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

 

[Incumbent]

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.

You made the mistake of trying to understand what he posted instead of understanding what he meant. Rhetoric and so on.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You made the mistake of trying to understand what he posted instead of understanding what he meant. Rhetoric and so on.

I would say the mistake was "understanding what I said." If not, show me the quote from me where my words about restricted are factually incorrect.

 

[Incumbent]

Show me the quote from me where my words about restricted are factually incorrect.

See Dave's post, noting you've already established that's not what you meant, and then see my post.

/Opinions, facts, whatever

 

[Snarky Sack]

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.

All correct, except for the word in red. There is a law called the Presidential Records Act that specifically allows a president to keep copies for reference.

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.

I get that what the charges are. Again, making a copy of a document is not stealing it. If I go to the library and copy a page out of a reference book so I can take it home and include the information in an essay, I did not "steal" the book, or the page of the book.

I've consistently made two points about the indictment: The charges are allegations, not proven facts, and Hillary is guilty of most of what Trump is accused of and was not prosecuted.

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.

I find that kind of overwrought language over someone supporting a different political candidate than you pretty amusing.

 

[DaveXA]

I would say the mistake was "understanding what I said." If not, show me the quote from me where my words about restricted are factually incorrect.

Color me skeptical, what you meant then and what you are saying you meant now aren't consistent. But whatever, you do you.

 

[Snarky Sack]

See Dave's post, noting you've already established that's not what you meant, and then see my post.

/Opinions, facts, whatever

Yeah, whatever the flip ever.

I don't think I'll do that. The issue Dave had was my supposed refusal to "admit I was wrong." I got a nice condescending lecture from him about it. I offered to admit I was wrong if Dave could show me and he fell back on what he (incorrectly) inferred, not what I said.

I made the same offer to you, and you give me the runaround.

 

[Incumbent]

Yeah, whatever the flip ever.

I don't think I'll do that. The issue Dave had was my supposed refusal to "admit I was wrong." I got a nice condescending lecture from him about it. I offered to admit I was wrong if Dave could show me and he fell back on what he (incorrectly) inferred, not what I said.

I made the same offer to you, and you give me the runaround.

You're precious.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Color me skeptical, what you meant then and what you are saying you meant now aren't consistent. But whatever, you do you.

I meant what I said when I said it and now.

What were you telling me about how no one will think worse of you if you admit that you are wrong? Take your own advice, is my advice.

 

[DaveXA]

I meant what I said when I said it and now.

What were you telling me about how no one will think worse of you if you admit that you are wrong? Take your own advice, is my advice.

Lmao...like I said, you do you.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Lmao...like I said, you do you.

Agree to disagree, then?

 

[brandon]

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

I think if you could clarify for us what you did mean here, then that would help.

Alternatively, you would need to admit you misunderstood restricted/formerly restricted classifications.

Then I think we would all be able to move on.

 

[SFIDC3]

This tells us there is no point in discussing it with you.

Any evidence shown to you will just be claimed to have been planted.

It's pretty much all cult Trumpers (and major trolls in this case) have at this point.....

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

It's pretty much all cult Trumpers (and major trolls in this case) have at this point.....

depends on the day of the week. one day it "it was legal" the next day it is "he didn' know" the next day its "he declassified them" the next day its "they were planted", i'm sure i'm missing a few.

 

[DaveXA]

I think if you could clarify for us what you did mean here, then that would help.

Alternatively, you would need to admit you misunderstood restricted/formerly restricted classifications.

Then I think we would all be able to move on.

He's not gonna admit it since he's putting the goal posts wherever he wants. So...good luck with that.

 

[Incumbent]

depends on the day of the week. one day it "it was legal" the next day it is "he didn' know" the next day its "he declassified them" the next day its "they were planted", i'm sure i'm missing a few.

Trump is his own worst enemy and a lawyer's nightmare.

 

[brandon]

He's not gonna admit it since he's putting the goal posts wherever he wants. So...good luck with that.

I try to make posts that cut through the noise for everyone.

Whether he answers or not, there’s really nowhere for him to go except answer or drop out of the conversation.

 

[DaveXA]

Agree to disagree, then?

Nah, why would I do that?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Hillary is guilty of most of what Trump is accused of and was not prosecuted.

You keep saying this, but it simply isn't true. What Trump is accused of doing is more similar to Robert Birchum, Jeremy Brown or Nghia Hoang Pho, than what Hillary Clinton did.

You can see when people do what Hillary did, they lose their clearance but are not prosecuted, but when people do what Trump did they are prosecuted. It's pretty consistent.