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

 

[Optimus Prime]

Former President Donald Trump slammed Special Counsel Jack Smith Tuesday, calling him a "Thug" and accusing him of planting evidence in the boxes of classified documents that the FBI claims to have found in Trump's Mar-a-Lago home.

Trump was responding to an article that made unverified claims about Smith being linked to Hillary Clinton and George Soros. He made his comments on his Truth Social, just hours before he was scheduled to attend an arraignment hearing in Miami on 37 federal indictment counts.

"This is the Thug, overturned consistently and unanimously in big cases, that Biden and his CORRUPT Injustice Department stuck on me," Trump wrote.

"He’s a Radical Right Lunatic and Trump Hater, as are all his friends and family, who probably 'planted' information in the 'boxes' given to them. They butt area everything that they touch, including our Country, which is rapidly going to HELL!".............

MSN

 

[Incumbent]

Former President Donald Trump slammed Special Counsel Jack Smith Tuesday, calling him a "Thug" and accusing him of planting evidence in the boxes of classified documents that the FBI claims to have found in Trump's Mar-a-Lago home.

That claim was never not going to happen.

 

[Booker]

‘Morning Joe’ Drags Kevin McCarthy’s ‘Dumbest’ Defense of Trump Storing Docs in a Bathroom: ‘Like Fighting With an Idiot’ (Video)

"It's shameful," Willie Geist said of the Speaker's comments

www.yahoo.com

“It’s like fighting with an idiot,” Joe Scarborough deadpanned after watching the clip. “There’s no need to fight with an idiot. That’s just the dumbest argument, Willie. It’s insanity.”

That statement seems a little relevant as of late.

 

[Huntn]

This post would be a good start to a thread called "Reasons to Hate Trump and Trump Supporters." When I see the reference to White Privilege, I know the post has nothing to do with the Trump indictment.

I fear if I respond point-by-point I'll be accused of jacking the thread.

How about appropriate reasons to hate Trump? There are good reasons in this world to hold feelings of “extreme dislike” directed at threats to your Nation, and I’m not referencing just the White nation but the diverse, all inclusive nation.

Of note, you did not anwer the questions: Did the 6Jan insurrectionists break the law? Was the 2020 election stolen..

Make no mistake, I do hate Donald Tump but it’s not a blind mindless, prejudicial hate, it an educated, reasoned hate based on actual harmful actions taken to tear down the country and turn it into Trump’s own rotten fascist image. It’s not a hate made up of BS to gain personal advantage by stripping people who disagree with you of their rights or their voices.

Believe it or not, I have pity for him, but I hate Trump based on the threat he represents to every standard the country was founded upon- level playing fields, equal opportunity, actual freedom, not the straight jackets he and some portion of the GOP are trying to place on the populace at large that favors themselves.

As far as hating Trump followers, I have a range of negative emotions about their motivations for following such a Peice of work.

• Either they believe his BS, then I pity them but I still recognize the threat they represent to the country,
• or they think they will gain an advantage under Trump at the expense of others, decidedly UN-American in nature (unless America is in the process of being redefined),
• and most disturbing is wondering if they bothered to take the time to think about it, what life under a fascist regime means, and it would not be all the peaches and cream they think it would be.

 

[Huntn]

Former President Donald Trump slammed Special Counsel Jack Smith Tuesday, calling him a "Thug" and accusing him of planting evidence in the boxes of classified documents that the FBI claims to have found in Trump's Mar-a-Lago home.

Trump was responding to an article that made unverified claims about Smith being linked to Hillary Clinton and George Soros. He made his comments on his Truth Social, just hours before he was scheduled to attend an arraignment hearing in Miami on 37 federal indictment counts.

"This is the Thug, overturned consistently and unanimously in big cases, that Biden and his CORRUPT Injustice Department stuck on me," Trump wrote.

"He’s a Radical Right Lunatic and Trump Hater, as are all his friends and family, who probably 'planted' information in the 'boxes' given to them. They butt area everything that they touch, including our Country, which is rapidly going to HELL!".............

MSN

My fear are the dummies who will believe this, and then go try to storm the Capitol or a courtroom. Trump preaches to his lowest denominators which, they would describe themselves as his warriors, that I often refer to as his suckers.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

99% of Sacks replies:

 

[superchuck500]

It was on the previous page in a long post, but I wanted to comment that I don’t think DOJ will be able to voir dire the jury panel on who they voted for. They may be able to ask about significant campaign donations or if the jury panel actively worked for the Trump campaign or any PAC that supported the Trump campaign. Whether they could use the responses to strike for cause is also something that would probably require a court ruling.

These are the little areas of case management where the district judge has substantial discretion (i.e. difficult to overturn) to control factors in the case. For now that judge is Eileen Cannon.

 

[FullMonte]

Having gotten the obligatory personal attack out of the way . . .

Yes, when you repeat the same thing over and over again, I tire of correcting it every time. You are bound and determined to say that taking into account the disparate treatment of Trump and Clinton is the same as "ignoring the evidence," so I stopped beating my head against the wall explaining it to you.

I'm sorry then. I clearly misunderstood something you said. When you said:

some of those four Trumpers on the jury will barely pay attention to the trial. They will be thinking, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah, military documents, whatever. Trump was doing a great job for four years. Slowed down illegal immigration, kept gas prices down, didn't get us in no new wars. COVID sucked but he handled it as well as he could with all the lies Fauci told him. He'd have done even better if the DOJ/FBI/DNC hadn't spent the whole time hounding him. I hope this ends soon, so he can get the job back and clean up Bidumb's mess."

I interpreted that as you saying Trump supporters would barely pay attention to the trial, not listen to the evidence, and rule in Trump's favor because they thought he was a good president. I'll try and read better.

So you believe that there is no possibility of exculpatory evidence, or of showing that Trump's actions do not violate the laws that the prosecutors claim it does?

I'm not sure where you got that. I literally explained that his defense could present exculpatory evidence, and I spelled out exactly what the evidence would need to be....evidence that either a subpoena was never issued, that Trump's team never signed a sworn statement that he returned all of the documents, or that the documents were not found in his desk.

Remember until the indictment came out, this was all about "mishandling classified." If not, show me a post, prior to the indictment, where you said, "the charges won't be about classified, they will be about military documents." You fell for it like everyone else did.

And, again, I'll ask. Where did you ever hear from the DOJ, the FBI, or the Special Counsel what laws were being considered? I mean, if we go back to before the story broke, and look at the search warrant, it listed the Espionage Act as the law that was suspected of being violated. Pundits, newscaster, social media personalities, and the general public saying that this was about mishandling classified is not some kind of evidence that the FBI/DOJ was working under that law.

OK, I get it. Having seen no evidence, but only accusations in an indictment, you know all you need to know for a conviction.

No, not even a little bit. I stated the facts that are accused, and said that unless his lawyers can provide evidence to show that those facts are incorrect, then Trump is guilty. To make an analogy....if you were accused of possessing a stolen bicycle, and the police executed a search warrant and found the stolen bicycle in your bedroom, then you would need to somehow provide evidence that the bicycle was not there in order to not be convicted of possessing that stolen bicycle.

I'm suggesting that the defense will put on a defense.

Except that you said "Its very common for prosecutors to overcharge and at the end of the presentation of evidence drop charges that they had no evidence for." I'm trying to figure out how that would pertain here, so that's why I asked if you were suggesting that they did not actually have the three pieces of evidence that I mentioned.

Clinton did.

And yet, you haven't shown any actual evidence that Clinton refused to return documents, lied and said she had returned everything, and hid those documents from investigators. Actually, you provided an article where the FBI explained that the documents that were deleted were deleted following a directive that was given well before the subpoena was issued.

Why do you ask the same questions over and over again?

It was a rehtorical question.

It is completely politically motivated. 100% You ignored me saying that they would have found something else to "Get Trump," as they had been for more than six years at that point.

No, I didn't ignore it. I didn't bother commenting on it because it's pure speculation as to what would have happened.

Clinton would not have been in trouble if she had said - the very first time that she was asked about it "OMG, I can't believe I didn't know not to keep thousands of classified documents, including national defense documents, in my personal server in my bathroom. Please send a security detail to come and get that server!" she would not have been in trouble either.

Do you admit that her non-prosecution was politically motivated?

I don't know. I find it hard to believe that a lifelong republican decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton because of some political motivation, then went against every norm and went out of his way to torpedo her candidacy at the last minute, but I don't discount that it's possible.

Is that the whole wording, or did you selectively edit out what I said about copies for personal reference?

Here, it is right above the part you quoted. Can't miss it. Literally.

So, Donald Trump had a report on US nuclear capabilities that was a copy, produced only for convenience of reference, and it was clearly identified as such?

What criminal penalties are attached to the Presidential Records Act?

The answer is none. Not even an overdue book fine. School libraries have more power to give consequences than the Archivist.

You know why there are no criminal penalties attached to the presidential records act? Because it would be absurd to file criminal charges on a former president for not turning over every document from his term in office. From Washington to Trump, no president turned over every single document.

Are any of the counts of the indictment for violating the Presidential Records Act?

No, but the only reason we are talking about it is because YOU brought it up. He was not charged with violations of this act.

What is your evidence that he had a report on US nuclear capabilities?

It's in the indictment. But, I know, that could a boldfaced lie by far left marxist nazi liberal Jack Smith.

What kind of report is it? Is it a newspaper report, an open source academic journal, an article in Popular Mechanics, or a Top Secret set of plans for the latest nuclear warhead? That would make a difference, though they could all be called "a report on US nuclear capabilities."

My use of the term "a report on US nuclear capabilities" is a generic term. And no, it's not a newspaper report or an open source academic journal, etc. It is listed in the indictment as being marked "SECRET//FORMERLY RESTRICTED DATA" "Undated document concerning nuclear weaponry of the United States." (and for clarification, in case anyone is not aware "Formerly Restricted Data" does not mean that it is no longer classified")

I hope the burning and looting can be kept to a minimum if Trump gets re-elected. Can we at last agree on that?

Interesting that you paint Trump opponents as violent while I'm literally having a breaking alert popup on my screen that a suspicious package was found outside the courthouse in Miami. But, yeah, if Trump gets re-elected, I hope the burning and looting is kept to a minimum. Tourists visiting the Capitol while Congress is counting the electoral votes is ok, though, right?

 

[Snarky Sack]

X

Of note, you did not anwer the questions: Did the 6Jan insurrectionists break the law? Was the 2020 election stolen..

On another thread I'd love to answer.

How about those prosecuters, eh?

 

[SFIDC3]

Many, really, going back to the legacy board. It's cookie-cutter. At this point, it's not hard to tell the people who have the ability to dive into a topic in a compelling way and those who can only hang around the periphery.

Above is the most polite example of calling someone a troll, without actually calling someone a troll....well done sir....

 

[Optimus Prime]

Letitia James explained that her case and others currently pending against Donald Trump “will unfortunately have to be adjourned” while the ex-president faces federal indictment for his unlawful handling of classified documents.

The New York attorney general made the comments while speaking with with MSNBC’s Alex Wagner on a panel at the Tribeca Film Festival. Wagner asked if Trump’s documents trial will “intersect” with James’ investigation into the alleged financial fraud of Trump’s family and his business empire. James answered that the timing would impact not only her case, but also the Stormy Daniels hush money case from Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, and even the case Trump potentially faces for his effort to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results.

“In all likelihood, I believe that my case as well as DA Bragg and the Georgia case, will unfortunately have to be adjourned pending the outcome of the federal case,” James said. “So it all depends upon the scheduling of this particular case. I know there’s gonna be a flood, a flurry of motions, motion to dismiss, discovery issues, all of that. So it really all depends. Obviously, all of us want to know what Judge [Aileen] Cannon is going to do and whether or not she’s going to delay this particular case.”.............

NY Attorney General Letitia James Says Manhattan Case Against Trump ‘Will Unfortunately Have to Be Adjourned’ Pending Federal Case

 

[Optimus Prime]

Democracy defenders and advocates for the rule of law were elated when the indictment of former president Donald Trump was unsealed, revealing a damning array of evidence that should finally vindicate the principle that the law applies to presidents and ex-presidents just as it does to all other Americans. Elation was tempered, however, when Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s name appeared on court documents. She infamously botched a civil case brought by Trump to recover the very same documents now at issue in the criminal case, a decision so lacking in logic and precedent that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit swiftly repudiated her ruling and sent Trump packing.

The 11th Circuit’s ruling was particularly dismissive in reversing Cannon: “The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so.” Specifically, the panel held she didn’t have jurisdiction and should not have ruled on the case.

To make matters worse, in the civil case, Cannon posited that Trump deserved special treatment because he is a former president (“[a]s a function of Plaintiff’s former position as President of the United States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own”). A judge who begins with the unconstitutional premise that Trump is not subject to the law like any other defendant would have a hard time sustaining public faith in the process. Any rulings for Trump would be regarded as evidence of bias; rulings against would be seen as efforts to restore her shattered reputation.

Because Cannon seemed to be leaning over backward and/or operating untethered to basic criminal procedure, some lawyers have questioned if she should recuse herself under the U.S. code that requires a judge to “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Legal scholars have pointed to precedent for recusal “if facts connected to the judge’s actions in the case would cause an objective observer to doubt the fairness of the proceedings," as Norman L. Eisen, Richard W. Painter and Fred Wertheimer wrote in Slate..............

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/13/judge-cannon-recuse-trump-documents-indictment/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F3a4a672%2F6488a1d143b95c3794a0f3b7%2F59813061ae7e8a6816fb1940%2F55%2F71%2F6488a1d143b95c3794a0f3b7

 

[LA - L.A.]

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

Okay.

I'm not sure how a person would do that without their posts becoming very awkward.

There's nothing awkward about using the words "I think," "it seems," "my impression," and so on.

Do you mind if I observe your posts over the next few days to see how you consistently do that?

What if I say I do mind? Are you going to stop reading my posts?

I think and was taught that saying someone is lying should always be presented in a way that makes it clear if it's an opinion or a fact supported with objective evidence, especially when it's an opinion mixed into a post with supportable facts.

 

[DaveXA]

Well, Trump's motorcade is on its way to courthouse.

 

[efil4]

Democracy defenders and advocates for the rule of law were elated when the indictment of former president Donald Trump was unsealed, revealing a damning array of evidence that should finally vindicate the principle that the law applies to presidents and ex-presidents just as it does to all other Americans. Elation was tempered, however, when Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s name appeared on court documents. She infamously botched a civil case brought by Trump to recover the very same documents now at issue in the criminal case, a decision so lacking in logic and precedent that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit swiftly repudiated her ruling and sent Trump packing.

The 11th Circuit’s ruling was particularly dismissive in reversing Cannon: “The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so.” Specifically, the panel held she didn’t have jurisdiction and should not have ruled on the case.

To make matters worse, in the civil case, Cannon posited that Trump deserved special treatment because he is a former president (“[a]s a function of Plaintiff’s former position as President of the United States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own”). A judge who begins with the unconstitutional premise that Trump is not subject to the law like any other defendant would have a hard time sustaining public faith in the process. Any rulings for Trump would be regarded as evidence of bias; rulings against would be seen as efforts to restore her shattered reputation.

Because Cannon seemed to be leaning over backward and/or operating untethered to basic criminal procedure, some lawyers have questioned if she should recuse herself under the U.S. code that requires a judge to “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Legal scholars have pointed to precedent for recusal “if facts connected to the judge’s actions in the case would cause an objective observer to doubt the fairness of the proceedings," as Norman L. Eisen, Richard W. Painter and Fred Wertheimer wrote in Slate..............

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/13/judge-cannon-recuse-trump-documents-indictment/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F3a4a672%2F6488a1d143b95c3794a0f3b7%2F59813061ae7e8a6816fb1940%2F55%2F71%2F6488a1d143b95c3794a0f3b7

Its like the Prosecution are Saints.
Defendents the Rams

with an LA referee

I know this outcome

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Rememebr when BLM ans other protestors would be out protestng something in the middle of the day in the middle of the week and good ol boy racists would make back hand comments like ,they can be out there because they don't have jobs and are welfare queens and the type, while us Rs have to work and pay for their welfare.... My how the tables have turned and now they are the ones who are doing it the most....lol

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Well, Trump's motorcade is on its way to courthouse.

I found his motorcade detail overblown and obscene. Then when his security detail exited their vehicles, they were in full tactical gear as if they were in a combat zone. C'mon Man!!!!!!

That's just a weak man trying to portray strength...LAME.

 

[DaveXA]

I found his motorcade detail overblown and obscene. Then when his security detail exited their vehicles, they were in full tactical gear as if the were in a combat zone. C'mon Man!!!!!!

Lol, overkill certainly, of course due in no small part to Secret Service protection and probably coordinated additional layers of security. I think they were actually supposed to go in the building but the building security told them to stay put.