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

 

[Sendai]

The national security documents never have and never will fall under the category of presidential records, so the Presidential Records Act does not apply.

Even if the Presidential Records Act is found unconstitutional, that will not have any impact on the fact that Trump illegally took and obstructed justice to keep national security documents which have always been and will always be considered government property and not presidential records.

Please keep lying about it though, because it's having the opposite effect that you hope to have and the effect I want it to have.

As I said in a previous post

“Even if the PRA were found unconstitutional the classification rules would still apply.”

 

[SamAndreas]

“Historically, all presidential papers were considered the personal property of the president.”

Presidential library system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I went there and found that. The source was:

Roosevelt in retrospect, a profile in history​

by Gunther, John, 1901-1970

The source material cited is a two page read at this link: https://archive.org/details/rooseveltinretro00gunt/page/98/mode/2up

Upon reading the source I find that it is insufficient to support that as an overall statement of fact.

I find that was an openon voiced by John Gunther. It was not directly connected to the subject that the author was covering, which was the Roosevelt Library. The author was gushing at length about how Roosevelt gave all of his stuff to his nation. That quoted sentence was used contextually to build up how wonderful that gift of Roosevelt's was.

I decided to leave it be and not edit that out of Wikipedia. If I had edited it, it wouldn't be there now. Think about that, think about how it got there to be quoted by you. It got there because someone decided to put it there, the same way I could decide to erase it.

 

[Sendai]

I went there and found that. The source was:

Roosevelt in retrospect, a profile in history​

by Gunther, John, 1901-1970

The source material cited is a two page read at this link: https://archive.org/details/rooseveltinretro00gunt/page/98/mode/2up

Upon reading the source I find that it is insufficient to support that as an overall statement of fact.

I find that was an openon voiced by John Gunther. It was not directly connected to the subject that the author was covering, which was the Roosevelt Library. The author was gushing at length about how Roosevelt gave all of his stuff to his nation. That quoted sentence was used contextually to build up how wonderful that gift of Roosevelt's was.

I decided to leave it be and not edit that out of Wikipedia. If I had edited it, it wouldn't be there now. Think about that, think about how it got there to be quoted by you. It got there because someone decided to put it there, the same way I could decide to erase it.

Ok, try this from NPR

“For the first two centuries of U.S. history, outgoing presidents simply took their documents with them when they left the White House. The materials were considered their personal property.”

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/13/1117297065/trump-documents-history-national-archives-law-watergate

 

[DaveXA]

As I said in a previous post

“Even if the PRA were found unconstitutional the classification rules would still apply.”

Where you keep tripping up is thinking it's unconstitutional when it's already been tested multiple times. Until that happens, every single point of yours is moot.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Justice Department officials plan to pursue the criminal cases against Donald Trump past Election Day even if he wins, under the belief that department rules against charging or prosecuting a sitting president would not kick in until Inauguration Day in January, according to people familiar with the discussions.


That approach may become more consequential given this week’s Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, which probably will lead to further delays to Trump’s election interference trial in D.C. and has already affected one of his state cases.


Senior law enforcement officials have long viewed the two federal indictments against Trump — the 45th president and the presumptive Republican nominee in this year’s election — as operating with potential time constraints. That’s because of long-standing Justice Department policy that officials cannot criminally charge a sitting president.


Lawyers in the department do not believe the policy bars them from proceeding against a president-elect, however, according to the people familiar with the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations…..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/07/02/justice-dept-trump-prosecute-after-election/

 

[Sendai]

Where you keep tripping up is thinking it's unconstitutional when it's already been tested multiple times. Until that happens, every single point of yours is moot.

What cases have tested the PRA on the grounds it’s unconstitutional? Nixon tested the predecessor act on constitutional grounds but not on the grounds that Congress lacked the enumerated power.

 

[DaveXA]

What cases have tested the PRA on the grounds it’s unconstitutional? Nixon tested the predecessor act on constitutional grounds but not on the grounds that Congress lacked the enumerated power.

You keep ignoring what's been posted already. I ain't playing. Cya.

 

[LA - L.A.]

What cases have tested the PRA on the grounds it’s unconstitutional? Nixon tested the predecessor act on constitutional grounds but not on the grounds that Congress lacked the enumerated power.

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) is irrelevant in Trump's case, because he was indicted for violating the National Espionage Act and obstruction of justice.

The PRA is irrelevant to Trump's case, but you keep banging on about it and only it. You refuse to discuss or even acknowledge that Trump was indicted for violating the National Espionage Act and obstruction of justice.

@Sendai is not an honest person and is acting in bad faith by trying to intentionally deceive people. No one should trust or believe anything @Sendai says, unless at some point they admit that the PRA is irrelevant to Trump's MarALago documents case, because Trump was indicted for violating the National Espionage Act and for obstruction of justice, not for violating the PRA.

Happy and Fun Independence Day everyone.

 

[DaveXA]

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) is irrelevant in Trump's case, because he was indicted for violating the National Espionage Act and obstruction of justice.

The PRA is irrelevant to Trump's case, but you keep banging on about it and only it. You refuse to discuss or even acknowledge that Trump was indicted for violating the National Espionage Act and obstruction of justice.

@Sendai is not an honest person and is acting in bad faith by trying to intentionally deceive people. No one should trust or believe anything @Sendai says, unless at some point they admit that the PRA is irrelevant to Trump's MarALago documents case, because Trump was indicted for violating the National Espionage Act and for obstruction of justice, not for violating the PRA.

Happy and Fun Independence Day everyone.

Agreed.

 

[SamAndreas]

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) is irrelevant in Trump's case, because he was indicted for violating the National Espionage Act and obstruction of justice.

The PRA is irrelevant to Trump's case, but you keep banging on about it and only it. You refuse to discuss or even acknowledge that Trump was indicted for violating the National Espionage Act and obstruction of justice.

@Sendai is not an honest person and is acting in bad faith by trying to intentionally deceive people. No one should trust or believe anything @Sendai says, unless at some point they admit that the PRA is irrelevant to Trump's MarALago documents case, because Trump was indicted for violating the National Espionage Act and for obstruction of justice, not for violating the PRA.

Happy and Fun Independence Day everyone.

After reading that I thought, I better ask Google about that.

I asked Google, What is Sendai's fault.

I had no idea what would come of that, this Smithsonian article was the top link from that search.

Fault That Caused Japan’s 2011 Earthquake Is Thin and Slippery​

Fault That Caused Japan's 2011 Earthquake Is Thin and Slippery

A group of scientists drilled miles beneath the Pacific Ocean, uncovering conditions that made the Tohoku-Oki earthquake and tsunami so devastating

www.smithsonianmag.com

The magnitude 9.0 Tohoku-Oki earthquake that struck Japan on 11 March 2011, killing more than 15,000 people and setting off a devastating tsunami that the nation is still working to recover from, brought up a lot of troubling questions. For instance, what made such a powerful earthquake possible, and could it happen again in Japan or somewhere else?

Wow! That's the one that melted down those two nuclear reactors which then fouled the Earth.

Here's one saying that Sendai is living on the edge!:

Sendai, living on the edge!

Sendai and its people live on the edge. The city and its citizens learned to live over a subduction zone. Sendai has survived 500 years of hazards; it is a resilient and industrious city. People know disaster will strike again, but also that they will rise up when it does. Japan, ‘the sunrise...

blogs.egu.eu