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

 

[LA - L.A.]

The idea that presidents can never have a copy of anything from the WH is absurd and completely ad hoc.

Trump had original documents, not copies, so how is this relevant in Trump's case?

 

[LA - L.A.]

Then why is not one of the counts he's charged with about classified documents?

When did you change your mind on this? You argued the exact opposite of this in previous posts of yours that I read.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

When did you change your mind on this? You argued the exact opposite of this in previous posts of yours that I read.

Because in his world, prosecutors always overcharge. Here, in our world, the Feds tend to undercharge and that has directly contributed to them having an over 95% conviction rate. They charge what they can prove!

 

[Snarky Sack]

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

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.

Thank you. Barely paying attention is not the same as ignoring. Maybe when you keep asking the same question over and over, I should just cut and paste my previous answer so that a change in wording is not so confusing. Or just ignore it and assume it was rhetorical.

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.

YOU say that's what it would need to be. This prosecution is a first on many levels. There is no way to know what the defense(s) might be. I'm no lawyer, so take this as spitballing from a layman.

The defenses could stipulate that Trump had the documents, then argue no criminal intent. To lay down the foundation for that, they can bring in an expert to show cases in which people had classified documents in their home in violation of the law, but were not even prosecuted due to no criminal intent.

If they describe say five such cases, should HRC be the first one they mention, the last they mention, or mixed in the middle?

They could argue that Trump wasn't the person running the process of turning over documents to the FBI, he had lawyers telling him what to do. If two of his lawyers from that time take the stand and say that there was confusion about who was in charge of that, and each implies blame on the other, that's something else for the jury to hang reasonable doubt on.

I thought of those almost as fast as I could type them. Trump's team of lawyers will do much better, I'm sure.

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.

True.

Praise Allah that none of Trump's opponents ever believed that this was over classified documents, because the DOJ/FBI never gave them any reason to think it was.

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.

Or you could show no criminal intent by bringing evidence that someone put the bicycle in your bedroom.

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.

Evidence of a negative?

You tell me your evidence that they do have them, because the prosecutors will have to. Remember, here is what you claim the prosecutors can prove:

Unless his lawyers can somehow provide evidence that either: There was no subpoena issued, that his lawyer did NOT submit a sworn statement that they had returned everything, or that there were no documents containing national defense information in his personal desk....then the facts clearly show Trump is guilty of that charge.

I'm particularly interested in seeing your proof that there were documents containing national defense information in his personal desk. Be sure to include an explanation as to why Trump's lawyers were not allowed to observe the search. I'm also interested in your proof that Trump told his lawyer to swear to that. That's gonna be tough with that lawyer/client thingie.

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.

That Clinton should have stopped as soon as she realized she was under investigation and for sure when they were subpoena'd.

It was a rehtorical question.

Good one.

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

Your entire premise about the trial is speculation on what you think is going to happen. Are double standards as acceptable on message boards as in federal prosecutions?

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.

I know very few people who do not agree that Comey was wrong to first list her crimes and then announce no prosecution. It was purely self serving. The whole deal stank. That non-recusal recusal of Lynch's had no precedent that I know of. Comey didn't object to something so obviously wrong, because he like the spotlight.

His being a Republican had little to do with it.

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?

No, my money is still on it being some open source.

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.

But the act specifically authorized him to keep copies of documents. So any claims that he had to give them "back" to the Archivist who never had them are specious.

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

Or, to be less dramatic, it is - not "could be" - an unproven allegation.

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")

No, but it means that it is no longer restricted. Have you forgotten that the case has nothing to do with classified?

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.

By Allah! A report of a suspicious package is definite proof of . . . well nothing.

But, yeah, if Trump gets re-elected, I hope the burning and looting is kept to a minimum.

Well spoken!

Tourists visiting the Capitol while Congress is counting the electoral votes is ok, though, right?

You want to look at stats on burnings, lootings, killings and riotings, BLM and ANTIFA far outpaced a one day riot by Trump supporters.

Will there be more violence due to the indictment? I doubt it. Not unless you count unconfirmed reports of "suspicious packages" and "death threats" as violence.

So long as they don't handcuff him and perp walk him. If they do that, they are either incredibly stupid or hoping to incite violence. If somehow he is disqualified from serving as president after having been elected, that could cause more serious violence.

 

[coldseat]

, Let them swelter in the heat.

No doubt they're buying those fresh cups of mango, strawberries and watermelon's from undocumented workers.

PS, From the few pictures I saw, it looked like a rather paltry crowd. Despite the online bravado, it seems most weren't willing to go out "to defend" the criminal ex-president.

================

Crowd outside courthouse swelters in 90-degree heat​

Return to menu
By Jess Swanson
and
Tim Craig
MIAMI — Spectators and protesters gathered outside the Miami courthouse where former president Donald Trump is appearing are sweltering in 90-degree heat.
Some bought water from nearby fast-food restaurants, while others resorted to purchasing cups of mango, strawberries and watermelon, desperate for hydration.

Miami officials have deployed about a dozen officers on bikes to make the rounds and assist anyone who has been suffering from heat exhaustion or dehydration.

Leona Mangan, 83, sat for hours in her wheelchair to support Trump, despite the heat. She’d traveled from West Palm Beach and tried to stay cool by sipping water and staying under a tree. She planned to leave as soon as Trump departs.

“I feel like there is a whole army out there, and you know what, if you look around it’s the retirees who are out here,” she said. “I just want him to know we are with him.”
The heat might soon be eclipsed by a different kind of inclement weather: The National Weather Service reports thunderstorms and rain could arrive this afternoon.

=====================

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/13/trump-miami-court-indictment-hearing/#link-WX5MTG7X2JCH3FMYY6LTOEDDAU

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The defenses could stipulate that Trump had the documents, then argue no criminal intent. To lay down the foundation for that, they can bring in an expert to show cases in which people had classified documents in their home in violation of the law, but were not even prosecuted due to no criminal intent.

If they describe say five such cases, should HRC be the first one they mention, the last they mention, or mixed in the middle?

They could argue that Trump wasn't the person running the process of turning over documents to the FBI, he had lawyers telling him what to do. If two of his lawyers from that time take the stand and say that there was confusion about who was in charge of that, and each implies blame on the other, that's something else for the jury to hang reasonable doubt on.

I thought of those almost as fast as I could type them. Trump's team of lawyers will do much better, I'm sure.

This makes it appear that you have not read the indictment. The indictment includes criminal intent when it alleges (with evidence) that he knew he had classified documents, directed people to hide the documents when people came to collect them, suggested to his lawyers that they lie about having them. The indictment explicitly refers to criminal intent -- so I imagine his defense would have to prove that the evidence being presented (testimony, physical evidence, tape recordings, etc) is not accurate, was illegally obtained, or that the interpretation of the law was wrong.

There's a huge difference between HRC's case and Trump's. It's pretty easy to find dozens of high level officials who have inadvertently referred to classified documents in unclassified settings. Especially when you have things classified after the fact, or things that become classified when combined with other unclassified information.

What gets Trump in trouble is not that he had a few documents at home, it's that there is evidence that he knew what he had, that it was not declassified, that he showed it to other people while acknowledging that it was classified, and the he directly lied to NARA and investigators and directed others to lie on his behalf. That is the evidence of criminal intent.

 

[coldseat]

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.

Do you believe that Eileen Cannon, if she eventually presides over the trial, will severely/unfairly look to damage the prosecution of Trump?

 

[DaveXA]

This makes it appear that you have not read the indictment. The indictment includes criminal intent when it alleges (with evidence) that he knew he had classified documents, directed people to hide the documents when people came to collect them, suggested to his lawyers that they lie about having them. The indictment explicitly refers to criminal intent -- so I imagine his defense would have to prove that the evidence being presented (testimony, physical evidence, tape recordings, etc) is not accurate, was illegally obtained, or that the interpretation of the law was wrong.

There's a huge difference between HRC's case and Trump's. It's pretty easy to find dozens of high level officials who have inadvertently referred to classified documents in unclassified settings. Especially when you have things classified after the fact, or things that become classified when combined with other unclassified information.

What gets Trump in trouble is not that he had a few documents at home, it's that there is evidence that he knew what he had, that it was not declassified, that he showed it to other people while acknowledging that it was classified, and the he directly lied to NARA and investigators and directed others to lie on his behalf. That is the evidence of criminal intent.

And he didn't return all of the classified documents that the NARA had requested be returned. Had he properly done that in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

This whole scenario is entirely of Trump's making and was completely avoidable. But his ego and penchant for doing his own thing is potentially going to do him in here. The charges are serious and anyone trying to justify that doesn't really know or agree with the law.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Alright, my new internet acquaintances, some of our exchanges are getting pretty repetitive. My fault, I'm sure.

Let's talk about the possibility of a plea bargain. In a very hypothetical way of course.

First of all, I don't think it will happen. I think Trump would rather go to prison than plead guilty. I think he would love to troll Democrats by comparing himself to Nelson Mandela, and MLK. In prison, he'd live better than a Mafia Capo de tuti Capo. So again, very hypothetical and nothing to get in a twist about.

I do think that the prosecutor would be open to it. He would almost have to be. The other alternative would be to say that the case is so strong and the crimes so heinous that anything other than the maximum sentence would be a miscarriage of justice. Jack Smith has done a good job of not making public statements so I don't know if he is good enough at keeping a straight face to say that.

So, let me give my opinion on what would be fair, and my opinion on what the prosecutor might be willing to offer. I've already said I don't think Trump would take anything, but I'll say what I think he might take.

If the prosecutor in providing discovery shows the defense that it can prove the facts, and also prove the more difficult criminal intent, fair would be a plead guilty on ten misdemeanors, and a $500,000 fine paid immediately.

Why would that be fair? I got that from the case of Sandy Berger:

Berger was White House national security adviser from 1997 to 2001, including a period when the Clinton administration carried out airstrikes in Kosovo and against Saddam Hussein's forces in Iraq. Berger also was deeply involved in the administration's push for free trade.

He was deputy national security adviser during Clinton's first term.

In 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to illegally removing classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing some documents down his pants. He cut up some of the documents with scissors, for reasons that remain unclear.

He first took one copy of a document and then the remaining four copies. His method was to ask for a break, go outside without an escort and hide them under a trailer to retrieve later when not logged in as a visitor. He never had to admit his motivation, but the documents related to Clintons mishandling of the threats leading up to 9/11.

What Berger did was not exactly like what Trump is accused of doing, but nothing is ever exactly like anything else. Yet, there is still such a thing as precedent.

One misdemeanor was probably not enough for Berger's crimes, but it was a compromise. If - and I feel I should repeat "if" over and over, but even if I did, someone will say, "Oh, so you admit Trump did it!" If, if , if, they have evidence that could convict Trump, ten is a good number, because it would raise the fine to $500K. $500K would be to Trump about what $50K was to Berger. Berger also got 100 hours of community service. So give Trump a thousand. If donates his pay in his second term also, he can work that out by presidenting.

If the voters say no, he can go back to his charitable work.

 

[DaveXA]

Do you believe that Eileen Cannon, if she eventually presides over the trial, will severely/unfairly look to damage the prosecution of Trump?

I suppose she could, but if she cares at all about her job and reputation, I'm not seeing it here. It's going to be a jury trial, so she might steer things a certain way, but I don't think she'll disregard whatever decision the jury makes.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This makes it appear that you have not read the indictment. The indictment includes criminal intent when it alleges (with evidence) that he knew he had classified documents, directed people to hide the documents when people came to collect them, suggested to his lawyers that they lie about having them. The indictment explicitly refers to criminal intent -- so I imagine his defense would have to prove that the evidence being presented (testimony, physical evidence, tape recordings, etc) is not accurate, was illegally obtained, or that the interpretation of the law was wrong.

I have not read it word for word. There is no "evidence" in the indictment, but only a prediction of evidence to be presented. It would have to be sworn to for it to be evidence. I'm sure that the indictment addressed criminal intent, but they will have to prove it, not just suggest it.

There's a huge difference between HRC's case and Trump's. It's pretty easy to find dozens of high level officials who have inadvertently referred to classified documents in unclassified settings. Especially when you have things classified after the fact, or things that become classified when combined with other unclassified information.

If you like, you can read and respond to my other posts about that.

What gets Trump in trouble is not that he had a few documents at home, it's that there is evidence that he knew what he had, that it was not declassified, that he showed it to other people while acknowledging that it was classified, and the he directly lied to NARA and investigators and directed others to lie on his behalf. That is the evidence of criminal intent.

I'm not saying they aren't going to try to prove criminal intent. I'm saying that will be the hardest part of their case to prove, so it will be the part that the defense will go after. That was the point I was making to another poster, who claimed that disproving the facts claimed by the DOJ would be the only available defense.

 

[Snarky Sack]

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.

I agree. Secret ballot is one of the very few secret things that ever contribute to a nation being a democratic republic. It is and should be sacred.

But, yikes! Whether they ask that or not, there will be a jury questionnaire. Imagine the length of it, and imagine the fight that negotiating what to put in and what to leave out will be. That will likely take longer most criminal trials take from start to finish.

One of many reasons that this case will drag out for years.

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.

It's possible. I don't know which side that would benefit.

I think it would be very ironic that typically maxed out Democratic donors in the DOJ would ask jurors about giving a hundred dollars to Trump or Biden.

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.

Hard to imagine a judge taking that case who would not come under immediate criticism from one side or the other.

 

[coldseat]

I have not read it word for word. There is no "evidence" in the indictment, but only a prediction of evidence to be presented. It would have to be sworn to for it to be evidence. I'm sure that the indictment addressed criminal intent, but they will have to prove it, not just suggest it.

Actually, I think most of the posited evidence in the indictment comes from actual Grand Jury testimony or evidence presented during the Grand Jury. If that is indeed the case, than it is actual evidence, as it was submitted under oath. I believe that evidence can be presented/read as such in the actual jury trial.

What hasn't happened is that the evidence hasn't been scrutinized or questioned by the defense, which will happen at trial.

 

[Snarky Sack]

When did you change your mind on this? You argued the exact opposite of this in previous posts of yours that I read.

I probably did. All we've heard for ten months is "classified, classified, CLASSIFIED!" The FBI gave us dramatic staged pictures of classified cover sheets.

Turns out the DOJ admits that Donald Trump mishandled no classified documents. Now, we're getting somewhere.

 

[DaveXA]

I probably did. All we've heard for ten months is "classified, classified, CLASSIFIED!" The FBI gave us dramatic staged pictures of classified cover sheets.

Turns out the DOJ admits that Donald Trump mishandled no classified documents. Now, we're getting somewhere.

Where did they admit that?

 

[MT15]

These people are out of their minds. I think most of us remember what happened to General Patradius for leaking some classified documents to his girl friend. Violating classified documents standards is serious business, especially hauling away 30-40+ boxes of Top secret classified documents which is a first and then thinking you can blow off Federal authority because you were President. “I own all this stuff” it’s possible that Trump actually believes that, and then you can legitimately question the man’s mental stability.

David Petraeus and the fall of a general

A profile of David Petraeus, formerly the top US military commander in Afghanistan and intelligence chief.

www.bbc.com

We don’t have to go back that far, this just happened within the last 30 days:

 

[Snarky Sack]

Where did they admit that?

In the indictment in which they did not charge him with mishandling classified documents.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Where did they admit that?

In an alternate universe where indictments are built on predictions of evidence, not actual sworn evidence. The same universe where its citizens would go full beast mode after one of their unelected leaders have his home raided by The Feds. They will demand to see the warrant and affidavits that supports the search and once The Feds submit to their demands, they will turn around and insist that information was illegally leaked to the press.