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

 

[LA - L.A.]

Fence sitters don't count as losing a vote.

Yes they could be lost votes for Trump. "Fence sitters" are fickle and are easily swayed to change their minds. Evidence from Trump's trials might get some Trump leaning "fence sitters" to lean toward Harris instead.

"Fence sitters" that vote will make a choice when they vote, so if evidence from Trump's trials sways them to not vote for Trump, then evidence from Trump's trial caused Trump to lose votes that he might not have lost.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I should have qualified it as no reasonable likely voter thinks he's innocent.

Very judgemental you are. It's completely reasonable to think "I don't know if he's innocent or guilty " in regards to charges against Trump in the election interference case.

He's already been convicted recently 3 times...

We are specifically talking about the voter interference charges, not any of the other charges.

 

[LA - L.A.]

People have short memories. The weeks after Jan 6 he was despised. Suddenly everyone forgot. If new information comes out that depicts the crap he was doing it will impact him negatively. The key is that this sentiment carry long enough to be in people’s minds when they vote. People have forgotten how bad it was that day.

And I bet my bottom dollar that none of us know everything that Jack Smith and his team has uncovered with their investigation and we won't know until they present their case during the trial.

 

[Nebaghead]

And I bet my bottom dollar that none of us know everything that Jack Smith and his team has uncovered with their investigation and we won't know until they present their case during the trial.

That’s true, however they are going to do a huge info dump on the 26th (at least I think that is the date). Court of public opinion will be at work here.

 

[Lapaz]

Very judgemental you are. It's completely reasonable to think "I don't know if he's innocent or guilty " in regards to charges against Trump in the election interference case.


We are specifically talking about the voter interference charges, not any of the other charges.

Yes I am judgemental, as are you. I didn't say that it is unreasonable to NOT know. I said it is unreasonable to KNOW he is innocent. In the face of all of the evidence, that is unreasonable. It IS reasonable to NOT know, because you don't follow or care about politics. I judge that as being a poor citizen, but it isn't unreasonable.

Your definition of fence sitters may be different than mine. To me, fence sitters are the approximately 5 to 10% of voters who haven't said they would vote for one or the other. Those are the ones that are gettable, but my point is that practically 0% of those are gettable from new evidence. I think people who are on the fence about whether to vote for Trump are either not paying attention or don't care whether he is guilty. If they haven't been paying attention, then they probably won't pay attention to the new evidence, and if they don't care about the past evidence, then effectively none of them will care about new evidence. Those people will only be moved by other things, but not evidence of Trump's guilt. It could be changes in the inflation rate, or god knows what, but positions on Trump's guilt or innocence are entrenched. Those that don't know by now will never know or never care.

 

[Lapaz]

And I bet my bottom dollar that none of us know everything that Jack Smith and his team has uncovered with their investigation and we won't know until they present their case during the trial.

I wouldn't bet that any of us know what evidence Jack has, but I would bet my bottom dollar that it won't affect the election, unless he were to go to trial. The evidence already revealed is damning, yet it hasn't had an effect, so there is no reason for me to believe that any new evidence will have an effect. I think that only a trial and a conviction would have an effect. Anything else is just wishful thinking. Harris can't and shouldn't rely on getting any new votes from any new evidence. She'll have to earn them the old fashion way.

 

[LA - L.A.]

That’s true, however they are going to do a huge info dump on the 26th (at least I think that is the date). Court of public opinion will be at work here.

That's what I was getting at. There are things we voters don't know yet, so the new information dump will likely sway some voters. It's possible that details worse than what he already know are going to be revealed.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Yes I am judgemental, as are you.

I always know when I'm stating an opinion or a fact. The only judging I do are based on verifiable facts, not on my opinions.

I didn't say that it is unreasonable to NOT know...It IS reasonable to NOT know, because you don't follow or care about politics.

That's an unreasonable assumption on your part. Some people choose to wait until they hear all the evidence there is to hear before they decide they know something. It's unreasonable for anyone to think they know if someone is guilty or innocent before they've heard all of the evidence.

I think you confuse "know" with "believe." It's a common problem.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I wouldn't bet that any of us know what evidence Jack has, but I would bet my bottom dollar that it won't affect the election, unless he were to go to trial. The evidence already revealed is damning, yet it hasn't had an effect,...

What are you basing this opinion on? Unless you've personally talked to every voter, you can't possibly know that the evidence released to day has had no effect on any voters.

...so there is no reason for me to believe...

Everything you've said on this topic is your belief, none of it is grounded in objective, verifiable facts. You make assumptions that you believe to be fact and then make the mistake of thinking you know those assumptions are accurate.

It's highly unlikely that not a single voter would be swayed by new damning evidence, so it's unreasonable to believe that new evidence won't have any effect at all, which is the claim you keep making.

 

[Lapaz]

What are you basing this opinion on? Unless you've personally talked to every voter, you can't possibly know that the evidence released to day has had no effect on any voters.


Everything you've said on this topic is your belief, none of it is grounded in objective, verifiable facts. You make assumptions that you believe to be fact and then make the mistake of thinking you know those assumptions are accurate.

It's highly unlikely that not a single voter would be swayed by new damning evidence, so it's unreasonable to believe that new evidence won't have any effect at all, which is the claim you keep making.

You too express your belief without evidence. I haven't said no voters will be swayed, but I have said it is probable that practically 0 of the remaining fence sitters will be influenced. It is my belief, and it is based on logic, not evidence. The logic is that there has been evidence for years, and lots of evidence, yet they remain on the fence. What basis do you have to believe that fence sitters would be influenced, when they haven't been with all of the other evidence?

 

[LA - L.A.]

You too express your belief without evidence.

Yes, but I state it as what I believe and not as what is "known" to be a fact.

I haven't said no voters will be swayed...

You have repeatedly claimed that releasing new evidence will have no effect at all. Swaying some voters is an effect.

 

[Lapaz]

Yes, but I state it as what I believe and not as what is "known" to be a fact.


You have repeatedly claimed that releasing new evidence will have no effect at all. Swaying some voters is an effect.

Swaying less than 1% is essentially no effect, and I think it will be less than 1% of fence sitters. I hope I'm wrong, but the mounds of evidence to date hasn't gotten them off of the fence. What do you base your belief on that the evidence will have an effect?

 

[LA - L.A.]

Swaying less than 1% is essentially no effect...

Any effect is by definition an effect.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Guess this can go here

Yes let this be a warning to all Americans

If you refuse to return classified documents multiple times the government will raid your house to get them back

 

[Eeyore]

 

[MT15]

Guess this can go here

Yes let this be a warning to all Americans

If you refuse to return classified documents multiple times the government will raid your house to get them back

fork Melania. She’s no hero.

 

[DaveXA]

Man, I haven't seen my shocked face in a long while when it comes to Trump. It's par for the course with him. Wake me up when one of these convictions actually sticks. Any other normal person would be in jail for decades at this point.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The Florida federal judge who dismissed the special counsel classified documents case against Donald Trump failed to properly disclose her attendance at a 2023 banquet funded by a conservative law school.

The May 5, 2023, event at George Mason University was held in honor of the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and included attendees from the conservative legal group the Federalist Society and right-leaning judges from across the country.

One of the attendees included William H. Pryor Jr., chief judge of the 11th Circuit, which is currently hearing an appeal of Cannon’s decision in the documents case.

Cannon failed to follow a 2006 rule requiring judges to disclose within 30 days their attendance at paid seminars that could pose or suggest the appearance of a conflict of interest, according to reporting from ProPublica.

“Judges administer the law, and we have a right to expect every judge to comply with the law,” Virginia Canter, chief ethics counsel for the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), told the outlet.

Cannon’s annual disclosure form for last year was due in May but hasn’t been posted, according to ProPublica.

The Independent has contacted Cannon’s chambers for comment.

Cannon has been flagged for past disclosure issues, not publishing disclosures about 2021 and 2021 trips to a luxury Montana lodge for a series of George Mason events until asked about them by NPR reporters.............

Judge in Trump classified documents case didn’t disclose right-wing banquet

Trump-appointed federal judge Aileen Cannon tossed classified documents case against former president in July

www.the-independent.com