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

 

[LA - L.A.]

My training in rhetoric is to state my opinion as if it were fact, not hedge or say "I believe."

My training in Mass Communication at McNeese State University in Lake Charles, LA in the late 1980's taught us to always clearly state what is a fact and what is our opinion. Tom Brokaw gave credit to head of the department as being the person that got his career started.

In any discussion about facts, it's important for people to state opinions as opinion and to avoid stating opinions as if they were facts.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Donald Trump was charged under the Espionage Act. Donald Trump was not charged with espionage.


But almost immediately upon his indictment late last week, key Trump defenders have sought to obviate this distinction in the service of arguing that there’s not much to see here.


While in some cases acknowledging that perhaps Trump did something wrong, they have argued that at least there’s no evidence he gave these documents to America’s enemies.

They’ve also effectively suggested that, absent such a breach, it’s time to move on because the documents have been recovered.

The former is a remarkable feat of goalpost-setting and spin. The latter is a dicey assumption, given all that we’ve learned.


The Wall Street Journal editorial board got the ball rolling on this argument Friday, within hours of the indictment being unsealed.

“However cavalier he was with classified files, Mr. Trump did not accept a bribe or betray secrets to Russia,” it wrote Friday night. “The FBI recovered the missing documents when it raided Mar-a-Lago, so presumably there are no more secret attack plans for Mr. Trump to show off.”


Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) later approvingly promoted this quote on Twitter.


Fox News host Mark Levin was also quick to this line of argument: “There’s not one syllable of evidence in here that any information under the Espionage Act was passed to any spies, to any enemies, to any foreign countries — not one.”


Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) picked up the argument Sunday. “Espionage charges are absolutely ridiculous. Whether you like Trump or not, he did not commit espionage,” Graham said on ABC News’s “This Week.” “He did not disseminate, leak or provide information to a foreign power or to a news organization to damage this country. He is not a spy. He’s overcharged.”

But as Graham — a former Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAG) lawyer — very likely knows, being charged under the Espionage Act does not mean you are accused of spying or even aiding spies. We flagged this Thursday after news broke that Trump was indicted but before the charges were unsealed Friday……

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/12/trump-indictment-defense-espionage/

 

[UriUT]

Hillary knew a way to strip classified markings off of documents prior to faxing. Her instructions on how to do it are still redacted to keep everyone from knowing how. Taking them off of emails should be easier since they are electronic.

Of all the lies and BS. This takes the cake. I don't know the age of everyone here, but some must be old enough to have sent a fax before in this age of pdf, electronic sigs, etc. A fax is simply a copier that copies a page, digitalizes it, and then send it via a telephone line. Stripping a classified marking can simply be a freaking white out or tape over the markings. Hell take the cover sheet off if it indicates top secret. Then send it. Nothing special. The security/encryption is in the freaking telephone line.

I've posted this long detailed article numerous time. It takes into account of interviews and the fbi report it self. One of the the points it made clear is the disorganization and poor culture for security of the State Department and it's communication system. There were secure fax lines, secure email system, and an insecure emails that most used. The problem was that the secure fax line was slow and often won't get to the recipient timely. The secure email wasn't reliable. That's why the DOS folks used insecure emails and used coded language in the communications. Sometimes talking about a story in the media would qualify as "confidential" or "classified" if the topic is of a program/intel that has not been made public....such as drones then.

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

Damn, this makes the Seymour Hersh story believable.

 

[MT15]

Of all the lies and BS. This takes the cake. I don't know the age of everyone here, but some must be old enough to have sent a fax before in this age of pdf, electronic sigs, etc. A fax is simply a copier that copies a page, digitalizes it, and then send it via a telephone line. Stripping a classified marking can simply be a freaking white out or tape over the markings. Hell take the cover sheet off if it indicates top secret. Then send it. Nothing special. The security/encryption is in the freaking telephone line.

I've posted this long detailed article numerous time. It takes into account of interviews and the fbi report it self. One of the the points it made clear is the disorganization and poor culture for security of the State Department and it's communication system. There were secure fax lines, secure email system, and an insecure emails that most used. The problem was that the secure fax line was slow and often won't get to the recipient timely. The secure email wasn't reliable. That's why the DOS folks used insecure emails and used coded language in the communications. Sometimes talking about a story in the media would qualify as "confidential" or "classified" if the topic is of a program/intel that has not been made public....such as drones then.

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

Damn, this makes the Seymour Hersh story believable.

Sack has pretty much high jacked the entire thread to discuss Hillary Clinton and now he has thrown in Bill for good measure, which is actually hilarious. He is employing logical fallacies and basically refusing to take part in a good faith discussion. He is repeating lies he has heard about Hillary’s case, and when shown refutation he simply says that the FBI director is lying. Clearly his feelings are facts as far as he is concerned.

When discussing Trump’s case he is very careful to say that what we see and the testimony that is outlined should not be taken into account. He cheerleads for what he calls “Trump jurors” to disregard their instructions and rule against the evidence, which would be a violation of their duty as jurors. He seems sure that would happen, and seems to approve of it happening. So we can safely say he’s not a big fan of the rule of law.

He reminds me of the driver who is incensed when given a traffic ticket for reckless driving causing an accident because other people didn’t get tickets who may have been going over the speed limit. Most people will take responsibility for their actions, regardless of what other people do or have done.

Loyalty to Trump makes otherwise reasonable people defend the indefensible. I cannot remember who said this, but it is one of the truest things I have heard about this sad time for our country.

 

[Optimus Prime]

No, it’s not about her emails.


Republicans’ reflexive reaction to the devastating indictment of Donald Trump has been to retreat to the familiar corner of whataboutism: How could Trump be criminally charged for his handling of classified information when others, most notably Hillary Clinton, escaped indictment?


The biggest problem with this argument is that it is flat-out wrong. The circumstances of Clinton’s emails and Trump’s boxes are not remotely similar, no matter how loudly Trump and his allies insist otherwise. Trump’s behavior is far more egregious.

And even if the situations were more comparable — they aren’t — that would scarcely justify turning a blind eye to Trump’s behavior. If, as the chanters insisted, Clinton should have been locked up, where is the outrage about Trump’s conduct?

The proof of my point was brought home over the weekend in the diverging reactions of Republican politicians and conservative lawyers.
The politicians — see Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) — fulminated about private servers in basements and hammers taken to Blackberries, two elements of the Clinton episode that, helpfully for the GOP cause, sound more sinister than they were.


“Most Republicans believe we live in a country where Hillary Clinton did very similar things and nothing happened to her,” Graham told ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos. “I don’t like what President Trump did in certain aspects,” Graham allowed.

But he appeared to be more worked up over the fact that Trump was charged under a law formally known as the “Espionage Act”— “espionage charges are absolutely ridiculous” — even though the indictment never uses that word and instead cites “willful retention of national defense information.”……

It’s been a long seven years, so let’s review the Clinton case, and tick through the critical differences.

I have no brief for Clinton’s behavior in setting up a private, insecure email server to get around the State Department’s clunky, antiquated email system. It was sloppy, and Clinton made matters worse when she had her lawyers unilaterally erase 30,000 emails they deemed personal.


But: Clinton didn’t keep classified documents or transmit them on the server. Rather, the emails sent on the server referred to classified information; they did not, with the exception of three email chains that had a paragraph or two marked “(C),” for confidential — contain other flags that the material was classified.

If anything, there was “evidence of a conscious effort to avoid sending classified information by writing around the most sensitive material,” Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded in a June 2018 report on the Clinton investigation.

And to the extent that classified information was discussed on the private system, investigators found, that was done with other government employees, for official purposes.

In addition, prosecutors did not find indications of any intent to obstruct in the Clinton lawyers’ deletion of the emails they decided were personal.

They “concluded that there was no evidence that emails intentionally were deleted by former Secretary Clinton’s lawyers to conceal the presence of classified information on former Secretary Clinton’s server,” Horowitz reported.
FBI and Justice Department employees were unanimous in recommending against charges, the report said……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/12/hillary-clinton-trump-indictment-classified-documents/

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[coldseat]

But . . . if it ever goes to a jury - a Florida jury, remember - the jury can and will consider that clear double standard, even if only in their individual minds.

No they will not. Complaints about Hillary Clinton will have no bearing on Trump's case. No double standard will be considered. If this judge allows that type of argument/evidence to enter the case against Trump, it will be overturned on appeals and the judge will be reprimanded again for sloppy work/reasoning.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) on Tuesday trotted out a new defense of former President Donald Trump: Namely, that it was fine to keep top-secret government documents stashed in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago because it's likely not a bathroom at the resort that guests could access.

Appearing on CNN, Donalds recited other Republicans' claims about the indictment showing that the United States Department of Justice has purportedly been "weaponized" against the former president.

Host Phil Mattingly, however, pressed Donalds on some of the specific allegations in the indictment about Trump's handling of classified information.

In response, Donalds took particular offense to prosecutors including photos of a Mar-a-Lago bathroom that was packed with boxes of classified documents.

"You guys are throwing up the pictures about they were in a bathroom or on a stage," Donalds fumed. "As somebody who has been to Mar-a-Lago, you can't walk through Mar-a-Lago of your own accord because Secret Service is all over the place. So if the documents are in a place, they are in a room, depending on the time of year, you can't even get into said room."

Donalds emphasized this point by touting the sheer number of different bathrooms at the former president's resort.

"There are 33 bathrooms at Mar-a-Lago!" he said. "So don't act like it's in some random bathroom that the guests can go into. That's not true!"...........

MSN

 

[Snarky Sack]

My training in Mass Communication at McNeese State University in Lake Charles, LA

No kidding! I teach in the Houston area and I know several teachers who graduated from McNeese. I love Lake Charles.

in the late 1980's taught us to always clearly state what is a fact and what is our opinion. Tom Brokaw gave credit to head of the department as being the person that got his career started.

In any discussion about facts, it's important for people to state opinions as opinion and to avoid stating opinions as if they were facts.

I'm not sure how a person would do that without their posts becoming very awkward. Do you mind if I observe your posts over the next few days to see how you consistently do that?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) on Tuesday trotted out a new defense of former President Donald Trump: Namely, that it was fine to keep top-secret government documents stashed in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago because it's likely not a bathroom at the resort that guests could access.

Appearing on CNN, Donalds recited other Republicans' claims about the indictment showing that the United States Department of Justice has purportedly been "weaponized" against the former president.

Host Phil Mattingly, however, pressed Donalds on some of the specific allegations in the indictment about Trump's handling of classified information.

In response, Donalds took particular offense to prosecutors including photos of a Mar-a-Lago bathroom that was packed with boxes of classified documents.

"You guys are throwing up the pictures about they were in a bathroom or on a stage," Donalds fumed. "As somebody who has been to Mar-a-Lago, you can't walk through Mar-a-Lago of your own accord because Secret Service is all over the place. So if the documents are in a place, they are in a room, depending on the time of year, you can't even get into said room."

Donalds emphasized this point by touting the sheer number of different bathrooms at the former president's resort.

"There are 33 bathrooms at Mar-a-Lago!" he said. "So don't act like it's in some random bathroom that the guests can go into. That's not true!"...........

MSN

Capitol Police regularly leave guns in bathrooms that adult and child visitors have access to.

 

[Snarky Sack]

No they will not. Complaints about Hillary Clinton will have no bearing on Trump's case. No double standard will be considered. If this judge allows that type of argument/evidence to enter the case against Trump, it will be overturned on appeals and the judge will be reprimanded again for sloppy work/reasoning.

I don't think a not guilty verdict can be overturned on appeal.

Anyway, I'm talking about what an individual juror can think in his own mind. I already said that a judge would correct any defense attorney that mentions the fact that HRC got off scott free for the same type thing. There is no way to keep a Trump supporter on the jury from thinking 'after refusing to lock up Hillary, they doin' this to ma boy.'

Thinking further, though . . . a good defense attorney would find ways to ask questions that require mentioning Clinton's name that have nothing to do with the DOJ letting her off the hook. It would be hard for the prosecution to object without reminding the jury that the government doesn't want them to remember what happened.

 

[efil4]

No kidding! I teach in the Houston area and I know several teachers who graduated from McNeese. I love Lake Charles.

What subject do you teach?

 

[Incumbent]

Sack has pretty much high jacked the entire thread to discuss Hillary Clinton and now he has thrown in Bill for good measure, which is actually hilarious.

That's the playbook. Get people talking about anything else but the topic at hand. Create noise, redirect, make false equivalencies, distract, derail conversations, seed confusion. Look at Lindsey Graham and the rest of the sycophants rallying around a guy that they recognized wasn't fit for office at the start.

It's actually pathetic the instinctual fealty these people have in them. Good little tallking-point regurgitating pawns for somebody who doesn't give two ***** about any of them beyond how they can benefit him.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Sack has pretty much high jacked the entire thread to discuss Hillary Clinton and now he has thrown in Bill for good measure, which is actually hilarious. He is employing logical fallacies and basically refusing to take part in a good faith discussion. He is repeating lies he has heard about Hillary’s case, and when shown refutation he simply says that the FBI director is lying. Clearly his feelings are facts as far as he is concerned.

By Allah, far be it from me to hijack a thread. I'll try to drop the Clinton angle since it bothers you. So long as no one else mentions it on this thread, I won't either. Someone asks about it, I won't be rude.

When discussing Trump’s case he is very careful to say that what we see and the testimony that is outlined should not be taken into account.

I never said anything like that. No fibs, please.

He cheerleads for what he calls “Trump jurors” to disregard their instructions and rule against the evidence, which would be a violation of their duty as jurors. He seems sure that would happen, and seems to approve of it happening.

Actually, if you read what I actually wrote, I'm not cheerleading it, I'm saying that what will happen.

So we can safely say he’s not a big fan of the rule of law.

See, that is the kind of statement that will make it very difficult for me not to mention she-who-must-not-be-spoken-of. Because ignoring the rule of law is exactly what happened in that case.

Unless . . . you think there is something called "prosecutorial discretion" meaning that prosecutors do not have to push for convictions for every single case in which someone's actions violated the law.

He reminds me of the driver who is incensed when given a traffic ticket for reckless driving causing an accident because other people didn’t get tickets who may have been going over the speed limit. Most people will take responsibility for their actions, regardless of what other people do or have done.

No, it is more like a black person who drives through a "white neighborhood" and is the only one who gets a ticket. It is fair to at least consider bias in that case.

Loyalty to Trump makes otherwise reasonable people defend the indefensible. I cannot remember who said this, but it is one of the truest things I have heard about this sad time for our country.

Yeah, so anyway . . . the name change will have to wait. I'm not allowed to change it for a month after registering.

 

[coldseat]

I don't think a not guilty verdict can be overturned on appeal.

Anyway, I'm talking about what an individual juror can think in his own mind. I already said that a judge would correct any defense attorney that mentions the fact that HRC got off scott free for the same type thing. There is no way to keep a Trump supporter on the jury from thinking 'after refusing to lock up Hillary, they doin' this to ma boy.'

Thinking further, though . . . a good defense attorney would find ways to ask questions that require mentioning Clinton's name that have nothing to do with the DOJ letting her off the hook. It would be hard for the prosecution to object without reminding the jury that the government doesn't want them to remember what happened.

Federal prosecutors aren't idiots. They aren't going to let a partisan MAGA hack who thinks of Trump as "ma boy" on the jury whether it's Florida or not. Those types will be easily voir dire'd off the jury pool.

Clinton's name will not come up in court unless it's in the defenses opening or closing statements. If it does come up, it will be stricken from the record and the jury will be ordered to disregard the statement and the defense attorney will be reprimanded. At least that is what will happen if the judge is able to fulfill the minimum requirements of her job. I guess that may still be an open question, but we'll see.

 

[Snarky Sack]

What subject do you teach?

I'm a special education teacher. I started off in math co-teach and resource. Now I run a behavior program.

 

[efil4]

I'm a special education teacher. I started off in math co-teach and resource. Now I run a behavior program.

So, not English. Not History.

noted.

 

[Snarky Sack]

That's the playbook. Get people talking about anything else but the topic at hand. Create noise, redirect, make false equivalencies, distract, derail conversations, seed confusion. Look at Lindsey Graham and the rest of the sycophants rallying around a guy that they recognized wasn't fit for office at the start.

It's actually pathetic the instinctual fealty these people have in them. Good little tallking-point regurgitating pawns for somebody who doesn't give two ***** about any of them beyond how they can benefit him.

To expand on what I told MT15, if you want me not to talk about Clinton, avoid broad generalizations like "Trump supporters don't care about the law or the truth!" Coming from people who supported the Clintons, that will automatically prompt a "whatabout" response.

Imagine if the next Democrat president makes an off color remark about women, and Trump supporters criticize him for it. You gonna ignore that hypocrisy?