the context of these criminal charges. This may be a framing of one of Trump's key defenses, but it sure sounds bogus to me. For the obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct charges, it doesn't matter what the PRA says. The material was subject to federal subpoena - there's nothing about presidential records that allows someone to ignore a subpoena, mislead investigators with incomplete certifications, and active effort to conceal the material. I suspect DOJ will respond that this is entirely red herring - the PRA is clear about what constitutes presidential records and there's nothing "first impression" about it b/c Trump had no legal right to possess those records, and the other charges relate to the defendants' conduct with respect to material they knew was subject to a federal investigation and federal subpoena - it doesn't matter that it was presidential records.
    Click to expand...
    I think the “the PRA says I had the right to keep these documents” defense was best answered by the court ruling made when Trump argued that the subpoena was invalid for that reason.
     
    FullMonte said:
    I think the “the PRA says I had the right to keep these documents” defense was best answered by the court ruling made when Trump argued that the subpoena was invalid for that reason.
    Click to expand...

    I don't think either the district court or the 11th Circuit got to that issue specifically. The 11th Circuit expressly refused to answer the question, as it was unnecessary to rule that Cannon's application of equitable jurisdiction was wrong.
     
    SaintForLife said:
    According to the IG report: Gabriel Sanz-Rexach, the chief of the Office of Intelligence’s Operations Section, said “that the evidence collected during the first FISA application time period demonstrated that Carter Page had access to individuals in Russia and he was communicating with people in the Trump campaign.”
    Click to expand...
    This isn’t the flex you think it is, lol. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
     
    superchuck500 said:
    I don't think either the district court or the 11th Circuit got to that issue specifically. The 11th Circuit expressly refused to answer the question, as it was unnecessary to rule that Cannon's application of equitable jurisdiction was wrong.
    Click to expand...
    Did Trumps lawyers ever argue (prior to the search warrant) that the subpoena was invalid because he had the right to keep the subpoenaed documents?
     
    MT15 said:
    This isn’t the flex you think it is, lol. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
    Click to expand...
    You know Page was a CIA source and its not illegal to be in contact with Russians right?

    It was a good flex that showed that they did spy on the Trump campaign. But I know you will forever carry on the discredited Trump Russia collusion narrative no matter what.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom