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

 

[DaveXA]

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.

Well, he's a Trumper, so it's hardly a surprising tendency.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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.

Nope. You said:

"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."

What does their condition have to do with the documents being mishandled?

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?

In terms of redacting them for a public photo? Yes, very much so.

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?

I wouldn't know without being able to read them. I think the safest assumption is that it's classified material, given everything I have seen and read.

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

I can't wait to revisit this statement.

 

[Snarky Sack]

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.

No, I am sure that other documents will be needed in the trial, and that many of them will have classified markings. That is reason enough to insist on clearances. And that is the simplest explanation, so Occam rests happy tonight.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

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

they were looking for what is best for the nation they serve, that's why they were Never-Trump

 

[FullMonte]

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.

Except that none of that is true. It wasn't a game, and if you took it that way, I'll clarify that wasn't my intent. I stated at least once in the thread here that I was asking you to explain if I was interpreting what you said correctly. "are you saying," in case you didn't catch it, is an interrogative phrase.

What you did was something completely different. You asked a question, and when I answered it, you stated that you said something completely different, which I than tried to clarify, and again, you said that you said another completely different thing.

I didn't "rage quit." I got bored playing a game with someone who was trying to play a completely different game with no apparently rules to follow.

 

[brandon]

No, I am sure that other documents will be needed in the trial, and that many of them will have classified markings. That is reason enough to insist on clearances. And that is the simplest explanation, so Occam rests happy tonight.

That is not the simplest explanation for why the documents in the photos are redacted and you know it.

The simplest explanation for why the documents in the photos are redacted is because those documents are classified.

You know this. If you choose to lie about it, that will be the second clear lie you will have told here.

I recommend you don’t gain a reputation as a liar right out of the gate.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Nope. You said:

"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."

What does their condition have to do with the documents being mishandled?

Thank you for restating! In that form, I can answer your question with no negative outcomes, I believe.

If the documents were mishandled, as the prosecution alleges, their covers would not look so clean and new, whether they were passed around at drunken parties attended by foreign spies, or sat squeezed between other documents in boxes for more than a year.

In terms of redacting them for a public photo? Yes, very much so.

Yes, for that purpose, certainly.

Perhaps we have spent sufficient time on that photo?

I wouldn't know without being able to read them. I think the safest assumption is that it's classified material, given everything I have seen and read.

If safety is the only consideration, certainly. Just as we might automatically convict anyone accused of a violent crime "just in case."

But, if fairness is important in a criminal trial, we must take a more skeptical approach, commonly called "innocent until proven guilty." But I believe that you would agree that having Trump's lawyers get security clearances is wise from the standpoint of safety, without noticeably reducing Trump's ability to get a fair trial?

Such a move by a judge gives me reason to have confidence in both her fairness and her firmness.

I can't wait to revisit this statement.

I look forward to it as well. Please remind me if and when it happens, I am 61 already, and I may be significantly older by that time.

 

[Snarky Sack]

they were looking for what is best for the nation they serve, that's why they were Never-Trump

A fine reposte, indeed. Well done!

 

[DaveXA]

That is not the simplest explanation for why the documents in the photos are redacted and you know it.

The simplest explanation for why the documents in the photos are redacted is because those documents are classified.

You know this. If you choose to lie about it, that will be the second clear lie you will have told here.

I recommend you don’t gain a reputation as a liar right out of the gate.

Yeah, to say that the most likely reason they're redacted for any other reason than they're classified is just complete nonsense. He knows it and there's really no excuse for it.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Except that none of that is true. It wasn't a game, and if you took it that way, I'll clarify that wasn't my intent. I stated at least once in the thread here that I was asking you to explain if I was interpreting what you said correctly. "are you saying," in case you didn't catch it, is an interrogative phrase.

Indeed it is an interrogative phrase, as are all questions, however sincerely or insincerely put forth. I apologize for being so difficult to understand, even on several restatements.

But I fear I will not be able to keep my promise to another poster if we continue the necro-equine flagelation.

What you did was something completely different. You asked a question, and when I answered it, you stated that you said something completely different, which I than tried to clarify, and again, you said that you said another completely different thing.

A technique I learned on this very board.

I didn't "rage quit." I got bored playing a game with someone who was trying to play a completely different game with no apparently rules to follow.

I apologize for mischaracterizing your action. Clearly, you and only you, know its motivation.

I look forward to any further conversation we may have, since I volunteered an opinion you were an intelligent person even before my promise to reform my snarky ways.

Naturally, that decision is entirely yours.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Thank you for restating! In that form, I can answer your question with no negative outcomes, I believe.

If the documents were mishandled, as the prosecution alleges, their covers would not look so clean and new, whether they were passed around at drunken parties attended by foreign spies, or sat squeezed between other documents in boxes for more than a year.

That might be one of the more ridiculous things you've said here. A bunch of files packed neatly into a box and kept in an indoor, climate-controlled room are going to look just fine. Source: me. I've seen it for myself. I've filed countless things that needed to stay on file for a minimum of one year, and every year when we cleaned them out, they looked just like they did when we filed them.

Yes, for that purpose, certainly.

Perhaps we have spent sufficient time on that photo?

Now that you're finally showing a shred of honesty, sure.

If safety is the only consideration, certainly. Just as we might automatically convict anyone accused of a violent crime "just in case."

That's a giant leap from "we should redact information that may be sensitive, even if it isn't technically classified" to "we should lock up everyone accused of a violent crime without due process." What a ridiculous notion that any adult should be embarrassed to make.

But, if fairness is important in a criminal trial, we must take a more skeptical approach, commonly called "innocent until proven guilty." But I believe that you would agree that having Trump's lawyers get security clearances is wise from the standpoint of safety, without noticeably reducing Trump's ability to get a fair trial?

Yes. I can't imagine anyone saying that security clearances for Trump's lawyers are unnecessary.

Such a move by a judge gives me reason to have confidence in both her fairness and her firmness.

I look forward to it as well. Please remind me if and when it happens, I am 61 already, and I may be significantly older by that time.

It's not your age I'd be looking at when it comes to whether or not you are here when the time comes.

 

[Snarky Sack]

That is not the simplest explanation for why the documents in the photos are redacted and you know it.

The simplest explanation for why the documents in the photos are redacted is because those documents are classified.

You know this. If you choose to lie about it, that will be the second clear lie you will have told here.

I recommend you don’t gain a reputation as a liar right out of the gate.

I wonder whether a Trump supporter on this board, freely expressing his or her views, could ever be safe from an accusation of lying about his or her own opinions.

 

[FullMonte]

So, today, as I was sitting at work, taking the occasional moment to peruse this (and other) threads, an incident occurred that gave me some perspective about why I feel the way I do about this whole Trump situation. Sorry if it's a bit long.

Some background information. I've been a member of the military (US Air Force Reserve - Full Time) for the past 33 years as of last month. For about 90% of my career, I've been in a career field that required me to handle classified information. For the last 10 or so years, I've also worked as the Security Assistant for our squadron. We used to be called Security Managers until someone re-read the reg and determined that there can only be on security manager per installation, so the individual who is over the entire base is the Security Manager now, and everyone who handles the duties for each individual unit is designated a Security Assistant.

As a Security Assistant, I am responsible for everything that relates to classified information and security clearances for a squadron of over 200 people. I have to ensure everyone is properly trained in dealing with classified, everyone has the appropriate security clearance, I initiate and follow up on initial security clearance background checks, and periodic reinvestigations, if someone has an issue that could affect their clearance I work with them to ensure the issue is reported and explained properly, if higher up officials find potentially derogatory information about an individual in our squadron, I get notified and work with the individual (and the squadron commander) to craft an appropriate response, and to take the appropriate action if that individual's clearance is suspended or revoked. It can be a headache at times, but I have gotten our Squadron Commander's MY program to the point that it is well known as being the best one on our installation, and I am frequently contacted by individuals in other units for advice.

Today, I received an email about an individual who is assigned to another unit, but who is currently working with our unit. Since he is working with us, the email was sent to us. The individual is a very sharp airman who was recently selected for a position in a career field that requires him to have his SECRET clearance upgraded to a TOP SECRET clearance. The email was a notification that just prior to the beginning of his polygraph test, during the pre-test interview, he disclosed to the examiner a foreign contact that he did not disclose in his background check questionnaire. The foreign contact was an individual from Thailand who this airman connected with on Tinder. The extent of their contact was 3 or 4 chats online over the past few months. THINK ABOUT THAT....this airman chatted online with someone from Thailand a few times over the past few months, and that was enough of a concern that it warranted notifying us about it. This airman, who is headed for great things, in my opinion, is going to have additional scrutiny over his background check because of a few online chats with someone.

Now, let's talk about what the fat orange elephant in the room did:
--Bragged to a group of Russians (including a known intelligence officer) about information he had, giving them enough to uncover intelligence information that was given to us by Israel.
--Hosted foreign dignitaries at Mar A Lago, and showed them classified documents in a public area, where multiple photos were taken showing these documents.
--Immediately declassified a photo of an Iranian missile launch failure after being warned by multiple individuals at the highest levels that doing so would compromise systems that we spent billions of dollars and several years developing.
--Had to be interrupted when he was talking about the killing of Soleimani because he was beginning to discuss classified information.
--Had to be interrupted when discussing the construction of his vanity wall because he was beginning to discuss classified information.
--Waved a document around to a group of people saying "this is classified so I can't show it to you," and then described what the document was.
--Discussed a classified military operation with a member of a political action committee, and showed him a classified map, telling him no to get too close because it's classified and he shouldn't be showing it to him.
--Had classified documents, including our nations highest secrets, some which could put the lives of high level spies around the world in danger, stored haphazardly in boxes with photos of Celine Dion, and then cried like a petulant child when his toys were taken away from him.

So, when someone defends this orange pile of garbage, I find it so disgusting that it almost makes me physically ill.

Now, let me be very clear about something. I have no problem with someone who honestly believes that what Trump did is wrong, but who raises the issue of what they perceive as a double standard with other people. I have no issue with someone who thinks Trump acted recklessly and irresponsibly, but who asks why he is being prosecuted when Hillary wasn't. We can disagree about the nuance and difference between those cases, and if they are interested in good faith discussions about them, I will gladly engage. And, if we don't end up agreeing, we can still be friends.

But if ANYONE says that Trump did nothing wrong, and that he had every right to have these documents in his possession, where anyone and everyone could find them, or just wait for Trump to show them off, then that person gets zero respect from me, and to be honest, they aren't worth much. of my time or effort.

 

[Snarky Sack]

That might be one of the more ridiculous things you've said here. A bunch of files packed neatly into a box and kept in an indoor, climate-controlled room are going to look just fine. Source: me. I've seen it for myself. I've filed countless things that needed to stay on file for a minimum of one year, and every year when we cleaned them out, they looked just like they did when we filed them.

Interesting. That was not my experience with classified cover sheets, but I will take your word for it.

Now that you're finally showing a shred of honesty, sure.

Agreement plus a mild compliment. Thank you!

That's a giant leap from "we should redact information that may be sensitive, even if it isn't technically classified" to "we should lock up everyone accused of a violent crime without due process." What a ridiculous notion that any adult should be embarrassed to make.

I'm glad to see that you recognize the possibility that the documents were not classified.

It was an analogy, not a giant leap. I used to have a defense of the use of analogy in my sig, but I felt that it was a bit snarky, so I removed it.

Yes. I can't imagine anyone saying that security clearances for Trump's lawyers are unnecessary.

Agreed.

It's not your age I'd be looking at when it comes to whether or not you are here when the time comes.

I'm not sure what you could mean by that. You may explain if you like. But that is your choice.

 

[Snarky Sack]

But if ANYONE says that Trump did nothing wrong, and that he had every right to have these documents in his possession, where anyone and everyone could find them, or just wait for Trump to show them off, then that person gets zero respect from me, and to be honest, they aren't worth much. of my time or effort.

I believe that you are being too generous.

A person that gets zero respect from you should not be worth any of your time and effort. Save those for more productive activities.

 

[brandon]

I wonder whether a Trump supporter on this board, freely expressing his or her views, could ever be safe from an accusation of lying about his or her own opinions.

Deflection.

 

[Optimus Prime]

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

You’re proving my point

What was said definitely implied “I’m buying food for everyone here”

If someone heard that and chose not to accept, because the idea of a “free lunch” is an anathema to them l, that’s their right and choice and also means that they clearly understood that the offer was for food for everyone a “free lunch”

Now if the person who said “food for everyone” knew good and well everyone would assume that he was going to buy food for everyone, and knew that he had zero intention of doing so but instead meant

"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!"

Then that person is a heartless, cruel, deceitful and manipulative butt crevasse

 

[Lapaz]

I want to know if YOU read it. That's why I asked you to describe them.

No need to check if I've read anything. Based on your postings, I doubt you've read it.