Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (2 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

 

[LA - L.A.]

It’s a DOJ regulation.

A DOJ regulation that the DC Court of appeals has said is not a violation of the Constitution. It's still an open issue at this point. Let's see what the 11th Circuit appeals has to say about Canon's ruling.

Have you figured out that Hunter’s prosecutor is properly appointed yet?

Have you figured out that Weiss was not appointed by the president like you claimed he was. Read my post again buckaroo. I didn't say he wasn't properly appointed, I said he was appointed as special counsel by Garland. That's a fact, jack.

 

[FullMonte]

AG Garland should cut and run on this. The government has the documents. If this case evaporates then there’ll be no constitutional challenge to the PRA. Just give him back the Kim love letters and walk away.

AG Garland is a constitutional scholar and a practical gentleman. He knows the makeup of the court, so he knows how this will end.

I disagree completely. A person should not be allowed to get away with an egregious violation of the law.

As for the PRA challenge, let them do it.
--If the court rules that the PRA is unconstitutional, that doesn't somehow invalidate Trump's violation of the espionage act. In fact, that hurts Trump, since he claims that the PRA allows him to declare the documents as personal.
--The the court rules that the PRA is constitutional, that doesn't somehow invalidate Trump's violation of the espionage act. Many of the documents are not covered by the PRA, and the ones that are are very clearly defined as presidential records (not personal). The PRA does not allow for the president to "declare" documents as personal, it does the exact opposite of that. It takes away the ability of the president to do that, and defines very clearly what is a presidential record and what is a personal record.

 

[Sendai]

A DOJ regulation that the DC Court of appeals has said is not a violation of the Constitution. It's still an open issue at this point. Let's see what the 11th Circuit appeals has to say about Canon's ruling.


Have you figured out that Weiss was not appointed by the president like you claimed he was. Read my post again buckaroo. I didn't say he wasn't properly appointed, I said he was appointed as special counsel by Garland. That's a fact, jack.

Weiss’ appointment as a federal prosecutor was by presidential appointment confirmed by the senate. His appointment as special prosecutor was valid because of that appointment. This just clarifies for those who said Hunter’s prosecutor wasn’t valid. Were you one of those people?

 

[FullMonte]

Have you figured out that Weiss was not appointed by the president like you claimed he was. Read my post again buckaroo. I didn't say he wasn't properly appointed, I said he was appointed as special counsel by Garland. That's a fact, jack.

Here's the irony of irony. Unless I'm misunderstanding a sentence in the regulations, it would appear that according to the regulations, Jack Smith would be a valid appointment, yet David Weiss would not be.

§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.
(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.

 

[LA - L.A.]

AG Garland...

Doesn't care what you say.

...the PRA.

The Presidential Records Act has nothing to do with the documents case against Trump. The national security documents Trump had were not presidential records and Trump was charge for violating the Espionage Act.

AG Garland is a constitutional scholar...

And you are not. Garland knows the constitution as you just admitted, so shows how wrong you are that he does what you say he can't do. I mean, you're tossing up softballs at this point.

He knows the makeup of the court, so he knows how this will end.

And that's the mob boss mentality behind all of this. You all know Trump broke the law, but you don't care, you're looking for whatever excuse you can pull out of the cesspool to get Trump off the hook for breaking the law. Unfortunately you are correct, 6 justices on the Supreme Court are in the bag for Trump and want to keep him out of trouble, so they will cook up whatever result-oriented ruling they need to protect Trump. even if it means contradicting themselves at every turn.

A decent and honorable person wouldn't be as thrilled and gloating as you are about it. Just remember, everything changes. Everything.

 

[Sendai]

Here's the irony of irony. Unless I'm misunderstanding a sentence in the regulations, it would appear that according to the regulations, Jack Smith would be a valid appointment, yet David Weiss would not be.

The regulations don’t count. The appointments clause of the constitution rules.

 

[Sendai]

I disagree completely. A person should not be allowed to get away with an egregious violation of the law.

As for the PRA challenge, let them do it.
--If the court rules that the PRA is unconstitutional, that doesn't somehow invalidate Trump's violation of the espionage act. In fact, that hurts Trump, since he claims that the PRA allows him to declare the documents as personal.
--The the court rules that the PRA is constitutional, that doesn't somehow invalidate Trump's violation of the espionage act. Many of the documents are not covered by the PRA, and the ones that are are very clearly defined as presidential records (not personal). The PRA does not allow for the president to "declare" documents as personal, it does the exact opposite of that. It takes away the ability of the president to do that, and defines very clearly what is a presidential record and what is a personal record.

With the current Supreme Court it won’t end the way you want.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Here's the irony of irony. Unless I'm misunderstanding a sentence in the regulations, it would appear that according to the regulations, Jack Smith would be a valid appointment, yet David Weiss would not be.

That's true, but the article I quoted explains that throughout history it's not considered an absolute standard. No one argued that the case against Hunter Biden should be dropped on the grounds of the Weiss appointment, because we respect holding people accountable for the crimes they commit.

The Trump supporters are just the opposite. They are doing everything they can to get Trump off the hook for the crimes that everyone knows he committed.

They are making all these bogus and specious legal and constitutional arguments not to uphold the law, but to keep Trump from being accountable to the law.

They don't respect elections and they don't respect the law. There is no democracy without either and they want to disregard them both. And they are happy as flies on a turd in gloating about it.

 

[LA - L.A.]

His appointment as special prosecutor...

And this is what you guys keep intentionally getting wrong and I think you intentionally keep getting it wrong and telling half truths to deceive people, or maybe it's just that people have effectively deceived you with wrong information and half truths.

Weiss and Smith were not appointed as special prosecutors, they were appointed as special counsel. CFR Title 28 - Judicial Administration is still very much the law of the land and it replaced the law that expired in 1999. This is a link to the page that authorizes the Attorney General or Acting Attorney General to appoint a special counsel: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2010-title28-vol2/pdf/CFR-2010-title28-vol2-sec600-1.pdf

Here's a screen shot that proves you guys wrong about the law:

Clarence Thomas is corrupt and that's why he signaled to Cannon to dismiss the case on the grounds of that the law above is allegedly unconstitutional. The DC Circuit ruled the law does not violate the Constitution. It remains to be seen if Smith will appeal Cannon's ruling to he 11th Circuit and how they will rule if he does.

That not withstanding, you guys just keep being dishonest and deceitful about what the laws actually are and what the courts have actually ruled so far. You wouldn't keep being dishonest and deceitful if you didn't have to. You have to be deceitful and dishonest to defend Trump, because that's the only way to defend him.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The regulations don’t count. The appointments clause of the constitution rules.

That's certainly you, Cannon's and Clarence Thomas's opinion. The opinion of the DC Circuit is that this law does not violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. If Smith appeals Cannon's ruling to the 11th Circuit we'll find out their opinion and we don't know the opinion of the full Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas gave results lead messaging and Cannon gave results lead rulings to try to get Trump out of trouble for the slam dunk case that shows he violated the Espionage Act and obstructed justice.

 

[LA - L.A.]

With the current Supreme Court it won’t end the way you want.

This tells you everything there is to know about Trump and those who follow him. When they can't hold their own in an argument they resort to the above. They're terrified little chihuahuas barking their arses off hoping that no one will notice how small, weak and pathetic every argument they make is.

They don't care about justice and morality, they only care about getting what they want.

 

[SaintForLife]

Raise your hand if you also said the D.C. Circuit Opinion on the POTUS immunity question was brilliantly analyzed and written, and that it was such a slam dunk SCOTUS should have just kicked out a decision finding no POTUS immunity within a month of the oral argument.

So, for those of you with one hand in the air, raise your other hand if you wrote that there was simply no question that the Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment gave the power to individual states to remove candidates from the POTUS ballot based on whatever standards or procedures they decided to adopt.

Come on @rparloff -- get both your hands up in the air.

I would ask all of you if you thought DOJ was going to win Fischer -- but all of you are out of hands to raise.

 

[FullMonte]

With the current Supreme Court it won’t end the way you want.

It has nothing to do with "the way I want."

I made it clear that no matter which way that ruling goes (the PRA being constitutional or unconstitutional), Trump is not helped.

If they rule the PRA is unconstitutional, so what? Trump is accused of "willful retention of defense information." If the PRA were removed right now, that doesn't get Trump off the hook. He willfully retained defense information.

If they rule the PRA is constitutional, so what? Trump is accused of "willful retention of defense information." Nothing in the PRA changes any of the information that Trump had from "concerning the national defense" to "not concerning the national defense." Also, the PRA (Section 2201) very VERY clearly defines what is and what is not a presidential record. Was the document created by an agency outside of the President and his direct office? Then the PRA does not apply and those documents belong to the the agency that created them. Was it created by the President and his direct office? Was it a document that was used in some manner to aid the president in carrying out his duties? Then it is a presidential record. Was it created solely for private use, and in no way used to aid in the carrying out of the president's duties? Then it is a personal record.

What ruling do you see the supreme court making related to the PRA that somehow gets Trump off the hook?

 

[FullMonte]

Raise your hand if you also said the D.C. Circuit Opinion on the POTUS immunity question was brilliantly analyzed and written, and that it was such a slam dunk SCOTUS should have just kicked out a decision finding no POTUS immunity within a month of the oral argument.

So, for those of you with one hand in the air, raise your other hand if you wrote that there was simply no question that the Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment gave the power to individual states to remove candidates from the POTUS ballot based on whatever standards or procedures they decided to adopt.

Come on @rparloff -- get both your hands up in the air.

I would ask all of you if you thought DOJ was going to win Fischer -- but all of you are out of hands to raise.

I love the whole concept of this...

Because the Supreme Court ruled a certain way, that must mean that the other opinions are wrong, since the Supreme Court can't be wrong.

So, let me give it a try.

Raise your hand if you think that the Supreme Court ruling means that their decision the correct legal decision. Now, raise your other hand if you believe that both Roe v Wade AND the Dobbs decision are correct. If you are raising both hands, please take a moment to explain how two opposite rulings can both be correct. If you are only raising one hand, then put that hand down, because clearly you were lying when you raised it.

 

[FullMonte]

The regulations don’t count. The appointments clause of the constitution rules.

Since the regulations define the special counsel as a "confidential employee," why would the appointments clause rule? The special counsel is not a "principal officer" which must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. Therefore, the question rests with the second type of officer that the Supreme Court has interpreted, an "inferior officer." SCOTUS has interpreted those as "whose appointment Congress may place with the President, judiciary, or department heads."

I would think it's a safe assumption that Congress has placed the ability to appoint DOJ employees with the DOJ.

 

[Sendai]

Since the regulations define the special counsel as a "confidential employee," why would the appointments clause rule? The special counsel is not a "principal officer" which must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. Therefore, the question rests with the second type of officer that the Supreme Court has interpreted, an "inferior officer." SCOTUS has interpreted those as "whose appointment Congress may place with the President, judiciary, or department heads."

I would think it's a safe assumption that Congress has placed the ability to appoint DOJ employees with the DOJ.

Federal Prosecutors are subject to the appointments clause.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Federal Prosecutors are subject to the appointments clause.

There is nothing in the Appointments clause of the Constitution or any other part that says anything about Federal Prosecutors. But there is this:

...but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Congress vested the appointment of special counsels to the Attorney General who is the head of the Department of Justice. There is nothing in the appointment clause that says special counsels are not inferior officers. Cite a ruling that says special counsels are principle officers and not inferior officers. The Supreme Court has said:

In the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court explained that whether an individual wields “significant authority” informs the assessment of whether that person is an officer, but the Court has not significantly elaborated on this test since that decision.

A special counsel only has the authority to investigate and prosecute a specific case. That is not "wielding a significant authority" which according to the Supreme Court means they are not an officer that has to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. A US attorney/federal prosecutor has the authority to investigate and prosecute any suspected crimes within their jurisdiction, that is a much more significant authority than what a special counsel has.

And there's this:

While the Constitution specifies that certain persons, such as Supreme Court Justices, qualify as “Officers of the United States,” the Appointments Clause does not specify all persons who fall under its purview. Thus, the Appointments Clause’s reach and scope has been disputed.

Overview of the Appointments Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[MT15]

with no other evidence of impartiality.

I read that her husband, who is well-off, made some pretty big donations to Trump. That’s been a while ago, though, and was possibly before her appointment. She is MAGA, it seems, as is her husband.