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

 

[UriUT]

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.

The Dangerous Whataboutism in the Trump Classified Docs Case

Republicans are rallying to Trump's defense on the classified documents case, but their whataboutism is wrong and dangerous

time.com

Whataboutism is a strategy used by authoritarian leaders to excuse their own misconduct .... The goal of this tactic is not to convince the public that the leader is innocent, but to portray all politicians are dishonest. Anyone claiming to value integrity is scoffed at as duplicitous or naïve.

As I've stated before, throughout the weekend, no one defended Trump's action, except Jim Jordan. And he was made a fool for doing so. So all these cultists and cowards were left with are whataboutism and gas-lighting. As Barb McQuade notes, the whataboutism isn't to defend Trump. No, these people know that there aren't any defense for stealing national secrets, in particular nuclear secrets which historically has been our most coveted and sacred, for conspiring to keep it instead of returning to the US government, and for leaving it open where we know with certainty that Chinese and other foreign agents not friendly to the US operated.

However, to defend the cult over country, they are willing to gas light the entire system as they've done since the election results were known. Surely they know that Trump is corrupt and indefensible. How else to explain toying with an equally corrupt and vial DeSantis? These people understand Trump's repulsiveness to sane and normal people. They are repulsed of him themselves, in fact. With DeSantis' lack of charisma and traction, the indictment is that mosquito lamp for the ever persecuted. The system must be unfair. How can anyone not see that but them? Hillary Clinton, Biden, and Pence. The DOJ and FBI therefore has to be corrupt if one equates those instances to Trump. The ever persecuted cannot reason that what Trump did is remarkably worse. What is clearly recklessness or simple unintentional error is the same as conspiring to keep the national secrets from the US government. What once was a "LOCK HER UP" grievous "crime" no longer is. It isn't to defend Trump. It is to artificially elevate everything else to Trump's criminality so that Trump's crimes can be excused, not defended.

Matthew Sheffield, has a remarkable insight into this RW psyche. The rw sphere truly believes that they are persecuted. The media is biased towards their cause. Therefore, they must intentionally be equally ruthless in their bias, often making shirt up. They cannot understand that reporters adhere to a journalistic standards and will not publish something that cannot be supported.

A former right-wing media creator on how a ‘different reality’ became so prominent. (Published 2020)

Matthew Sheffield grew disillusioned after years of working in conservative media.

www.nytimes.com

Most conservatives don't understand purpose of journalism, says founder of website on media bias

Matthew Sheffield, co-founder of the conservative website NewsBusters, now says most conservatives think journalism's purpose is to wage partisan political warfare, and that has created an ecosystem on the right where truth is increasingly irrelevant.

news.yahoo.com

Almost all right-wing support in the United States comes from a view that Christians are under attack by secular liberals. This point is so important and so little understood. Logic doesn’t matter. Fact-checking doesn’t matter. What matters is if I can use this information to show that liberals are evil. Many of them are not interested in reporting the world as it is, but rather to shape the world like they want it to be.

The problem, as he describes it, is that most conservatives think the purpose of journalism is to wage partisan political warfare, and that has created an ecosystem on the right where facts and truth are increasingly irrelevant.

“Truth for conservative journalists is anything that harms ‘the left.’ It doesn’t even have to be a fact,” he wrote. “I eventually realized that most people who run right-dominated media outlets see it as their DUTY to be unfair and to favor Republicans because doing so would somehow counteract perceived liberal bias.”

So once we understand this world view, that they are persecuted and the reactionary consequences; that they will indict their political enemies, use the full might of the DOJ and FBI (under Barr and still cannot indict anyone...<cough> Durham). We can then have a window to why they are using whataboutism and gas-lighting. Because that's what these RW Cultist would do. It isn't about the LAW anymore.

 

[Snarky Sack]

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

Who are they? I've been noticing a distinct lack of non-Democrats on this board. Not complaining, I don't need to be agreed with. I'm just curious who you consider both conservative and sensible?

 

[Incumbent]

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

Comey didn't have influence over the administration in that way but if that is how you choose to see it, then certainly you should agree that Trump's followers should act like grown ups, accept that, and move on from using Clinton as deflection.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Comment from this video

The worst thing about Trump isn't what we've learned about him, it's what we've learned about our family, friends and neighbors that still support him.

 

[UriUT]

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.

My understanding is that she's the permanent judge for this trial. She was indeed randomly chosen, confirmed by the clerk; though her selection was weighted based on the location (she's presiding over Palm Beach) and her docket load.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Trump Supporters’ Violent Rhetoric in His Defense Disturbs Experts (Published 2023)

The former president’s allies have portrayed the indictment as an act of war and called for retribution, which political violence experts say increases the risk of action.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

I love at about 6:00 when the CNN guy, who I guess is the replacement for Don Lemon or Chris Cuomo, tries to lead the Democrat congressman from North Carolina into saying that he is afraid of Trump supporters being whipped up by Trump.

He doesn't take the bait, not being as stupid as Democrats want him to be. He just says what we all should say, that justice should be blind and we should see what comes out based on the facts of the case.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Comey didn't have influence over the administration in that way but if that is how you choose to see it, then certainly you should agree that Trump's followers should act like grown ups, accept that, and move on from using Clinton as deflection.

"Deflection?"

You misspelled "precedent," which is what I'm using the Clinton non-indictment as.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Trump Supporters’ Violent Rhetoric in His Defense Disturbs Experts (Published 2023)

The former president’s allies have portrayed the indictment as an act of war and called for retribution, which political violence experts say increases the risk of action.

www.nytimes.com

I'll read that article, if you will please paypal me the money to subscribe.

 

[Saintamaniac]

My understanding is that she's the permanent judge for this trial. She was indeed randomly chosen, confirmed by the clerk; though her selection was weighted based on the location (she's presiding over Palm Beach) and her docket load.

But she isn't handling the arraignment.

 

[Incumbent]

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

Yeah, the groundswell of MAGA derives from manufactured grievance and religious authoritarianism, unifying those people around the simplistic idea that above all else, others (anybody not MAGA) are bad. Can't reason with that.

For most of them, the only way they can see their way to change is to experience something profound on a personal level that forces them to reconsider their beliefs. A catastrophic medical diagnosis or life-altering injury. Job loss or other economic misfortune. A family member becoming the target of hate politics. Legislation that harms them.

I'm witnessing a friend go through this. Once an outspoken conservative on social media, she has become an enthusiastic champion of LGBTQ+ rights and has said she will no longer support candidates who target that community and who undermine women's rights. I suspect she has a loved one who is a part of that community, because her words suggest a strong personal connection, and of course the overturning of Roe targeted her and every other woman.

 

[Incumbent]

"Deflection?"

You misspelled "precedent," which is what I'm using the Clinton non-indictment as.

Trump, Sessions, and Barr were not hamstrung by Comey no matter how much you want to believe that. What prevented them from prosecuting Clinton is nothing rose to a criminal status. Trump was, and is, all bluster on that front. It will be the same with the desperate pursuit of wrongdoing against Biden.

Glad you agree that Trump's supporters should drop Clinton from the conversation as it relates to charges against Trump.

 

[UriUT]

But she isn't handling the arraignment.

Interesting, I haven't seen that. I assumed she would handle all aspect of the case.

 

[FullMonte]

Not quite. According to the non-partisan GAO:

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 created the procedural means by which the Congress considers and reviews executive branch withholdings of budget authority. It requires the President to report promptly to the Congress all withholdings of budget authority and to abide by the outcome of the congressional impoundment review process.
That is not the same as requiring him to ask for and receive permission before he withholds the funds. I think it is a great tool. Trump withheld the funds from Ukraine because the U.S. was contributing more than other NATO nations to Ukraine. Let congress review it and go on record saying that they believe that the U.S. should contribute more.

Ok, if we are going with "Trump did not violate the impound control act", let's look at what the ICA actually says, and compare it to what Trump actually did.

ICA Text: Section 6874(a) "Whenever the president, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of any department or agency of the United States, or any officer or employee of the United States proposes to defer any budget authority provided for a specific purpose or project, the President shall transmit to the House of Representatives and the Senate a special message specifying-" (the amount, the account involved, the period of time of the deferral, the estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the deferral, and the facts, circumstances, and considerations related to the deferral (including analysis of those facts, specific elements of legal authority, and the effect of the deferral on the purposes and programs for the the authority is provided.

Did Trump transmit such a message? No. He specifically told the director of OMB not to tell anyone he had deferred the funds, as well as having the transcript of the phone call placed on a secret server that was not intended for such a transcript. In short, he tried to hide the phone call, and keep the deferral of funds secret. Therefore, he was not complying with the ICA, and his actions indicated a knowledge that what he was doing was improper.

Did VP Joe Biden violate the Impoundment Control Act when he threatened to withhold funds if they did not fire prosecutor he wanted gotten rid of?

No, because the funds in question were tied to that action by the administration and a bipartisan group of congress members. The difference is that Trump asked for a personal favor to dirty up his political opponent, whereas Biden was executing the stated policy of the US government to demand the removal of a prosecutor who was suspected of being corrupt. Also of note, Biden was actually doing something that could have caused his son some harm, as the reason for demanding the removal of the prosecutor was that he was NOT investigating the CEO of the company that Biden's son sat on the board of (for crimes that he committed years before Hunter joined the board), and was suspected of taking bribes from said CEO to not investigate him.

He did not connect getting the funds and opening a criminal investigation in the phone call. He said to the only person that was a fact witness to what Trump said about withholding the funds, "I want nothing, I want nothing. No quid pro quo." There is no evidence that he did that, only speculation that he was implying it.

Really? I must have missed the part of the transcript where he said "I want nothing. No quid pro quo." Here is a link to that transcript. Can you point that out? https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/read-transcript-trumps-call-ukraine-president/story?id=65849015

 

[Saintamaniac]

"Deflection?"

You misspelled "precedent," which is what I'm using the Clinton non-indictment as.

Precedent involves similar facts and issues. What you are doing is deflecting to avoid acknowledgement. All you have is deflection.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I agree that Trump supporters should not be too upset. This election interference gambit will not succeed. I'll explain my reasons for saying so:

1) It's only getting started.

Democrats think this is the end, the long awaited indictment. An indictment is only the end of the beginning. So far this whole investigation has been like a chess game in which White not only gets the first move, but the first twenty moves. Or more aptly, as many moves as they take to get Black in check. The "check" being the indictment. Now Black gets to finally make moves.

They will have discovery, so they can see what the DOJ has. They will be able to speak in court and that will have to be reported.

2) We don't know what is real and what is fake.

We've seen no real information, just one-sided leaks, often to CNN exclusively. Don't believe me? Google "cnn exclusive." The leaks are selective and the reporting by CNN is spun, so we have no way of knowing what it true and not true. Once people have to start testifying under oath, or making statements to the courts as lawyers, truth will be more important. They will be more careful in making outlandish claims.

3) There is not enough time to get a conviction before the election.

The DOJ had all the moves and it still took almost ten months from the Mar-a-Lago raid to the indictment. Things like this eat up time, even when only one side has the metaphorical ball. Now comes discovery, which in a way will be the reverse of the negotiations prior to the raid. It will be Team Trump asking for documents, and the DOJ providing them slowly, incompletely, and at first so redacted that defense has to ask the judge over and over to require the real documents be turned over. That alone could delay the trial until after the 2025 inauguration, after which, Trump will simply pardon himself to the roar of the crowd.

That would be the DOJ delaying the trial, but they will do that because their interest in protecting themselves will have to outweigh their interest in a speedy trial for Trump. They will not sacrifice themselves. Maybe they will avoid any other delays from their side.

But Team Trump will surely be under orders to delay the trial as long as possible. They have so many motions that they are allowed to make, and make one at a time, that delaying seventeen months until the election should be child's play. They will surely move for change of venue, and if the DOJ moves for a change of judge, it will only seem fair. But the DOJ will fight the change of venue and that will take time.

With all that going on, Trump's rallies will be massive, and he will have plenty of talking points with which to whip up the crowds. Meanwhile, the Hidin' Biden strategy will look ridiculous, with COVID not being able to excuse it.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Trump, Sessions, and Barr were not hamstrung by Comey no matter how much you want to believe that. What prevented them from prosecuting Clinton is nothing rose to a criminal status. Trump was, and is, all bluster on that front. It will be the same with the desperate pursuit of wrongdoing against Biden.

Glad you agree that Trump's supporters should drop Clinton from the conversation as it relates to charges against Trump.

If nothing rose to criminal status for Hillary, nothing rose to criminal status for Trump. Precedent!

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Just saw Trumps poll numbers went up after the indictment

Well of course it did. Earlier in the thread, I posted what I believe the last time a Republican had a public display of integrity and that was when McCain corrected that woman during a campaign town hall. What I failed to mention was the audience's reaction to his display of integrity and that was a resounding negative reaction. THEY BOOED HIM!

Trump is just a symptom of a much larger disease that is of the GOP's own making. The Newt Gingrich Doctrine. They have spent decades as painting their opposition as the enemy by feeding their constituents lies and misinformation and now they cannot tame their fears. Their constituents have developed a warped view of reality and the only people capable of giving them the felt need to change their view has to come from the Republican Party.

They have to stand up and be honest with their voters. Leaders lead, they lead by example! As a minimum, those that lead must have courage and integrity. The courage and integrity to speak out against misinformation and not parrot lies and false narratives. The moment that crowed booed McCain is the moment that the GOP began to abandon courage & integrity. After losing again in 2012, they completely abandoned it, embraced and began feeding into that crowd fears.

It can be fixed, it will be long and difficult but, it can be done! Just for starters:

1. Fix these spaghetti congressional districts at the state and federal level. Stop choosing voters allow them to choose you.

2. Become a party that is for something other than guns, and not one that is against everything. Their message has become nothing but a negative one. I'm not gonna tell them what they should be for, just be for something that people would want.

3. Have the courage and integrity to talk to the voters HONESTLY! Reject the Newt Gingrich Doctrine. This will take decades but the end result will be worth it for ALL Americans. McCain's failure was moving past those boo's and not further engaging his audience! Had he done so, he could have sparked a further conversation which could have led to a positive change instead of this angry party we see today.