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

 

[MT15]

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

People who believe this claptrap are beyond stupid. A whole lot of people have said that lies were told about Iraq. It’s been discussed a whole lot. Nobody else has been targeted for saying that by a “deep state”. Plus Trump has flip flopped on whether he supported the Iraq war several times, and said we should have seized Iraq’s oil, which I believe would have been a crime. Carlson is the worst sort of propagandizer.

 

[MT15]

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

One example. But you’ve been wrong about a few more things than this simple mistype and have been extremely stubborn about it. This isn’t meant to start something, I know you won’t admit your errors.

 

[Snarky Sack]

One example. But you’ve been wrong about a few more things than this simple mistype and have been extremely stubborn about it. This isn’t meant to start something, I know you won’t admit your errors.

You disagreeing with me is not an error on my part. Opinions vary, facts do not. If I get a fact wrong, I admit it.

And again, the poster that I was debating when the whole "formerly restricted" idea was being discussed said they were ok with dropping it. I'm trying hard not to use the "other n-word" here.

 

[MT15]

You disagreeing with me is not an error on my part. Opinions vary, facts do not. If I get a fact wrong, I admit it.

And again, the poster that I was debating when the whole "formerly restricted" idea was being discussed said they were ok with dropping it. I'm trying hard not to use the "other n-word" here.

No, that’s not what happened. You were shown that your statements were not supported in fact, and you refuse to acknowledge that. You don’t support your statements with source very often, and you acknowledge you state opinions as fact, so I’m not sure how you can say you admit it when you get a fact wrong. If all your opinions are fact, how can you ever get a fact wrong?

Care to tell me what word you are suppressing here?

 

[efil4]

I'm trying hard not to use the "other n-word" here.

ndicted?
ncarcerated?

 

[MT15]

 

[Lapaz]

Trump doesn't care about this country nor is he loyal to anyone except himself. All of his supporters are fools. Previously I would've said they were fooled, even though he had shown enough of himself that a reasonable analysis would've concluded the same thing 7 years ago. Now I say they aren't just fooled. They are fools. They could support almost any other Republican to fight for their causes, yet they choose to follow someone with no moral compass, no loyalty to them, that doesn't even believe in their causes, and would attempt to become a dictator. They are fools, because they think that that would actually be better for them. He has manipulated and fooled 75% of the Republican party, and he has almost succeeded in destroying that party. The problem is not that he is destroying the Republican party. The problem is that he is doing things that is destroying America's credibility on many fronts. He knows that all the fools will forgive him, no matter what he does, so he retained the secret documents, even though he knew it was dangerous and illegal, then criminally obstructed, because he figures he'll play the legal system until he is forgiven. The fools are playing along.

Trump has been so cavalier throughout his time in power and beyond with secrets, that our allies have to be at their wits ends. If even a few people are allowed to handle our classified material the way that he did, America would lose all credibility with respect to safeguarding secrets. I assume many of our allies are already taking measures to withhold information that they previously believed they could share with us, since they don't know if they can trust us anymore. If Trump is prosecuted, then it should gain us back some of our credibility towards protecting secrets.

 

[Snarky Sack]

No, that’s not what happened. You were shown that your statements were not supported in fact, and you refuse to acknowledge that. You don’t support your statements with source very often, and you acknowledge you state opinions as fact, so I’m not sure how you can say you admit it when you get a fact wrong. If all your opinions are fact, how can you ever get a fact wrong?

I said that I state my opinion "as fact," not that "all my opinions are fact."

I get a fact wrong when I do something like mix up the words CLASSIFIED and CONFIDENTIAL, or assume incorrectly that the Trump indictment is for mishandling classified information. When that happens, I admit it.

Care to tell me what word you are suppressing here?

No, I wish I hadn't brought it up. I don't want to be accused of sexism. There is a word for repeatedly returning to a topic that has been put to rest in order to pressure someone to comply with one's wishes, but it does have a sexist connotation.

 

[efil4]

No, I wish I hadn't brought it up. I don't want to be accused of sexism. There is a word for repeatedly returning to a topic that has been put to rest in order to pressure someone to comply with one's wishes, but it does have a sexist connotation.

Nefarious?
Narcissism?
Nincompoop?
Near-do-well?


ill get it. gimme more time.


ok how bout you post all the LETTERS all jumbled up and then we can "wordle" it?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Nefarious?
Narcissism?
Nincompoop?
Near-do-well?


ill get it. gimme more time.


ok how bout you post all the LETTERS all jumbled up and then we can "wordle" it?

I gave a pretty strong hint.

Here's another: Ask a married man. Married straight man.

 

[efil4]

I gave a pretty strong hint.

Here's another: Ask a married man. Married straight man.

hmmmm....the only word that keeps coming to mind starts with a t.

 

[Snarky Sack]

hmmmm....the only word that keeps coming to mind starts with a t.

Ok, I'm stumped with that one. A word that starts with a t and means repeatedly returning to a topic that has been put to rest in order to pressure someone to comply with one's wishes?

Wait, wait, don't tell me!

 

[DaveXA]

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

I don't see where he was getting upset about it. He explained quite clearly how you were misusing terminology that unless one is well-versed in the classification and security clearance process, most would not typically understand the meaning of restricted data. FRD doesn't mean it's no longer classified. Your comments regarding restricted vs FRD didn't make any sense in that context.

 

[Huntn]

He can’t make up his mind and his dummies don’t seem care. I won’t consider Trump done until he is convicted. Even some Republicans are admitting out loud that this is a serious problem of his own making. All he had to do was say sorry, my mistake here are your forking papers, but now after his inditement at some restaurant stop on the way out of town, reports are besides claiming classified documents were planted, he is still saying those papers are his and it is his right to hold them. Not only is this completely wrong, and will be proven so in court, he is basically trying to rewite the laws on the power of his populism. He is going for broke and if he can prevail, WE KEEP SLIDING DOWN.

Trump now claims classified documents were ‘planted’ in Mar-a-Lago boxes in wild arraignment morning rant

Trump rants at Special Counsel as he scrambles after being hit with 37-count indictment

www.aol.com

Trump delivered defiant speech after indictment hearing. Here's what he said.

In Bedminster, New Jersey, former President Donald Trump laid out his arguments against the indictment, claiming he has an "absolute right" to keep any documents.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

I don't see where he was getting upset about it. He explained quite clearly how you were misusing terminology that unless one is well-versed in the classification and security clearance process, most would not typically understand the meaning of restricted data. FRD doesn't mean it's no longer classified. Your comments regarding restricted vs FRD didn't make any sense in that context.

Ok, maybe we can finally put this to rest. Show me the post in which I said "FRD means it is no longer classified," or words to that effect. Not just inferred. If I said that, I'll admit that I was mistaken, even without plowing through his link.

 

[DaveXA]

Ok, maybe we can finally put this to rest. Show me the post in which I said "FRD means it is no longer classified," or words to that effect. Not just inferred. If I said that, I'll admit that I was mistaken, even without plowing through his link.

This below is what you said. What you seem to be suggesting is that "no longer has to be restricted" means anyone can view it, and that is not the case. Only those with proper security clearance can until it becomes properly declassified. Restricted data and classified don't mean the same thing.

...
Right. But if it is restricted and is moved from the category of restricted to formerly restricted, it no longer has to be restricted.

 

[Huntn]

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.

Trump supporters will listen and attend to the evidence to whatever extent they choose, as will Clinton supporters, Biden Supporters, and Bernie Supporters. No one will "ignore the evidence" as in not being at all aware of what it is.

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? 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.

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

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

Clinton did.

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

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.

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?

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.

The idea that presidents can never have a copy of anything from the WH is absurd and completely ad hoc. The PRA is intended to prevent presidents from hiding documents, "stealing from history," so to speak. Extra copies, stored separately, help preserve history.

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?


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

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."

It is not relevant to whether he is guilty. It is very relevant to whether prosecution of Trump is warranted.

This isn't some one-off, "hey we found this out about Trump, so unfortunately we have to prosecute him." This is a seven year pattern of behavior on the part of the DOJ and the FBI to first try to interfere with, then try to overturn the results of the 2016 election and now try to disqualify Trump from running.

That after having given Clinton a pass just prior to that election with the justification that no one had ever been prosecuted under similar circumstances. That is even more true about Trump.

No honest person who read the OIG report and the Durham Report on Operation Crossfire-Hurricane can say that the DOJ/FBI is an unbiased organization seeking only the truth and to enforce the law. It is the same people doing this, with some minor staff changes. The culture of "Get Trump" lives on the in maxed out Democrat donors who lead the FBI and DOJ.

My advice to Trump opponents is this: Be happy with the indictment. Getting a conviction before the election is a longshot. Even starting the trial before the election will be almost impossible, because Trump's lawyers will delay, delay, delay.

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

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

As part if my job, I worked with top secret compartmented documents during my time in the USN. So, I’ll say the classified documents he has are one “copy” of these documents, there are multiple “copies” in circulation In the government sent to appropriate departments. And whether created in official channels or a private copy made on your own (illegal) , they all have the same status regardless.

And @Snarky Sack, I’m not sure why this has to be repeated to you, but the issue is not Trump’s personal papers, it is him absconding with Top Secret classified documents which are not his to take home and line his drawers with or show to “friends” likely Foreign operatives over dinner to impress them, or for them to make use of to our detriment. And the reason he is being prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act, that not only did he purposely steal these documents, he GROSSLY mishandled them and he refused to give them back.

This man is a ONE OF A KIND MENACE to have been placed in such a position of responsibility. But this is what America is faced with, a group of people on the Right who are not just self destructive, in the name of having it my way, but by all appearances want to take the country down with them If they can’t get their way. Of course some of them might be too stupid to realize what the GOP end game actually is: Hold power at all costs, even our Democratic Republic is expendable.

And here locally, if you actually are a patriot, to be constantly defending Trump poison imo is inexcusable.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This below is what you said. What you seem to be suggesting is that "no longer has to be restricted" means anyone can view it, and that is not the case.

No, that was not at all what I was suggesting.

Only those with proper security clearance can until it becomes properly declassified.

Obviously, and I never said they could.

Restricted data and classified don't mean the same thing.

Obviously, and I never said that they did.

Are we finally done?

Because in re-reading the thread, I noticed that a few posts before I said "agree to disagree," @FullMonte said "agree to disagree" about another point. I just let it go.

For that matter, FullMonte just let it go also, after a little snark that obviously I'm not gonna mind. Can you?