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

 

[Snarky Sack]

I’m kind of new here, what do you hope for Mr.Trump?

I'm very new myself. I'd welcome you, but I have to believe that you've been here longer than I. Let me answer about what I hope for President Trump at the end.

I’d suggest you view Mr Trump as the mob boss with the Feds on his tail. What moves as he been deprived of? He’s a criminal being investigated for violations of the espionage act.

How much money did he make from those alleged violations of the espionage act? Zero, of course. If - and it is very much an "if" at this point, the allegations are true, he showed off knowledge of classified information for the sake of showing off. Mob bosses don't violate the Espianage Act.

Mob bosses are in it for the money. They leave a trail of dead bodies of people who might have witnessed against them, or otherwise slowed their efforts to make money and stay out of jail. There are politicians you could say that of, but Trump isn't one of them. Trump is no mob boss. That analogy will only confuse you.

A far better one would be to think of Trump as an oppositon leader in a third world country whose political opponents gained power and are now using the full weight and armed might of government to prevent him from ever regaining power. Through that lens, current events make much more sense.

And you know what the saddest thing is? Instead of throwing his hands up and saying Crap I forked up, what do you need me to do to make this right? Upon he would have been handled like all the other leaders with classified doors in their residence, (except when you look the amount of material he made off with as he was vacating the White House, this puts him in a different league than finding stray documents stashed away after a leader is out of office.)

I highly doubt that. The "Get Trump" movement has been after him for more than seven years now, long before he was an ex president, even before he was a president. Did he fork up in his call to the Ukraine president? Nope, but we were told by a "whistleblower" that the call violated the law. So he released the transcript, and sure enough, no violation. Just two leaders telling each other what each wanted from the other. Praise Allah for the presidents ability to declassify. If that call had remained hidden, there would still be intelligent people who believe that Trump violated the law in that call.

Instead he thinks he’s Mr Brilliant who will stone wall the Feds running circles around them, pull the wool over their eyes, talk his way out of it and force them to raid his place to actually get the documents back, while doing a conbinarion of bragging and whining to his losers about 1) how he did nothing wrong by making off with many boxes of highly classified documents that he had no right to, and 2) he magically rewrites the law according to Donny he broke no law, and tries to sell his gullible base that he is just being persecuted by his political opponents.

Hillary did the same as Trump, exactly, and she was never the president. She kept classified information unlawfully, and when it was discovered, instead of saying, "I forked up, what can I do to make it right," she negotiated, stalled, stonewalled, and ultimately physically destroyed evidence that she had magically decided was not government records. The difference is one of personality. Instead of trying to talk circles around the investigators, she feigned a poor memory at every tough question.

Years ago I worked around people whose jobs were classified. Not just the work they did, but their actual job description was classified information. They told people they met that they were contract compliance inspectors, or some such, knowing that no one in government would ever ask a compliance inspector to come visit. Each time I would meet one, they would ask me if I was "read on," meaning did I know what they did. As soon as I said I was, they would regale me with stories of their adventures.

Point is that officials, senior and mid-level, do not take classified information as sacred and inviolable as we might be led to believe from watching "Spy Kids."

Among the MAGA types there is such a low bar set that any shirt the rolls off his tongue becomes the sweetest candy they have ever devoured.

Oh.

If that is your stance, there was no need to request information as if you were interested in an honest debate. You could have led with that sentence, and said no more. Still, I'll answer your question as promised:

I'm of two minds about what I want for President Trump. His promises were far better than what he delivered. I believe he could have accomplished his goals of building the wall in the first two years, so not doing it in four makes me think that he was hoping that an unfinished wall would drive his supporters to the polls in fear of a Democrat president who would open our border to massive illegal immigration. Hmm. I believe that the country would benefit from eight years of DeSantis moreso than four more years of Trump.

On the other hand, I hate to see the liars, cheats, document forgers, and justice system weaponizers get a win. If Trump steps down as presidential candidate, in an irrevocable way, all the phony investigations would stop, because they would not be cost effective anymore. That would be good for the country, because these actions by the Entrenched Bureaucracy have been incredibly devisive.

But, unfortunately, we would only get a short break from the anti-Trump hysteria, while they geared up for anti-DeSantis hysteria. Having had a taste of victory, they will see themselves as invincible and go after any Republican or Democrat who is not part of the establishment and has a chance to become president.

If Trump stepped down and an establishment Republican, like Pence, somehow won the nomination, while at the same time Kennedy Jr. won the Democrat nomination, the weaponized government would go after Kennedy, not Pence or whoever. We already saw how the DOJ/FBI treated Pence for having classified documents, so he is not on their list.

So, my hope for Trump is the fight these trumped up charges. There is not enough time for the DOJ to get a conviction between now and the election. So I hope that he becomes president, pardons himself and does a deep clean of the DOJ/FBI.

I'd put the probability of that at about 60%, unless Kennedy or Newsome gets the Dem nomination, then the odds even up.

 

[Snarky Sack]

No, the leaks are coming from grand jury witnesses and from Trump’s lawyers. Yes, somebody else besides prosecutors has the recording. Are you that dense, or do you take us for being that dense?

What is your proof that the leaks are coming from grand jury witnesses and Trump's lawyers?

It makes far more sense that the leaks are coming from the sources I mentioned than from prosecutors.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Booker]

More like Trump governed like a wannabe third world dictator, acting as if laws didn’t apply to him, and now he’s finding out they do. The only people going third world are the Trump-suckers who want to look the other way because he hates the same people they do.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I look forward to her denying her words had absolutely nothing to do with January 6th 2025
================================================


Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA.), an ally of former president Donald Trump, told a Republican crowd that Trump’s indictment was an indication that Democrats are trying to ensure that the GOP will “never win elections again.”

Greene posted a snippet of her appearance in a tweet that referred to the 37 charges against Trump as “phony,” citing supposedly ignored, alleged evidence against President Joe Biden. She used the indictment to rile up the crowd, stating:

“You should be outraged. … But let me tell you something: it’s going to get worse. It is not going to get better. It’s going to get worse because they are going to continue. They don’t want you to ever win elections again. They do not want you to ever be able to pick who you want to live in the White House and run this country, or hold any other political office. They don’t want you in charge. They want to be in charge.”

MTG Whips Up GOP Crowd After Trump Indictment: ‘They Don’t Want You to Ever Win Elections Again’

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I highly doubt that. The "Get Trump" movement has been after him for more than seven years now, long before he was an ex president, even before he was a president. Did he fork up in his call to the Ukraine president? Nope, but we were told by a "whistleblower" that the call violated the law. So he released the transcript, and sure enough, no violation. Just two leaders telling each other what each wanted from the other. Praise Allah for the presidents ability to declassify. If that call had remained hidden, there would still be intelligent people who believe that Trump violated the law in that call.

Are you familiar with the Impound Control Act? It states that the president can't withhold funds that have been appropriated by Congress without specifically asking them to and then receiving permission. Trump withheld the funds in order to pressure Zelenskyy into opening a criminal investigation into a matter that was already investigated solely to damage the reputation of the person he (rightly) assumed would be his opponent in the next presidential election.

I'm of two minds about what I want for President Trump. His promises were far better than what he delivered. I believe he could have accomplished his goals of building the wall in the first two years, so not doing it in four makes me think that he was hoping that an unfinished wall would drive his supporters to the polls in fear of a Democrat president who would open our border to massive illegal immigration. Hmm. I believe that the country would benefit from eight years of DeSantis moreso than four more years of Trump.

Do you have any evidence of this, perhaps by the number of deportations per year?

On the other hand, I hate to see the liars, cheats, document forgers, and justice system weaponizers get a win. If Trump steps down as presidential candidate, in an irrevocable way, all the phony investigations would stop, because they would not be cost effective anymore. That would be good for the country, because these actions by the Entrenched Bureaucracy have been incredibly devisive.

How do you define "justice system weaponizer"?

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Man, this Ramaswamy is crazy. Trump did bad judgement, but didn't break the law. At the point he took the documents and didn't return them, he broke the law.

Idiot

 

[superchuck500]

Busing MAGAs to the courthouse for the arraignment. Sounds familiar.

 

[MT15]

What is your proof that the leaks are coming from grand jury witnesses and Trump's lawyers?

Agree to disagree.

You don’t have any proof either, but if you read carefully what they say about the sources you can infer that it was the witnesses. The stories are about what lines of questioning certain witnesses saw. The stories do not pertain to any prosecution strategies nor anything about an overview. The stories don’t reveal what the prosecution knows, they reveal things a witness or a defense attorney would know.

Only someone who denies reality would think otherwise, but we’ve pretty much established you live in a different reality than the rest of the country with your own set of beliefs that run counter to the facts. Your allegations about H. Clinton are false, they’ve been debunked and we just discussed it in this very thread. Yet you come in here and say the lies again. How are we to take you seriously?

You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. Facts are just facts. You saying things that aren’t true doesn’t change the facts.

 

[MT15]

Busing MAGAs to the courthouse. Sounds familiar.

Yep, it has taken far too long to get to the organizers of the insurrection and now Trump is willing to try it again. I sure hope that the local and state police are prepared for the violence that this will incite.

I also hope that the number of foot soldiers arrested and tried and sentenced after Jan 6 will have some effect on the number of people willing to commit violence for this con man.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You don’t have any proof either, but if you read carefully what they say about the sources you can infer that it was the witnesses. The stories are about what lines of questioning certain witnesses saw. The stories do not pertain to any prosecution strategies nor anything about an overview. The stories don’t reveal what the prosecution knows, they reveal things a witness or a defense attorney would know.

Only someone who denies reality would think otherwise, but we’ve pretty much established you live in a different reality than the rest of the country with your own set of beliefs that run counter to the facts. Your allegations about H. Clinton are false, they’ve been debunked and we just discussed it in this very thread. Yet you come in here and say the lies again. How are we to take you seriously?

You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. Facts are just facts. You saying things that aren’t true doesn’t change the facts.

Re-writing the Hillary server history to suit your purpose of claiming that what Trump did was unique is you trying to have your own facts.

Which of these fact do you deny:

1) Hillary Clinton installed a server in her home on which to recieve and store official State Department Communications
2) Hillary received classified information, including Top Secret, on that private server.
3) Hillary refused to turn over the server for removal of the government communications, and refused to turn over all information on the server.
4) Having announced that she had turned over all that she intended to turn over, she destroyed the remaining communications, using a program called "Bleachbit," and had her staff physically destroy mobile devices.
5) Some of the information from her private server was found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, a felony child abuser.
6) Hillary was never indicted.


Just say the numbers that are just my "own fact?" and not the truth?

 

[MT15]

Re-writing the Hillary server history to suit your purpose of claiming that what Trump did was unique is you trying to have your own facts.

Which of these fact do you deny:

1) Hillary Clinton installed a server in her home on which to recieve and store official State Department Communications
2) Hillary received classified information, including Top Secret, on that private server.
3) Hillary refused to turn over the server for removal of the government communications, and refused to turn over all information on the server.
4) Having announced that she had turned over all that she intended to turn over, she destroyed the remaining communications, using a program called "Bleachbit," and had her staff physically destroy mobile devices.
5) Some of the information from her private server was found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, a felony child abuser.
6) Hillary was never indicted.


Just say the numbers that are just my "own fact?" and not the truth?

Good propaganda has a scintilla of truth but never tells the entire story. You should know that if you know any history at all. But sure - there are some falsehoods in there. Number 4 is the most problematic at first glance. Number 3 is also not true in its entirety. Number 5 is misleading, intentionally so.

It is so fascinating to see someone who has this cognitive dissonance - the ability to excuse everything that Trump does, while skewing facts to make what Clinton did appear to be worse. I suppose that’s the only way you can feel good about your decisions.

 

[FullMonte]

The general timeline on this is HRC team asked for the server to be wiped after leaving office.

The guys doing their hosting, and IT services failed to do this.

Republicans subpoena for the emails.

HRC staff calls the hosting company to verify that the server was wiped.

The hosting company realized it hasn't and wipes the server.

Does this smell super fishy? Oh yeah.

The problem is intent.

The biggest difference, and Republicans should read this part. For all this to be equal, you would need HRC on a recording making a statement like this. "We should have wiped the server, but we didn't. Now, we've got to do it knowing that we shouldn't."

The FBI is not a liberal bulwark. Get real.

After reading this what happened to files that went to bedminster? Were those ever recovered? It seems like the FBI saying some of this stuff is still missing? Are we going to see a second set of charges in a different location?

I always thought it was political. Technically, the server/private emails is/are illegal, but that’s like going 80 in a 70 mph zone.

I’m not sure that’s correct. I seem to recall that at the time, a private server could be used, but you had to get authorization, which I don’t think she had.

 

[UriUT]

I’m not sure that’s correct. I seem to recall that at the time, a private server could be used, but you had to get authorization, which I don’t think she had.

That's what I had thought too. I wanted to refresh my memory of that whole thing and found this article (I corrected my post due to it):

What the FBI Files Reveal About Hillary Clinton’s Email Server

New documents tell the full, strange story of a technophobic VIP, a sloppy State Department, and the jerry-rigged computer that held it all together.<br />

www.politico.com

Her preference for a personal email account was not technically against the rules. At State, FBI agents later found, there was “no restriction on use of personal email accounts for official business,” but employees were cautioned about security and records retention concerns. The State Department told employees that they should forward such emails to their official accounts for recordkeeping purposes. “There were no rules in place that specifically denied Secretary Clinton the use of her private network,” but, according to the State Department IG Steve Linick, private email was “highly discouraged.”

The concern was more FOIA to preserve the records.

When she took over, it was highly inefficient to communicate through the then current system.

One State Department official, no fan of Hillary Clinton, said it was “business as usual” for her and others to have to communicate sensitive matters via the unclassified email system. “If you are a professional, you know how to do it and how much to do,” he said. The Department had only three real choices for passing along information: an official cable, a classified email and an unclassified email.

“The process for sending a cable was not quick, nor were executives as likely to get a classified email in a timely manor [sic],” the official said, adding that he “tried to use his best judgment.” The classified emails were generally used primarily for passing “lateral information” to other ambassadors, the National Security Council or other parts of the intelligence community. The unclassified email was really the only functional choice “for day to day interaction,” and while the email system did let users mark a message using a lower-level warning—“Sensitive But Unclassified”—it didn’t grant any special protections to such messages.

In addition, much of the day to day stuff were hard to classify. For example, her meetings w/ X person can be exploited and therefore sensitive. But by no means classified. That's why "thousands of classified" info is bs. Interestingly enough, there was a story I heard on NPR on one of my rides the last month or two discussing why the classified system is too broad.

The bottom line, what Trump did vs Clinton by no means are even in the same ball park.

Also, by even bringing this back and with the "LOCK HER UP" chants, they know implicitly that Trump is F.

 

[UriUT]

Busing MAGAs to the courthouse for the arraignment. Sounds familiar.

SIGH, more tax dollars towards prosecution and prison terms.

 

[UriUT]

Man, this Ramaswamy is crazy. Trump did bad judgement, but didn't break the law. At the point he took the documents and didn't return them, he broke the law.

Idiot

What's his poll number? Ive seen a few videos of him spouting nonsense, so I have to wonder why he is scheduled on "serious" news programming.

 

[J-DONK]

Re-writing the Hillary server history to suit your purpose of claiming that what Trump did was unique is you trying to have your own facts.

Which of these fact do you deny:

1) Hillary Clinton installed a server in her home on which to recieve and store official State Department Communications
2) Hillary received classified information, including Top Secret, on that private server.
3) Hillary refused to turn over the server for removal of the government communications, and refused to turn over all information on the server.
4) Having announced that she had turned over all that she intended to turn over, she destroyed the remaining communications, using a program called "Bleachbit," and had her staff physically destroy mobile devices.
5) Some of the information from her private server was found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, a felony child abuser.
6) Hillary was never indicted.


Just say the numbers that are just my "own fact?" and not the truth?

You are trying to conflate running a private email server that had 22 marked classified emails on it to Trump playing find the files with the FBI.

It's not the same.

Colin Powell had a private email address that he used at the state department.

We also had gwb43.com.

Both of those scenarios are similar to HRC's email server, and no one was charged.

You are trying to compare apples to oranges, and telling us the case is a lemon.

 

[UriUT]

Good propaganda has a scintilla of truth but never tells the entire story. You should know that if you know any history at all. But sure - there are some falsehoods in there. Number 4 is the most problematic at first glance. Number 3 is also not true in its entirety. Number 5 is misleading, intentionally so.

It is so fascinating to see someone who has this cognitive dissonance - the ability to excuse everything that Trump does, while skewing facts to make what Clinton did appear to be worse. I suppose that’s the only way you can feel good about your decisions.

Post Article

😁

post.news

 

[Snarky Sack]

Good propaganda has a scintilla of truth but never tells the entire story. You should know that if you know any history at all. But sure - there are some falsehoods in there. Number 4 is the most problematic at first glance. Number 3 is also not true in its entirety. Number 5 is misleading, intentionally so.

So, let's look at your assessment of each the claims:

1) Hillary Clinton installed a server in her home on which to recieve and store official State Department Communications
Do not deny.

2) Hillary received classified information, including Top Secret, on that private server.
Do not deny.

3) Hillary refused to turn over the server for removal of the government communications, and refused to turn over all information on the server.
Partially true with no explanation of which part is false.

4) Having announced that she had turned over all that she intended to turn over, she destroyed the remaining communications, using a program called "Bleachbit," and had her staff physically destroy mobile devices.
Problematic at first glance (but not false).

5) Some of the information from her private server was found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, a felony child abuser
misleading, intentionally so.

6) Hillary was never indicted.
Do not deny.

So, for the sake of argument, let's take out 3) and 5) since those are the ones you claim are only partially true or misleading.

You do not dispute that Hillary had a server on her home to recieve and store State Department communications, including classified up to Top Secret. Further, she determined what information to turn over and not to turn over to the government. When she was satisfied that she had turned over everything she intended to, she destroyed the rest using a combination of sophisticated software and less sophisticated hardware. She was never indicted.

Nor did she ever have a raid on her home to retrieve the information that she unlawfully possessed. Nor a Special Counsel, if memory serves. Correct me if I'm wrong.

There is a multi-tiered justice system that any American should be concerned about. Unfortunately, we get caught up enjoyingj when it is turned on political opponents nad don't stop to realize that we could be next.

In fact, if Trump wins, I fear he will fight fire with fire, and fill the Justice department with people almost as ruthlessly partisan as the current Justice Department. We know how Democrats behave when they lose. Women and children are fair game for their attacks.

It is so fascinating to see someone who has this cognitive dissonance - the ability to excuse everything that Trump does, while skewing facts to make what Clinton did appear to be worse. I suppose that’s the only way you can feel good about your decisions.

I never said that what Hillary did was worse. It was pretty much the same except that Trump had paper documents while Hillary had a server. Also Trump has not been accused of destroying anything, though some speculate he may have hidden some.

What was different was the consequences given by the DOJ.