Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    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
     
    coldseat said:
    There's a lot of "hindsight is 20/20" going on in your post. Can you produce any news articles talking about Trump running for reelection in the year after the insurrection?
    Click to expand...
    I'm a bit surprised by this, because my recollection is that there were lots of articles about that, and I also had the impression that barring the spontaneous and miraculous formation of an actual persistent backbone in the Republican party, it was pretty inevitable.

    Here's a Google search for "trump running in 2024" limited to results from 2021. (Hopefully that works, on my phone at the moment).

    Seems to be quite a lot about it?
     
    RobF said:
    I'm a bit surprised by this, because my recollection is that there were lots of articles about that, and I also had the impression that barring the spontaneous and miraculous formation of an actual persistent backbone in the Republican party, it was pretty inevitable.

    Here's a Google search for "trump running in 2024" limited to results from 2021. (Hopefully that works, on my phone at the moment).

    Seems to be quite a lot about it?
    Click to expand...

    Yep, this one from September 2021 was pretty much on point and what I was thinking at the time.

    www.cnn.com

    Analysis: Donald Trump is ‘99, 100 percent’ likely to run for president in 2024 | CNN Politics

    The 2024 election is still 1,155 days away – I counted – but, according to one senior aide to Donald Trump, the former president is all-but-certain to run again.
    www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
     
    My basic recollection is that in the immediate aftermath of January 6th everything seemed a bit fluid and no one really knew what Trump or the Republican party would do. Soon enough though the Kevin McCarthys and such of the world were back to kissing the ring and it became more and more apparent from there that Trump was probably going to run given that his base/the Republican party had rallied around him.
     
    RobF said:
    I'm a bit surprised by this, because my recollection is that there were lots of articles about that, and I also had the impression that barring the spontaneous and miraculous formation of an actual persistent backbone in the Republican party, it was pretty inevitable.

    Here's a Google search for "trump running in 2024" limited to results from 2021. (Hopefully that works, on my phone at the moment).

    Seems to be quite a lot about it?
    Click to expand...

    I'll concede I was wrong. They seem mostly speculative, especially early in 2021. And like it seems like even more speculation was added after Afghanistan due to the drop in Biden's approval.

    Biden really hasn't been able to catch a break his whole presidency.
     
    Several celebrities were mentioned in an amicus curiae brief filed in support of President Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the classified documents indictment against him.

    Trump faces 40 felony counts in Florida that accuse him of willfully retaining dozens of classified documents after he left the White House and rebuffing government demands to give them back. He has denied wrongdoing, and his lawyers have asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to dismiss the case.

    The amicus curiae brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Tuesday on behalf of Edwin Meese, who served as President Ronald Reagan's attorney general, law professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson and the conservative nonprofit Citizens United.

    The brief argued that special counsel Jack Smith does not have the authority to prosecute the case.

    "Smith is the classic 'emperor with no clothes.' He has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Tom Brady, Lionel Messi, or Kanye West," the brief's conclusion says.

    "The Court should grant the Motion to Dismiss on the Appointments Clause issue, and do so prior to ruling on the other Motions to Dismiss pending in this case."

    An earlier version of the brief, reviewed by Newsweek, had listed Kim Kardashian, Patrick Mahomes and Mick Jagger in the conclusion...........

    MSN

    www.msn.com
     
    Optimus Prime said:
    Several celebrities were mentioned in an amicus curiae brief filed in support of President Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the classified documents indictment against him.

    Trump faces 40 felony counts in Florida that accuse him of willfully retaining dozens of classified documents after he left the White House and rebuffing government demands to give them back. He has denied wrongdoing, and his lawyers have asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to dismiss the case.

    The amicus curiae brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Tuesday on behalf of Edwin Meese, who served as President Ronald Reagan's attorney general, law professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson and the conservative nonprofit Citizens United.

    The brief argued that special counsel Jack Smith does not have the authority to prosecute the case.

    "Smith is the classic 'emperor with no clothes.' He has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Tom Brady, Lionel Messi, or Kanye West," the brief's conclusion says.

    "The Court should grant the Motion to Dismiss on the Appointments Clause issue, and do so prior to ruling on the other Motions to Dismiss pending in this case."

    An earlier version of the brief, reviewed by Newsweek, had listed Kim Kardashian, Patrick Mahomes and Mick Jagger in the conclusion...........

    MSN

    www.msn.com
    Click to expand...
    Are these people idiots? Why does the United States Department of Justice not have the right to prosecute the mishandling of classified documents? Is POTUS actually omnipotent regarding breaking the law? Can POTUS have political opponents assassinated with impunity? This IS the immunity case the loser lawyers made for the loser former POTUS. 🤬🔥
     
    This is evidently the second time Jack Smith has used the example of “sale and delivery” of classified documents in his filings on the documents case. Some law Twitter is saying it would be unusual for a prosecutor to use this language just randomly. We know there are still missing documents….

     
    superchuck500 said:
    Click to expand...

    What a ridiculous argument:

    "unauthorized possession" is constitutionally vague? Those two words have pretty clear meanings, and putting them in that order is a very clear phrase. Did you have authorization to possess them is a yes/no question with no ambiguity. Either you had authorization, or you didn't. Either they were in your possession, or they weren't. If you did not have authorization (Narrator's voice: "He didn't."), and they were in your possession (Narrator's voice: "They were."), then you were in unauthorized possession of them.

    "relating to the national defense" is vague? Ok, on this one, I'll cut them *SOME* slack. While that phrase is not vague, one could argue that whether or not a specific document or specific information is related to the national defense is vague. But, that is not reason to completely dismiss the charges. That is something for a jury to determine.


    "entitled to receive" is constitutionally vague? See the part about "unauthorized possession."
     
    FullMonte said:
    What a ridiculous argument:

    "unauthorized possession" is constitutionally vague? Those two words have pretty clear meanings, and putting them in that order is a very clear phrase. Did you have authorization to possess them is a yes/no question with no ambiguity. Either you had authorization, or you didn't. Either they were in your possession, or they weren't. If you did not have authorization (Narrator's voice: "He didn't."), and they were in your possession (Narrator's voice: "They were."), then you were in unauthorized possession of them.

    "relating to the national defense" is vague? Ok, on this one, I'll cut them *SOME* slack. While that phrase is not vague, one could argue that whether or not a specific document or specific information is related to the national defense is vague. But, that is not reason to completely dismiss the charges. That is something for a jury to determine.


    "entitled to receive" is constitutionally vague? See the part about "unauthorized possession."
    Click to expand...
    What is truly ridiculous is that they had to have a hearing at all! Cannon could have made this ruling from her chambers and yet, she further entertained more theatrics from trump &co and injected more false equivalencies.
     

    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