Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (6 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

SteveSBrickNJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
1,463
Reaction score
666
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....
*
 
Documents case must be on his addled brain currently:


He’s the GOP’s favorite nutter. Inconceivably this shirt got elected President because a good many Americans no longer support the Constitution and decided that knifing the country in the back was a good move. 🤔
s usul trump is really speaking about himself and what should have happened.
That’s what him and many of the GOP do on a regular basis project themselves onto democrats then point and scream “see what they are doing!“ How can they get away with this? The caliber of their base, that’s how. 🔥⚡
 
Donald Trump’s many legal problems have led to a veritable fire hose of often-mundane, procedural court filings. But occasionally, there’s a nugget that catches your eye.


Such was the case Monday, in the government’s latest filing in Trump’s classified documents case.
While arguing against the motion by Trump’s lawyers to delay the May 20 trial, special counsel Jack Smith’s lawyers assured they’re ready to go and that such a delay isn’t necessary, unsurprisingly.

But they also said they are ready to prove something significant that, to this point, has remained shrouded and the subject of much speculation: why Trump allegedly took and kept the documents.

“That the classified materials at issue in this case were taken from the White House and retained at Mar-a-Lago is not in dispute,” Smith’s office said.
It then added that “what is in dispute is how that occurred, why it occurred, what Trump knew, and what Trump intended in retaining them — all issues that the Government will prove at trial primarily with unclassified evidence.”


The government apparently thinks it knows “what Trump intended” with the documents. And it’s signaling that it plans to prove that intent.


This would seem important, not only from a general-interest standpoint but also from a legal one……..

 
Donald Trump’s many legal problems have led to a veritable fire hose of often-mundane, procedural court filings. But occasionally, there’s a nugget that catches your eye.


Such was the case Monday, in the government’s latest filing in Trump’s classified documents case.
While arguing against the motion by Trump’s lawyers to delay the May 20 trial, special counsel Jack Smith’s lawyers assured they’re ready to go and that such a delay isn’t necessary, unsurprisingly.

But they also said they are ready to prove something significant that, to this point, has remained shrouded and the subject of much speculation: why Trump allegedly took and kept the documents.

“That the classified materials at issue in this case were taken from the White House and retained at Mar-a-Lago is not in dispute,” Smith’s office said.
It then added that “what is in dispute is how that occurred, why it occurred, what Trump knew, and what Trump intended in retaining them — all issues that the Government will prove at trial primarily with unclassified evidence.”


The government apparently thinks it knows “what Trump intended” with the documents. And it’s signaling that it plans to prove that intent.


This would seem important, not only from a general-interest standpoint but also from a legal one……..



Tell me Trump blabbed to someone of what his intention was ...please. And tell me its in an email/text message.
 
Seemingly significant development....
*

another looser sequels Now trump is going to mock her. He always said he only hires the best but we keep seeing his best are the worst. They are getting closer to king piggy. with so much money to fight this and so many of the idiots broke and begging god for money they are going to find they will run out of usefulness.
 
Seemingly significant development....
*


This relates to the Georgia case and is being discussed there. I know it’s hard to keep track of all of Trump’s indictments 😁

 
This relates to the Georgia case and is being discussed there. I know it’s hard to keep track of all of Trump’s indictments 😁

I know. Doesn't this thread have the flexibility for posts from all Trump's cases even though I started it with the NY case? This flexibility would be my wish.
 
I know. Doesn't this thread have the flexibility for posts from all Trump's cases even though I started it with the NY case? This flexibility would be my wish.
Well, we can let Andrus weigh in on this, but from knowing him over the years he likes to keep separate threads rather than huge mega-threads. We aren’t always good about doing this. (Andrus owns this web site.)
 
I know. Doesn't this thread have the flexibility for posts from all Trump's cases even though I started it with the NY case? This flexibility would be my wish.
The GA case is unique because it's a state case and a RICO case involving numerous defendants. Mixing up posts for a bunch of different and unique cases would be confusing imo.
 
Special counsel prosecutors urged a federal judge to reject Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss his indictment on charges the former president conspired to overturn the 2020 election results. They asserted on Thursday that there was no such thing as absolute immunity for former presidents for conduct that occurred in office.

The response to Trump’s motion to dismiss his indictment, filed in federal district court in Washington this summer, amounted to a sharp repudiation of his unparalleled interpretation of executive power and caused prosecutors to categorically state former presidents could be charged.

In their 54-page filing to the US district court judge Tanya Chutkan, prosecutors in the office of the special counsel Jack Smith cited a range of arcane and academic writings including the Federalist Papers. But their central argument was that in the United States, the law applied to everyone.

“The principle that no one is above the law underlies the universal consensus that a president may be subject to criminal prosecution at some point,” the filing said. “But the defendant can identify no support for his broad claim that he is forever entitled to absolute immunity.”

When Trump first urged the dismissal of the case two weeks ago, his lawyers sought to recast Trump’s attempts to block the transfer of power as an effort to protect election integrity that fell within the “outer perimeter” of his presidential duties, which meant he could not be prosecuted.

That kicked off what is almost certain to become an extended legal battle that could ultimately reach the US supreme court. As that litigation continues, Trump’s lawyers have telegraphed they will make additional motions to have the charges thrown out before the trial starts in March.…….

 
Special counsel prosecutors urged a federal judge to reject Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss his indictment on charges the former president conspired to overturn the 2020 election results. They asserted on Thursday that there was no such thing as absolute immunity for former presidents for conduct that occurred in office.

The response to Trump’s motion to dismiss his indictment, filed in federal district court in Washington this summer, amounted to a sharp repudiation of his unparalleled interpretation of executive power and caused prosecutors to categorically state former presidents could be charged.

In their 54-page filing to the US district court judge Tanya Chutkan, prosecutors in the office of the special counsel Jack Smith cited a range of arcane and academic writings including the Federalist Papers. But their central argument was that in the United States, the law applied to everyone.

“The principle that no one is above the law underlies the universal consensus that a president may be subject to criminal prosecution at some point,” the filing said. “But the defendant can identify no support for his broad claim that he is forever entitled to absolute immunity.”

When Trump first urged the dismissal of the case two weeks ago, his lawyers sought to recast Trump’s attempts to block the transfer of power as an effort to protect election integrity that fell within the “outer perimeter” of his presidential duties, which meant he could not be prosecuted.

That kicked off what is almost certain to become an extended legal battle that could ultimately reach the US supreme court. As that litigation continues, Trump’s lawyers have telegraphed they will make additional motions to have the charges thrown out before the trial starts in March.…….

This goes with the Jan. 6 case, lol. Meanwhile in NY:

 
The GA case is unique because it's a state case and a RICO case involving numerous defendants. Mixing up posts for a bunch of different and unique cases would be confusing imo.
Well that is totally fine. Of course.
Would someone throw me a link to the appropriate thread for GA?
 
Well that is totally fine. Of course.
Would someone throw me a link to the appropriate thread for GA?
7th thread down on first page. Trump GA Indictment

 
The judge in Donald Trump’s New York civil fraud trial has fined the former president $5,000 and threatened to throw him in jail for breaking a gag order he imposed in the first week of proceedings.

On 3 October, Judge Arthur Engoron banned Mr Trump from “posting, emailing or speaking publicly” about any members of his court staff, after the former president made a post on Truth Social attacking his law clerk and levelling baseless claims against her.…..

 
The judge in Donald Trump’s New York civil fraud trial has fined the former president $5,000 and threatened to throw him in jail for breaking a gag order he imposed in the first week of proceedings.

On 3 October, Judge Arthur Engoron banned Mr Trump from “posting, emailing or speaking publicly” about any members of his court staff, after the former president made a post on Truth Social attacking his law clerk and levelling baseless claims against her.…..

dont worry trump will use that to grift more money. the only scare is jail.
 

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!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Back
Top Bottom