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

 

[Optimus Prime]

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.

you must not have seen what Republican responses to the indictment has been so far

 

[Incumbent]

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

No, that's not at all how this works. Both of these can be true:

-there wasn't a prosecutable case to make against Clinton

-there is a prosecutable case to make against Trump

 

[coldseat]

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.

You keep making this ridiculous statements as if they're true. This is the Fox News/right wing reading of what happened. It's a complete BS that isn't accepted by the majority of people outside of that bubble regardless of political affiliations.

The OIG and Durham report were complete duds that proved nothing of what you state.

What you call "Operation Get Trump" is simply the law enforcement establishment actually enforcing laws that apply to Trump and to all of us. That he broke those laws are on him and not the "Left" that's out to get him. He's simply being held accountable (and it's taken far too long).

How "his supporters" takes these indictment matters not. No group of people have been proved to be as unreasonable, ignorant fools as "Trump supporters". We don't run a country on the whims/feelings of such a radical and untethered group of people.

 

[Snarky Sack]

you must not have seen what Republican responses to the indictment has been so far

Why would you say that?

 

[Snarky Sack]

You keep making this ridiculous statements as if they're true. This is the Fox News/right wing reading of what happened. It's a complete BS that isn't accepted by the majority of people outside of that bubble regardless of political affiliations.

The OIG and Durham report were complete duds that proved nothing of what you state.

What you call "Operation Get Trump" is simply the law enforcement establishment actually enforcing laws that apply to Trump and to all of us. That he broke those laws are on him and not the "Left" that's out to get him. He's simply being held accountable (and it's taken far too long).

How "his supporters" takes these indictment matters not. No group of people have been proved to be as unreasonable, ignorant fools as "Trump supporters". We don't run a country on the whims/feelings of such a radical and untethered group of people.

You believe that the leaders of Operation Crossfire Hurricane, Peter Strzok, Andrew Mccabe and Lisa Page were unbiased and honest investigators interested only in enforcing the law?

 

[Snarky Sack]

No, that's not at all how this works. Both of these can be true:

-there wasn't a prosecutable case to make against Clinton

-there is a prosecutable case to make against Trump

They could be true, but they are not. Not if precedence matters. If precedence doesn't matter, you would be right.

If they say, we don't have to follow the same standards for Trump that we we followed for Clinton, then anything is possible. Are you aware of the reasons that Comey gave for not prosecuting Clinton? If you read them, I think you will get it.

 

[Incumbent]

You believe that the leaders of Operation Crossfire Hurricane, Peter Strzok, Andrew Mccabe and Lisa Page were unbiased and honest investigators interested only in enforcing the law?

None of which has anything to do with Trump's alleged mishandling of classified information (with damming evidence to support the charges).

 

[coldseat]

You believe that the leaders of Operation Crossfire Hurricane, Peter Strzok, Andrew Mccabe and Lisa Page were unbiased and honest investigators interested only in enforcing the law?

Yes. None of those people were part of a left wing operation to "get Trump." Do you believe that they were part of a left wing operation inside the DOJ?

 

[Snarky Sack]

If Clinton had been prosecuted for unlawfully storing, destroying, and withholding classified material, I'd have no choice but to say, "of course Trump will be prosecuted. He's accused of the same thing Clinton was accused of (other than the destroying) so how could he not be?"

 

[Incumbent]

They could be true, but they are not. Not if precedence matters. If precedence doesn't matter, you would be right.

If they say, we don't have to follow the same standards for Trump that we we followed for Clinton, then anything is possible. Are you aware of the reasons that Comey gave for not prosecuting Clinton? If you read them, I think you will get it.

Do you think Trump failed to turn over classified information that he illegally had in his possession, after being given opportunities to comply? If you don't, you don't understand the case against him. If you do, what the hell is the discussion really about?

 

[coldseat]

If Clinton had been prosecuted for unlawfully storing, destroying, and withholding classified material, I'd have no choice but to say, "of course Trump will be prosecuted. He's accused of the same thing Clinton was accused of (other than the destroying) so how could he not be?"

It's not the same thing. This is a stupid argument. Do you think the DOJ needs to find a way to travel back in time to indict Clinton just to make you feel better about Trump being indicted? This is just a dumb assertion.

 

[Incumbent]

It's not the same thing. This is a stupid argument. Do you think the DOJ needs to find a way to travel back in time to indict Clinton just to make you feel better about Trump being indicted? This is just a dumb assertion.

It's noise. Pretty much everybody outside of the Trump orbit understands the distinctions. Other than what anybody derives from the sport of debate, there isn't much of anything else to gain from these discussions.

 

[FullMonte]

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

Really? Directing Jeff Sessions to reinvestigate that seems an odd way to “accept that and move on.”

 

[superchuck500]

 

[FullMonte]

If Clinton had been prosecuted for unlawfully storing, destroying, and withholding classified material, I'd have no choice but to say, "of course Trump will be prosecuted. He's accused of the same thing Clinton was accused of (other than the destroying) so how could he not be?"

The allegations against Trump have nothing to do with storing or destroying. So, that part is not the same.

That leaves us with withholding. However, it has nothing to do with “classified information” and everything to do with “defense information.”

Now, if you want to say they are the same, I’ll ask for this:
—Examples of Hillary directing someone to move the classified information on her server to a spot where she could access it, but investigators couldn’t find it.
—Examples of Hillary directing her legal team to lie and say she did not have materials that she knew she had.
—Examples of Hillary directing her lawyers to hide or destroy evidence that they found.

 

[Saintamaniac]

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.

And no matter what is reported, Trump supporters will deny reality.

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.

People have already testified under oath to the grand jury. If you read the actual indictment instead of the Republican talking points, you would know that. Keep up.

That alone could delay the trial until after the 2025 inauguration, after which, Trump will simply pardon himself to the roar of the crowd.

Trump will not win and trump is going to jail.

They could be true, but they are not. Not if precedence matters. If precedence doesn't matter, you would be right.

If they say, we don't have to follow the same standards for Trump that we we followed for Clinton, then anything is possible. Are you aware of the reasons that Comey gave for not prosecuting Clinton? If you read them, I think you will get it.

Overturning Roe says "hi" in regard to precedent.
You are being willfully obtuse about how precedent works or you really don't understand the concept of precedent.

 

[samiam5211]

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

Oh i don't feel sorry for them.

Most of them didn't make very much money off him at all though.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Really? Directing Jeff Sessions to reinvestigate that seems an odd way to “accept that and move on.”

If Trump did that, I disagree with him. He should have let it drop. All I remember that Jeff Sessions ever did was dodder in front Congress almost as much as Mueller did, and recuse himself from the Trump investigations.

Ironically if Jeff Sessions had reinvestigated and gotten an indictment of Clinton, the whole idea of indicting Trump for the same thing would have much more substance. Oh, well. Coulda, woulda, shoulda, huh?