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

 

[DaveXA]

FullMonte is.

I don't know if you are sincere is all of the following, but I'm going to give it a respectful answer as if you are. FullMonte's game is to ask me "are you saying . . . " and then sometimes say what I was actually saying, and sometimes say something with similar words that don't mean the same thing. He did that on this very thread, post 867, 869, and 871. That must have prompted him to finally realize I was giving it back to him and then he rage quit.


I still don't know what obvious error FullMonte was talking about (and no, I don't care to rehash it). I'm guessing it was another of his "are you saying . . . " that looked similar to what I said, so I just said, "right . . . " and tried to get the conversation back on track.

But, lets say you are right. I have been on numerous boards and I've never been on one in which someone says "agree to disagree" and keeps getting hounded by multiple posters.

But it's fine. I like it here in spite of all that, or I wouldn't be here.. I'm just clarifying for you.

I came in here and offered opinions that were different from the consensus. I'll agree with being "pretty hot," though not sure how you would know. Not "guns blazing" even making allowances for over-dramatic metaphor.

I guess if you haven't seen a differing opinion in a while, it can seem jarring.


That, I have not seen. If you can provide examples, I'd be pleased. Maybe from before I got here. I realize that the mere presence of a Trump supporter is galvanizing.

This seems to be a board made of very few people with nearly identical opinions. Much of the exchanges are like this:

The trollness is getting worse. You aren't even hiding it in conversation anymore....

I hope its just trolling cause otherwise...



A conman down to the smallest acts.

those good business practices that makes him sucessful..

By Allah! If I were on a board like that full of Trump supporters who baby talked each other like that, I wouldn't waste more than about an hour on it.


Have you talked that out with your fellows? I'm not sure they will agree. No matter how forthrightly I discuss issues, I'll be doing it as a Trump supporter. They won't be able to tolerate that, is my guess.

I'll put it to the test. I'll be as forthright and non-snarky as I can for twenty-four hours, answering provocations with forthright discussion of issues.

I'll let you know the results.

I'll start at 4:15 PM CDT, about fifteen minutes. I have to expose a sock puppet first. I can do that without snark, but it is hard not to seem snarky doing that. It isn't you or any sock you may have, don't worry.

*EDIT* Changed my mind about exposing the sock. Exposing socks sends people into rages, and I'm sure there are plenty of people with socks who might think they are next. So, it would not be a fair test.

Sock puppetry is allowed on here, IRRC, which is probably why they are so prolific.

I'll start in a minute, approx.

Holy gish gallop Batman! Lol.

 

[DaveXA]

Respectfully, DaveXA, there is. The IRS itself describes on example its own website:

Offer in compromise | Internal Revenue Service

An offer in compromise allows you to settle your tax debt for less than the full amount you owe.

www.irs.gov

I have to believe that a wealthy man like Donald Trump has more negotiating leverage than a typical taxpayer.

By the same token, a senior or former senior official would have more negotiating leverage with the FBI, than a sergeant who is caught with classified material in his foot locker.

Fwiw, an OIC is only applicable to a narrow subset of people. If you don't qualify, you're essentially SOL. So you can negotiate...only if you qualify.

 

[Snarky Sack]

That's still not an answer. Let's try a few yes/no questions.

I regret that I fell short. I'll happily answer those questions.

1. Do you believe that the FBI found those documents at Mar-a-Lago?

I'll say "most likely." In fact, for the sake of answering the next question, I'll say "yes." It will certainly never be proven otherwise.

I will say that I definitely do not believe that they found those cover sheets at Mar-a-Lago, given their pristine condition and the assurances we have been given that they were being mishandled for more than a year.

2. Do you believe that the redactions are hiding classified information?

Having agreed to agree that they are documents, I cannot further agree that they hide classified information, when I cannot see that they do. The staging of the scene, in particular the use of "throw down" document covers, makes me suspicious. I would be deliberately credulous to agree that the redactions cover classified information.

I'll give my exact opinion, assuming that the cover sheets and redactions cover documents: The documents are either:

a) Classifed Documents
b) Unclassified documents.
c) Formerly classified documents.

Having answered that one, I'll put one to you: Does the fact that the charges in the indictment are not for mishandling classified documents make you yourself wonder whether c) might be the right answer?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Holy gish gallop Batman! Lol.

A humorous reference, indeed!

 

[Optimus Prime]

I'm not sure many Trump supporters would have interpreted that as providing free food. Most of us prefer to work hard for what we have.

I believe that providing small gifts in exchange for votes and support is a technique much more often used by a different party.

How else would and could that be interpreted?

Misleading bait and switch is most definitely a technique used by a party

“Food for everyone!” (If you have a job, and worked hard and can afford it, then you can buy your own food)

 

[Snarky Sack]

How else would and could that be interpreted?

As, "My supporters are hard-working people who enjoy spending their well-earned money on delicious foods of all types, including Cuban quisine. Prepare for land office business, Mr. Restaurant Owner!"

Misleading bait and switch is most definitely a technique used by a party

The Republican Party has many faults, if that is who you are politely avoiding naming.

“Food for everyone!” (If you have a job, and worked hard and can afford it, then you can buy your own food)

I would differ with that interpretation, but neither of us can really know.

 

[Optimus Prime]

As, "My supporters are hard-working people who enjoy spending their well-earned money on delicious foods of all types, including Cuban quisine. Prepare for land office business, Mr. Restaurant Owner!"

If a multi millionaire celebrity conspicuously walks into a restaurant gets everyone’s attention and loudly says “how about this? Food for everyone!”

There isn’t anyone on the planet who would think what you wrote

Not. A. Single. Person. Period.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I regret that I fell short. I'll happily answer those questions.

I'll say "most likely." In fact, for the sake of answering the next question, I'll say "yes." It will certainly never be proven otherwise.

I will say that I definitely do not believe that they found those cover sheets at Mar-a-Lago, given their pristine condition and the assurances we have been given that they were being mishandled for more than a year.

Based on your reasoning, I feel the logical follow-up question is this: how are you defining "mishandled" and what does that have to do with the condition of what is visible in the photo?

Having agreed to agree that they are documents, I cannot further agree that they hide classified information, when I cannot see that they do. The staging of the scene, in particular the use of "throw down" document covers, makes me suspicious. I would be deliberately credulous to agree that the redactions cover classified information.

I'll give my exact opinion, assuming that the cover sheets and redactions cover documents: The documents are either:

a) Classifed Documents
b) Unclassified documents.
c) Formerly classified documents.

Having answered that one, I'll put one to you: Does the fact that the charges in the indictment are not for mishandling classified documents make you yourself wonder whether c) might be the right answer?

No, because it's a distinction without a difference. What he is being charged with would apply whether the information is classified, unclassified, or formerly classified (to use your terms). To me, that avoids having to prove whether he declassified the documents or not because the contents of the documents themselves make it a crime to have unauthorized possession of said documents.

That said, there is a witness that said he was waving around documents he specifically said he could have declassified while in office but did not, so I have plenty of reasons to believe that the redacted material is classified.

 

[Snarky Sack]

If a multi millionaire celebrity conspicuously walks into a restaurant gets everyone’s attention and loudly says “how about this? Food for everyone!”

There isn’t anyone on the planet who would think what you wrote

Not. A. Single. Person. Period.

You should meet more Republicans. You would find that the idea of a "free lunch" is an anathema to most of them.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Based on your reasoning, I feel the logical follow-up question is this: how are you defining "mishandled" and what does that have to do with the condition of what is visible in the photo?

Such quibbling over words has led to heated discussions with posters on here only recently. So I respectfully decline to participate in another example. Perhaps tomorrow evening if you really want to talk about definitions.

No, because it's a distinction without a difference. What he is being charged with would apply whether the information is classified, unclassified, or formerly classified (to use your terms). To me, that avoids having to prove whether he declassified the documents or not because the contents of the documents themselves make it a crime to have unauthorized possession of said documents.

If the prosecutor would be unable to prove that they documents found are classified, and the charges do not require the documents to be classified, does it really matter whether they are classified or not?

To clarify the part I highlighted in light blue, if you know that the contents of the documents themselves make it a crime to have unauthorized possession of said documents, what are the contents of the documents?

That said, there is a witness that said he was waving around documents he specifically said he could have declassified while in office but did not, so I have plenty of reasons to believe that the redacted material is classified.

Perhaps I will also, once that witness testifies at the public trial and completes cross examination.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Very good point.

I wonder if any would attribute a pro-Trump bias in the judge doing something that will cause a delay.

if those pictures are not truly blocked out documents like you claim, why would the judge want the lawyers to get clearance?

 

[brandon]

FullMonte's game is to ask me "are you saying . . . " and then sometimes say what I was actually saying, and sometimes say something with similar words that don't mean the same thing.

What is a Clarifying Question?

A Clarifying Question is a question asked about something that is unclear or hard to understand. People ask clarifying questions to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, rather than as a way to probe, challenge, or open up new avenues of discussion. Example clarifying questions include: When...

www.lucidmeetings.com

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Many Republicans are speaking out. Some more than others. Naturally their styles vary.
*

Pence and other GOP hopefuls begin criticizing Trump over 'very serious allegations'

Some of Donald Trump's 2024 Republican rivals for president have begun acknowledging that the Justice Department charges against him are "serious," and that his alleged lax handling of classified information represented a safety risk for U.S. troops.

www.yahoo.com

 

[fooferdoggie]

Many Republicans are speaking out. Some more than others. Naturally their styles vary.
*

Pence and other GOP hopefuls begin criticizing Trump over 'very serious allegations'

Some of Donald Trump's 2024 Republican rivals for president have begun acknowledging that the Justice Department charges against him are "serious," and that his alleged lax handling of classified information represented a safety risk for U.S. troops.

www.yahoo.com

the problem is they are between a rock and a hard place they created. they sucked up to trump for his praise (good luck on that) and his support and now if they say much they are going to lose that .I don't feel a bit sorry for them.

 

[Snarky Sack]

if those pictures are not truly blocked out documents like you claim, why would the judge want the lawyers to get clearance?

I note and applaud your attempt to "hoist me on my own petard" so to speak. That's what makes these boards fun, IMHO.

Among other reasons, because those documents in the pictures are not the only ones that the defense lawyers will want access to.

Suppose the judge believes, in her own mind, that Trump declassified all formerly classified documents that are in question in the case. Since that fact has not been proven in court, she should and is taking the neutral position that they are potentially classified.

It would also be fair for her to take the position that they are presumed classified, since I believe that "I declassified them" would have to be an affirmative defense, meaning that it is not up to the prosecutor to prove that documents with classification markings are actually classified. It would be for Trump to provide evidence that he declassified them.

I cannot think of a single valid argument against the lawyers needing clearances. Interesting would be if one of them is somehow ineligible for a clearance, or the agency tasked with granting clearance decides not to grant it. Then the judge would have to balance Trump's right to choose his attorney against her wish that attorneys have clearances.

 

[Snarky Sack]

the problem is they are between a rock and a hard place they created. they sucked up to trump for his praise (good luck on that) and his support and now if they say much they are going to lose that .I don't feel a bit sorry for them.

If only Never-Trump Republicans had simply looked for what is best for the nation they purport to serve.

 

[brandon]

Among other reasons, because those documents in the pictures are not the only ones that the defense lawyers will want access to.

You fight so hard, so often, to come up with any explanation other than the most obvious one.

We keep bringing up Occam’s Razor for a reason.

 

[DaveXA]

If only Never-Trump Republicans had simply looked for what is best for the nation they purport to serve.

What's best for the nation they purport to serve is to elect someone other than Trump. And I say that as a conservative who has given up on the GOP.