Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (3 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

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Sack: evidently you need us to come up with the facts of the Clinton case, since you keep spouting things that are not facts. This is a waste of time in this thread, IMO, because this thread isn’t about Clinton and you are attempting to excuse what Trump did by conflating it with a much, much less severe case. IMO you are doing this deliberately in order to make Trump look better.

I think Wikipedia is a good source for this because it is in the past, and the Wiki entries are vetted by numerous people and sourced. Here is the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on the Clinton email case:

“During her tenure as United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton drew controversy by using a private email server for official public communications rather than using official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers. After a years-long FBI investigation, it was determined that Clinton's server did not contain any information or emails that were clearly marked classified.[1] Federal agencies did, however, retrospectively determine that 100 emails contained information that should have been deemed classified at the time they were sent, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails were retroactively designated confidential by the State Department.[2][3][4][5]”

please reread this sentence: After a years-long FBI investigation, it was determined that Clinton's server did not contain any information or emails that were clearly marked classified.

The entry has a lot more to refute what you have been saying but we can start here. Can you admit that you were wrong about the amount and nature of the material on her server?

Link to Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy

It’s fruitless to try to have a discussion with someone who either doesn’t know or doesn’t acknowledge basic facts.

Obviously we are arguing with an individual from an alternate universe and the info that we are transmitting to him is somehow being converted to their universe's reality. That's the only logical conclusion one can come to, seeing how every time he is shown he's presenting false data, he just repeats his data as fact.

 

[Booker]

Satire, yet a pretty spot on depiction of Trump apologists…

I don't want to live in a country where Trump could be held accountable

Are we really the kind of county that allows 'evidence' to go before a 'grand jury' then lets that grand jury 'vote to indict' a former president?

www.yahoo.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

Sack: evidently you need us to come up with the facts of the Clinton case, since you keep spouting things that are not facts. This is a waste of time in this thread, IMO, because this thread isn’t about Clinton and you are attempting to excuse what Trump did by conflating it with a much, much less severe case. IMO you are doing this deliberately in order to make Trump look better.

You are entitled to that opinion.

I think Wikipedia is a good source for this because it is in the past, and the Wiki entries are vetted by numerous people and sourced. Here is the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on the Clinton email case:

You can put lipstick on the pig that is wikipedia, but that won't turn it into a valid source to provide evidence in a debate. Still, I don't see any obvious errors, just a little bit of weasel-wording in the part you highlighted. So let's look at it:

“During her tenure as United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton drew controversy by using a private email server for official public communications rather than using official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers. After a years-long FBI investigation, it was determined that Clinton's server did not contain any information or emails that were clearly marked classified.[1] Federal agencies did, however, retrospectively determine that 100 emails contained information that should have been deemed classified at the time they were sent, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails were retroactively designated confidential by the State Department.[2][3][4][5]”

The entry has a lot more to refute what you have been saying but we can start here. Can you admit that you were wrong about the amount and nature of the material on her server?

Link to Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy

A classified document is a document with classified information that should be treated as a classified document, whether someone took off the classification marking in order to email it Hillary or not. You just listed 100 emails that were classified, whether they were "clearly" marked as such by whatever standard the wiki anonymous contributor used.

100 is an oddly round number, but it doesn't matter. 2,093 + 100 is 2,193, which is certainly "thousands of classified documents" as I said. "CONFIDENTIAL" is a classification, so a confidential document is classified.

It’s fruitless to try to have a discussion with someone who either doesn’t know or doesn’t acknowledge basic facts.

She had a LOT of classified documents on her server, thousands as I said and your wiki article confirms. Most of them were not marked, though. Ever wonder how that happened? I was in the Army, and I saw a lot of classified documents, and all of them were marked.

Well, let's see if you can acknowledge this basic fact from the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — On a Friday morning in June 2011, after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had waited more than 12 hours for a set of talking points to be sent to her, a top aide told her the delay was because staff members were having problems sending faxes that would be secure from probing eyes.

“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Mrs. Clinton responded in an email released early Friday by the State Department, one of about 3,000 newly released pages of Mrs. Clinton’s emails during her time as secretary of state. Of those, 66 documents contained classified information.

The note she sent to the top aide, Jacob J. Sullivan, instructing him how to strip sensitive material of official markings and send it in a “nonsecure” way is heavily redacted, so it is unknown what the talking points were about.

 

[samiam5211]

We shouldn't engage people's whataboutism.

There isn't anything that Hillary did that excuses anything Trump did.

Hillary could have forwarded classified emails to Putin and Epstein, it would not make any difference about whether Trump is guilty or not.

People defending Trump either have not read the indictment, or they care more about Donald Trump than the United States. Either way, they should just be shunned.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Obviously we are arguing with an individual from an alternate universe and the info that we are transmitting to him is somehow being converted to their universe's reality. That's the only logical conclusion one can come to, seeing how every time he is shown he's presenting false data, he just repeats his data as fact.

We are clearly dealing with an alter of a previous poster. I can think of a few people who fit that modus operandi.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Just saw Trumps poll numbers went up after the indictment

 

[MT15]

You are entitled to that opinion.

You can put lipstick on the pig that is wikipedia, but that won't turn it into a valid source to provide evidence in a debate. Still, I don't see any obvious errors, just a little bit of weasel-wording in the part you highlighted. So let's look at it:



A classified document is a document with classified information that should be treated as a classified document, whether someone took off the classification marking in order to email it Hillary or not. You just listed 100 emails that were classified, whether they were "clearly" marked as such by whatever standard the wiki anonymous contributor used.

100 is an oddly round number, but it doesn't matter. 2,093 + 100 is 2,193, which is certainly "thousands of classified documents" as I said. "CONFIDENTIAL" is a classification, so a confidential document is classified.


She had a LOT of classified documents on her server, thousands as I said and your wiki article confirms. Most of them were not marked, though. Ever wonder how that happened? I was in the Army, and I saw a lot of classified documents, and all of them were marked.

Well, let's see if you can acknowledge this basic fact from the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — On a Friday morning in June 2011, after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had waited more than 12 hours for a set of talking points to be sent to her, a top aide told her the delay was because staff members were having problems sending faxes that would be secure from probing eyes.

“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Mrs. Clinton responded in an email released early Friday by the State Department, one of about 3,000 newly released pages of Mrs. Clinton’s emails during her time as secretary of state. Of those, 66 documents contained classified information.

The note she sent to the top aide, Jacob J. Sullivan, instructing him how to strip sensitive material of official markings and send it in a “nonsecure” way is heavily redacted, so it is unknown what the talking points were about.

This was clearly not ideal, but it wasn’t malicious nor was there any obstruction of the FBI. We’ve already mentioned how bad the State Department email system was at that time. Which is why Powell had advised Clinton to set up an alternate way to deal with files. At least you can see and admit that none of the emails had classified markings when she saw them, the vast majority (2093) were in fact not classified at that time and never had been, but were given “confidential” markings after the fact. So in order to get to your “thousands” figure you have to count emails that were classified after the investigation. That’s a pretty dishonest way to claim you were right, IMO.

Plus everything was already investigated by FBI and DOJ, who are definitely not fond of Clinton. Clinton cooperated fully with the FBI and DOJ, believe me if Comey could have made them charge her he would have. Which is why he broke protocol not once but two times and discussed her case publicly. The DOJ followed precedent in not charging her. And what you call weasel-wording is just unbiased truth.

What Trump did was at least an order of magnitude worse. And you know it, or you just choose to live in ignorance.

What is fascinating to me, and I don’t think I will ever truly understand it, is that when faced with what Trump did with classified documents, you choose to go this route. Especially since you claim to know something about classified documents. That you choose to claim what Clinton did is the same as what Trump did will label you as just lacking credibility. If you cannot acknowledge the difference, you just aren’t willing to have an honest discussion.

We have talked way too much about Clinton in this thread about Trump.

 

[MT15]

Just saw Trumps poll numbers went up after the indictment

Because it‘s a cult.

 

[Incumbent]

We shouldn't engage people's whataboutism.

There isn't anything that Hillary did that excuses anything Trump did.

Hillary could have forwarded classified emails to Putin and Epstein, it would make any difference about whether Trump is guilty or not.

People defending Trump either have not read the indictment, or they care more about Donald Trump than the United States. Either way, they should just be shunned.

And Trump, Sessions, and Barr had four years to find wrongdoing and bring charges against Clinton. We already know how that turned out.

 

[MT15]

And Trump, Sessions, and Barr had four years to find wrongdoing and bring charges against Clinton. We already know how that turned out.

It’s very telling that when we get people in here that are both conservative and sensible, they are not engaging in these tactics.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Just saw Trumps poll numbers went up after the indictment

Of course.

One of Trump's most basic premises is that the Deepstate is out to get him. The OIG report and the Durham Special Counsel Report on Operation Crossfire Hurricane showed that he was right in that premise. His supporters will take this indictment as further proof that "Operation Get Trump" continues.

The DOJ has made Trump even more popular and his supporters even more galvanized. This move will most affect Trump supporters who might be looking at DeSantis' youth and better record on immigration and wavering. They will firm up now.

If the goal is truly to be rid of Trump as a political force, the only strategy that would work is the one strategy that the media is incapable of: ignore him.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This was clearly not ideal, but it wasn’t malicious nor was there any obstruction of the FBI. We’ve already mentioned how bad the State Department email system was at that time. Which is why Powell had advised Clinton to set up an alternate way to deal with files. At least you can see and admit that none of the emails had classified markings when she saw them, the vast majority (2093) were in fact not classified at that time and never had been, but were given “confidential” markings after the fact. So in order to get to your “thousands” figure you have to count emails that were classified after the investigation. That’s a pretty dishonest way to claim you were right, IMO.

Did you even read the part where Clinton instructed her subordinates to strip classified markings from documents so they could be sent to her nonsecure server? They stripped the markings, but they were not able to declassify the contents. So the documents were not classified "after the fact," they had the markings rightly put back on by the authorities.

For that one act alone, repeated thousands of times, Hillary and her subordinates could have been liable for criminal charges.

But, I agree with Comey's decision not to prosecute her.

Plus everything was already investigated by FBI and DOJ, who are definitely not fond of Clinton.

What in the world is your evidence that the FBI and the DOJ are definitely not fond of Clinton?

Clinton cooperated fully with the FBI and DOJ,

She did not cooperate fully. Cooperating fully would look like Clinton doing what Trump's opponents think he should have done. If she were cooperating fully, she would have said, "I made a mistake moving all this classified material to my home. I'm not touching it until you all come and take everything you think I should not have.

Instead, she did exactly what Trump did. She stalled, returned material in batches instead of all at once, and she picked and chose what to return based on her own judgement. Yet, she was never raided, never charged.

The double standard is plain. Almost half the country sees it plainly and talks about it. Another near half claims not to see it. That leaves about ten to twenty percent in the middle who will tell us in November of 2024 whether they see it or not.

believe me if Comey could have made them charge her he would have. Which is why he broke protocol not once but two times and discussed her case publicly. The DOJ followed precedent in not charging her. And what you call weasel-wording is just unbiased truth.

Yes, and having not only followed precedent, but announced precedent as the key reason for not prosecuting her, why would they not apply the same precedent to Trump? Precedents only count for Democrats? No, precedents only count for establishment politicians of either party.

What Trump did was at least an order of magnitude worse. And you know it, or you just choose to live in ignorance.

Don't ever complain about me being snarky.

What is fascinating to me, and I don’t think I will ever truly understand it, is that when faced with what Trump did with classified documents, you choose to go this route. Especially since you claim to know something about classified documents. That you choose to claim what Clinton did is the same as what Trump did will label you as just lacking credibility. If you cannot acknowledge the difference, you just aren’t willing to have an honest discussion.

Repetitive.

We have talked way too much about Clinton in this thread about Trump.

Not at all. I thought you said you cared about precedent? How can we talk about charges for having classified documents in an unsecured location at a person's home without talking about the precedents?

 

[Snarky Sack]

And Trump, Sessions, and Barr had four years to find wrongdoing and bring charges against Clinton. We already know how that turned out.

Comey had already dismissed the possibility of charges against Clinton. Trump, like a grown up, accepted that, and moved on.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Question for some of our lawyer friends. If the magistrate judge decides no bail for trump, could Aileen Collins over-rule the magistrate judge and grant bail even though in 100% of trials involving espionage, defendants are remanded into custody until their trial? She has already shown herself to be incompetent and completely in the tank for trump.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Optimus Prime]

Trump, like a grown up, accepted that, and moved on.

 

[samiam5211]

Trump only has two types of former employees. Disgruntled and Indicted, and sometimes it can be both.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Trump only has two types of former employees. Disgruntled and Indicted, and sometimes it can be both.

They made plenty money off him before they became disgruntled. No need to feel sorry for them.