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

 

[Snarky Sack]

It's going to be a long pre-trial period. There will be discovery, plea bargaining, preliminary hearing, and pre-trial motions before the trial can start. The jury selection is part of the start of the trial, and that will take a much longer time than most trials if the prosecution wants a conviction that won't be overturned. I predict that many of the pre-trial motions will be appealed, and their appeal fast-tracked to the Supreme Court.

This case may beat out the McMartin Preschool case's record for longest trial.

The McMartin Preschool Abuse Trial, the longest and most expensive criminal trial in American history, should serve as a cautionary tale. When it was all over, the government had spent seven years and $15 million dollars investigating and prosecuting a case that led to no convictions.

The McMartin Preschool Abuse Trial: A Commentary

law2.umkc.edu

The Government has spent much more than that going after Trump. The Mueller team alone spent over $25M to get no indictment of Trump, and the information he bumblingly reported to Congress was not sufficient for an impeachment. For impeachment purposes, the accusations of that little fat Lieutenant Colonel were far more cost effective. Still no conviction, of course.

We will find out years from now how much the Smith Team is spending.

 

[Booker]

People who "flood the zone" with misinformation intended to distract, deflect, muddle, condescend and/or provoke have zero concern about being credible.

Gish gallop - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality.

During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.

 

[MT15]

Almost every speech by Trump is a Gish gallop. His supporters are imitating him.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Maybe some cracks in his support starting to show?

I fully expect most of the Republicans who are being critical of Trump, if not all of them, to go right back to openly supporting Trump if he keeps or increases his lead in the "poles" (a little homage for the migrants on this board.)

I have zero doubt that if Trump whens the primary, everyone of them, including McConnell will do everything they can to try to help him win the election.

 

[superchuck500]

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.

I think much of that is wishful thinking - at least as to timing. Jury selection disputes are common and they don’t bog down the case for years. The defendant is highly unusual in this case, but the procedure happens every day in federal court. The 11th Circuit already admonished Cannon that an ex-president doesn’t get special rules.

That said, I’m not suggesting it’s going to happen quickly either - it’s not the EDVA (where the court prides itself on a speedy docket). And election interests might indeed play a role (unlike ex-president status). The timeline is still really hard to predict at this point.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

It's going to be a long pre-trial period. There will be discovery, plea bargaining, preliminary hearing, and pre-trial motions before the trial can start.

The "Rocket Docket" didn't earn that name for falling for obvious stall tactics.

The jury selection is part of the start of the trial, and that will take a much longer time than most trials if the prosecution wants a conviction that won't be overturned.

Funny, they had no problem seating a Grand Jury that indicted him. All of your assertions requires everyday citizens to have no integrity. Weird.

I predict that many of the pre-trial motions will be appealed, and their appeal fast-tracked to the Supreme Court.

That's not how any of that works. IF there are ANY pre-trial conflicts, they likely would be heard by the 11th Circuit and considering their last SMACKDOWN, Judge Cannon will not survive much less continue this case.

This case may beat out the McMartin Preschool case's record for longest trial.

The McMartin Preschool Abuse Trial, the longest and most expensive criminal trial in American history, should serve as a cautionary tale. When it was all over, the government had spent seven years and $15 million dollars investigating and prosecuting a case that led to no convictions.

Not applicable. That's not a Federal case.

As I pointed out earlier, Feds have over a 95% conviction rate and their longest trial was a 22 month RICO case that followed a 4 year investigation involving over 20 targets.

The Mueller team alone spent over $25M to get no indictment of Trump, and the information he bumblingly reported to Congress was not sufficient for an impeachment. For impeachment purposes, the accusations of that little fat Lieutenant Colonel were far more cost effective. Still no conviction, of course.

That's because Republicans lack the integrity to do so. They didn't deny the allegations or the evidence supporting those allegations, they attack the messenger by disparaging him. Hell, after the trial many of them thought that trump had learned a lesson on how to conduct himself, boy were they wrong.

We will find out years from now how much the Smith Team is spending.

Considerably less than the Bull Durham investigation.

Edit: Yeah, what Chuck said...damn my ADD

 

[efil4]

It's going to be a long pre-trial period. There will be discovery, plea bargaining, preliminary hearing, and pre-trial motions before the trial can start. The jury selection is part of the start of the trial, and that will take a much longer time than most trials if the prosecution wants a conviction that won't be overturned. I predict that many of the pre-trial motions will be appealed, and their appeal fast-tracked to the Supreme Court.

This case may beat out the McMartin Preschool case's record for longest trial.

The McMartin Preschool Abuse Trial, the longest and most expensive criminal trial in American history, should serve as a cautionary tale. When it was all over, the government had spent seven years and $15 million dollars investigating and prosecuting a case that led to no convictions.

The McMartin Preschool Abuse Trial: A Commentary

law2.umkc.edu

The Government has spent much more than that going after Trump. The Mueller team alone spent over $25M to get no indictment of Trump, and the information he bumblingly reported to Congress was not sufficient for an impeachment. For impeachment purposes, the accusations of that little fat Lieutenant Colonel were far more cost effective. Still no conviction, of course.

We will find out years from now how much the Smith Team is spending.

Looks like the new talking points have been distributed. Now they tack to "look how much this will cost to pursue".

 

[Snarky Sack]

I'll give some highlights of what he said. Not vouching for the truth of them, just giving them if you don't want to watch it.

Keep in mind that this was a very receptive audience, many of whom may be in the jury pool.

- The boxes were very neatly packed but the FBI dumped them on the floor.
- He was in the process of going through the boxes, but he has a very busy life.
- Under the "socks decision" there was no rush.
- The picture of the classified cover was staged.
- They brought in a professional safe cracker, but found nothing in his safe.
- The PRA allows him to negotiate with NARA, which he was doing.
- He was not above the law, he followed the law, it was the Biden administration that broke the law.
- Mentions Biden taking documents out of the Senate SCIF.
- Biden sent more than a thousand boxes to University of Delaware and refuses to give them up.
- Many of Biden's documents were in Chinatown of DC, he implies Biden's Chinese sponsors might have accessed them.
- Hillary's server
- Anthony Weiner's computer ("you don't wanna be on his computer")
- Someone in crowd wishes him happy birthday (for tomorrow). He shrugged his shoulders "great birthday." Crowd goes wild. Breaks into "Happy Birthday" Song.
- Clinton destroyed evidence after it was subpoena'd.
- Describes Sandy Berger pants stuffing episode. No jail time.
- Bill Clinton, nice guy. Hillary should have used him more in 2016.
- Bill Clinton lost nuclear codes. Nothing was done.
- GWB White House lost 22M emails.
- Document shredding truck was spotted on the way to Dick Cheney's house.
- Weaponized Department of Justice violating his rights. Pierced attorney-client privilege unlawfully.
- Decries leaks.
- Smith a "deranged lunatic."
- Mike Pence exonerated. He should be, he did nothing wrong.
- Biden different.
- "Deranged Jack Smith" is a "thug" who does political hit jobs.
- Smith case against a governor overturned 8-0.
- Points to fake news reporters
- Talks about what they have done to his family.
- Smith tried to railroad John Edwards.
- Smith sent to Hague to avoid the U.S. Constitution.
- Smith a raging and uncontrolled Trump hater and so is his wife. "This is the guy I've got."
- Intel former officials running psyops against the American people.
- Charges came down the same day it was revealed that Biden took a $5M bribe. Biden not covered.
- "We will make. America. Great Again."
- Crowd goes wild as he leaves.

Almost every speech by Trump is a Gish gallop. His supporters are imitating him.

I'll agree that this speech is a Gish gallop.

It'll be a very effective GG though at keeping his supporters on board.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Looks like the new talking points have been distributed. Now they tack to "look how much this will cost to pursue".

I know of one way they save money! Cut down the extravagant motorcade display! I bet Miami's Finest are especially stoked about their "Mandatory Fun" activities!

 

[MT15]

 

[Optimus Prime]

Yes, that’s what it was
==============


……Carlson told his audience that the former president was now in legal trouble because of his position on Iraq during the 2016 Republican primary debates, in which he said the US had “destabilised” the Middle East with its invasion of Iraq.

“Seven-and-a-half years later we can point to the precise moment when permanent Washington decided to send Donald Trump to prison,” said Carlson on Tuesday evening as he played footage of the debate in Greenville, South Carolina.

In the footage, Mr Trump excoriates Washington DC insiders, saying, “We should have never been in Iraq...they said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none, they lied, they knew there were none.”

Carlson insisted that by calling them “liars”, Mr Trump had “sealed his fate.”

“That was the one thing you were not allowed to say as it implicated too many people on both sides, which on this topic is really just one side,” he said.……

Tucker Carlson spins new conspiracy linking Trump arrest to Iraq WMD

Former Fox News host says Trump ‘sealed his fate’ for branding DC insiders ‘liars’ over invasion

www.independent.co.uk

 

[LA - L.A.]

I'm cynical, so I think Ken Buck chose his words carefully. He said what he knew reporters would present as him saying he wouldn't vote for Trump. He very clearly says that he won't vote for Trump if convicted. Ken Buck knows that there's a good chance the trial won't be finished before the election, so his statement doesn't really commit him to anything.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Trump supporter randomly selected from the U.S. population is told, "Republican Ken Burke said that won't vote for Trump if Trump gets convicted."

Trump supporter (pick most likely response):

a) Really? Ken Burke said that? The Republican congressman? *sigh* I guess I'll vote for DeSantis, then.
a) Really? Ken Burke said that? The Republican congressman? *sigh* I guess I'll vote for Biden, then.
c) Who the heck is Ken Burke?
d) Is Ken Burke that Bud Lite dude who wears dresses?

 

[Snarky Sack]

What exactly are you disagreeing with? What he's explaining about restricted data is absolutely correct.

"Agree to disagree" is a polite way to say, "this seems to be much more important to you than to me. I'll stop talking about it now."

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Trump supporter randomly selected from the U.S. population is told, "Republican Ken Burke said that won't vote for Trump if Trump gets convicted."

Trump supporter (pick most likely response):

a) Really? Ken Burke said that? The Republican congressman? *sigh* I guess I'll vote for DeSantis, then.
a) Really? Ken Burke said that? The Republican congressman? *sigh* I guess I'll vote for Biden, then.
c) Who the heck is Ken Burke?
d) Is Ken Burke that Bud Lite dude who wears dresses?

e) Really? Ken Burke said that? He's a RINO never Trumper anyway, who cares.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Trump supporter randomly selected from the U.S. population is told, "Republican Ken Burke said that won't vote for Trump if Trump gets convicted."

Who's Ken Burke and what does he have to do with any of this?

 

[DaveXA]

"Agree to disagree" is a polite way to say, "this seems to be much more important to you than to me. I'll stop talking about it now."

It would be more genuine if you'd just admit you made a mistake about the issue rather than saying "agree to disagree" without stating why you disagree. We're not going to think any less of you if you admit you're wrong about something. All of us have been wrong about something before. A little humility goes a long way.

 

[Snarky Sack]

It would be more genuine if you'd just admit you made a mistake about the issue rather than saying "agree to disagree" without stating why you disagree. We're not going to think any less of you if you admit you're wrong about something. All of us have been wrong about something before. A little humility goes a long way.

It was such a confusing tangle of words, I wasn't really sure what he was trying to convince me that I was wrong about. That's why I just wanted to drop it, along with the fact that he was getting upset about it, and that it was a distraction from what we were discussing.

He said he was OK with dropping it.

I've admitted to mistakes on here already and I've only been posting a few days. Do you need me to track down examples to show you, or would you take my word for it?

Here, I'll save us each a tempo:

Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case )

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...

madaboutpolitics.com