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

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Among the many other likely to fail defenses due to them having no legal standing, Trump is trying out the Judicial Watch v NARA case regarding Clinton's recordings. This effort should be abandoned as well because those recordings are essentially a PERSONAL journal whereas the documents in question in the trump case are ultimately the property of The United States. Trump has zero legal standing to claim national security as his own because it never was.

National security attorney Bradley Moss on Wednesday took a hatchet to one of former President Donald Trump's favorite defenses in the Mar-a-Lago documents scandal that got him indicted on dozens of felony counts.

During an appearance on CNN, Moss was asked about Trump's repeated invocation of the so-called "Clinton socks case" that involved right-wing organization Judicial Watch suing to get personal tapes that Clinton possessed that the group claimed contained classified information.

In that case, the courts ruled that Clinton had a right to keep those personal tapes -- but Moss said that the details of the case show it is completely different from the current case with Trump.

"It has no comparison to the present situation," he said. "So what happened in the... 'sock case,' they made these audio tapes and fell within the definition of personal records under the Presidential Records Act. They were never ever designated as anything other than personal records." Moss noted that the judge in the ruling said that Clinton could keep his recordings because the National Archives had chosen to let him take them from the White House and had not issued a demand for their return.

National security lawyer blows Trump's 'Clinton socks case' defense out of the water on CNN

www.rawstory.com

Trump's Distortions of Federal Indictment - FactCheck.org

In the days leading up to his June 13 arraignment and in a speech several hours afterward, former President Donald Trump distorted what the federal indictment against him said and made faulty comparisons to other politicians' actions.

www.factcheck.org

FACT FOCUS: Trump twists Presidential Records Act, Clinton ‘sock drawer’ case to mount defense

Former President Donald Trump and his allies are claiming a federal law enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal and a decade-old case involving former President Bill Clinton gave him the right to take any documents from the White House after losing his bid for re-election.

apnews.com

I’ve already extensively addressed why the Presidential Records Act (PRA) is not a viable defense against charges that President Trump unlawfully and willfully retained national-defense information under Section 793(e) of the federal criminal code (which, in hope of avoiding Senator Lindsey Graham’s conniptions, I’ll refrain from calling the Espionage Act). So I’ll state the main point as succinctly as I can: Agency records are not presidential records.

Trump’s case is about agency records regarding the national defense — mainly, classified intelligence reporting generated by U.S. spy agencies. The PRA, by contrast, addresses documents and other records generated by and for the president in the carrying out of his duties.

Where Judicial Watch’s Defense of Trump Goes Wrong | National Review

Michael Bekesha, the ‘Clinton sock drawer’ lawyer, misses the distinction between agency records and presidential records.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

The very talented comic and talk show host, Whoopie Goldberg laments the possibility of Trump being president from jail.

'The View' wants Constitutional amendment to bar Trump from presidency: 'Cannot be in jail and be president'

"The View" co-hosts suggested that U.S. lawmakers amend the Constitution so that former President Trump can not become president in 2024 while in jail.

www.foxnews.com

She want a constitutional amendment to stop it. "If I can't vote when I come out of jail, why can you be president."

She's not wrong to worry.

In history, there have been leaders who were able to lead from jail, sometimes as inspirations for their followers, sometimes as actual shot-callers. Queen Mary I of Scotland, Nelson Mandela, Bobby Sands, all held office or power from jail. Currently Warren Jeffs is said to be directing his followers from the hoosegow.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Snarky Sack]

Spot on. It's not about "owning" them or "winning." It's about making sure everyone else understands how wrong and dishonest they are being.

We don't need Trump or his supporters to stop doing what they do. We just need to make sure everyone else sees what they're doing.

When responding to things these people say, don't talk to them, talk to everyone else reading the thread. Like Trump, these people get perverse delight from feeling like they are making everyone dance to their tune. The more that people give them their fix, the more they're going to chase that fix.

An interesting insight into the mind of any person with a political position with which you disagree.

I'm not sure your plan to avoid giving them the "fix" of "dancing to their tune" would work.

I have reason to believe that such a person would take even greater delight in seeing posters talk to each other about him or her than in their obsessively responding to him or her. Especially talking about topics that this person has long since expressed willingness to drop.

 

[LA - L.A.]

There is no issue with people disagreeing with each other. I've disagreed with just about every poster here at one time or another. I've seen everyone here disagree with almost everyone else at one time or another.

The problem is the intentional and constant use of disrespect and antagonism when disagreeing with someone. Fortunately, this type of behavior has a tendency to be self-correcting.

Don't let them get under your skin or goad you into acting like them. Keep pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what they say, but ignore them and their petty antics.

 

[Saintamaniac]

My point was not that Republicans heard an offer of a "free lunch" and choose to reject it. My point is that a republican would not jump to the conclusion that "food for everyone!" meant "food for everyone, and I'm paying!"

Then your point proves you believe that Republicans lack the basic intellect to properly understand basic statements and context. In a bar, if someone like Shaq walked in and said "drinks for everyone" you are saying that Republicans would be the ones in the bar thinking he didn't mean he was covering the cost of the drinks. Thats even more stupid than your classified documents ridiculousness.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I have a wierd personality thing where I very rarely get angry. I’ve just grown up and found getting angry about things to be a waste of energy.

I either look for a way to fix the issue, or just move on with my life and barely give whatever it is a second thought.

“But on the rare occasions I do get angry, watch out!”

 

[DaveXA]

Trump is openly saying he will weaponize the justice department if he gets elected. This would destroy this country.

The Radical Strategy Behind Trump’s Promise to ‘Go After’ Biden (Published 2023)

Conservatives with close ties to Donald J. Trump are laying out a “paradigm-shifting” legal rationale to erase the Justice Department’s independence from the president.

www.nytimes.com

When Donald J. Trump responded to his latest indictment by promising to appoint a special prosecutor if he’s re-elected to “go after” President Biden and his family, he signaled that a second Trump term would fully jettison the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence.
“I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family,” Mr. Trump said at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., on Tuesday night after his arraignment earlier that day in Miami. “I will totally obliterate the Deep State.”

Mr. Trump’s message was that the Justice Department charged him only because he is Mr. Biden’s political opponent, so he would invert that supposed politicization. In reality, under Attorney General Merrick Garland, two Trump-appointed prosecutors are already investigating Mr. Biden’s handling of classified documents and the financial dealings of his son, Hunter.

But by suggesting the current prosecutors investigating the Bidens were not “real,” Mr. Trump appeared to be promising his supporters that he would appoint an ally who would bring charges against his political enemies regardless of the facts.

The naked politics infusing Mr. Trump’s headline-generating threat underscored something significant. In his first term, Mr. Trump gradually ramped up pressure on the Justice Department, eroding its traditional independence from White House political control. He is now unabashedly saying he will throw that effort into overdrive if he returns to power.

...............

Trump pledges to appoint special prosecutor to 'go after' Biden family

www.politico.com

It might possibly destroy the country, but I think we're resilient enough to weather 4 years of Trump. We survived the 4 years of his Administration and weaponizing the DOJ is nothing new for Trump. Remember, he said he'd go after Hillary in 2016 and "lock her up" became a mantra for his supporters. He's gonna take the same approach with Biden.

All that said, I don't think we're making the mistake of a Trump Administration again, and if we do, we deserve whatever comes of it.

 

[Lapaz]

It might possibly destroy the country, but I think we're resilient enough to weather 4 years of Trump. We survived the 4 years of his Administration and weaponizing the DOJ is nothing new for Trump. Remember, he said he'd go after Hillary in 2016 and "lock her up" became a mantra for his supporters. He's gonna take the same approach with Biden.

All that said, I don't think we're making the mistake of a Trump Administration again, and if we do, we deserve whatever comes of it.

He almost destroyed the country on 6 JAN, and he probably will be far worse if re-elected. He hesitated to fire Comey, and didn’t fire others due to various concerns. If he doesn’t have to worry about being re-elected, he’ll be unleashed. If he starts prosecuting rivals based on nothing, it will be the end. America isn’t untouchable. Our Republic can fail, and if Trump actually follows through on these threats, it will be the end, or at best the beginning of the end.

 

[Lapaz]

If the case ever goes to trial, I believe you are right about jury nullification.

My concern is less about Trump’s trial being nullified, but rather by his cult followers nullifying even more cases, and whether that will lead to an avalanche of political nullifications, even without the cult leader on trial. The cult leader can just ask his acolytes to nullify other trials. Will that lead to independents and Democrats following suit, since you can’t fight fair if the opposition doesn’t fight fair? Trump can even do this whether he’s in office or not.

 

[Incumbent]

He almost destroyed the country on 6 JAN, and he probably will be far worse if re-elected. He hesitated to fire Comey, and didn’t fire others due to various concerns. If he doesn’t have to worry about being re-elected, he’ll be unleashed. If he starts prosecuting rivals based on nothing, it will be the end. America isn’t untouchable. Our Republic can fail, and if Trump actually follows through on these threats, it will be the end, or at best the beginning of the end.

If Trump somehow steals the election - concerns over voting access and integrity - we are going to need a senate that is a firewall between the administration and our country. Trump will assuredly surround himself with sycophants enabling his malicious intentions. Those people are out there and they aren’t hiding their fealty.

There are still many people who need to take these threats to our country far more seriously.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Then your point proves you believe that Republicans lack the basic intellect to properly understand basic statements and context. In a bar, if someone like Shaq walked in and said "drinks for everyone" you are saying that Republicans would be the ones in the bar thinking he didn't mean he was covering the cost of the drinks. Thats even more stupid than your classified documents ridiculousness.

Here is where context comes into play, in my opinion. "Buying a round" at a bar, is a frequent plot device in fiction, so it would be understandable if people who watch too many movies would think that. I'm guessing a Democrat would likely think "Champagne cocktail for me!" but a Republican would think, "That guy's had one too many."

But you are no less likely to be right than I, that's for sure.

 

[DaveXA]

He almost destroyed the country on 6 JAN, and he probably will be far worse if re-elected. He hesitated to fire Comey, and didn’t fire others due to various concerns. If he doesn’t have to worry about being re-elected, he’ll be unleashed. If he starts prosecuting rivals based on nothing, it will be the end. America isn’t untouchable. Our Republic can fail, and if Trump actually follows through on these threats, it will be the end, or at best the beginning of the end.

Sorry, but no, Jan 6, as terrible as it was didn't almost destroy the country. That's just a gross exaggeration of what Jan 6 was. It was certainly an attempted coup and Trump should have been charged with inciting an insurrection and treason, but it didn't come close to overthrowing the government, and I don't buy that it would happen even if Trump is in office. There's no mechanism by which he could do that. He'd need enough supporters in both houses of Congress, and a SCOTUS ignoring law and precedent for that to happen.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but highly unlikely.

All that said, it's probably moot because I'm not seeing Trump getting elected again.

 

[DaveXA]

My concern is less about Trump’s trial being nullified by his cult followers, but whether that will lead to more political nullifications, even without the cult leader on trial. The cult leader can just ask his acolytes to nullify other trials. Will that lead to independents and Democrats following suit, since you can’t fight fair if the opposition doesn’t fight fair?

I think the jury nullification factor is overblown. It might possibly happen, but i believe it's pretty rare. This being what it is probably makes it more likely, but I still don't think it's all that likely to affect the trial if there is one.

 

[Lapaz]

Sorry, but no, Jan 6, as terrible as it was didn't almost destroy the country. That's just a gross exaggeration of what Jan 6 was. It was certainly an attempted coup and Trump should have been charged with inciting an insurrection and treason, but it didn't come close to overthrowing the government, and I don't buy that it would happen even if Trump is in office. There's no mechanism by which he could do that. He'd need enough supporters in both houses of Congress, and a SCOTUS ignoring law and precedent for that to happen.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but highly unlikely.

All that said, it's probably moot because I'm not seeing Trump getting elected again.

What if the rioters had actually killed Pence? What if they had actually succeeded in preventing the transition of power? What if they had taken hostages and called in other Trump acolytes? We weren’t far from that. The coup almost succeeded. Also, Trump can lead nullifications to undermine the Justice system whether he is president or not. That has the potential to destroy the country more slowly due to the corruption that won’t be preventable.

 

[Incumbent]

What if the rioters had actually killed Pence? What if they had actually succeeded in preventing the transition of power? What if they had taken hostages and called in other Trump acolytes? We weren’t far from that. The coup almost succeeded. Also, Trump can lead nullifications to undermine the Justice system whether he is president or not. That has the potential to destroy the country more slowly due to the corruption that won’t be preventable.

Didn’t even have to be that serious with regards to Pence. If he followed instructions to get in the car, certification is halted. He knew that and did the right thing. That’s how close we were to ending up in a real crisis.

 

[brandon]

My point was not that Republicans heard an offer of a "free lunch" and choose to reject it. My point is that a republican would not jump to the conclusion that "food for everyone!" meant "food for everyone, and I'm paying!"

I’m about to slit my wrists with Occam’s Razor.

 

[Snarky Sack]

My concern is less about Trump’s trial being nullified by his cult followers, but whether that will lead to more political nullifications, even without the cult leader on trial. The cult leader can just ask his acolytes to nullify other trials. Will that lead to independents and Democrats following suit, since you can’t fight fair if the opposition doesn’t fight fair?

In my opinion, Democrats crossed that bridge long ago under the Clinton administration, and then burned it when Trump came out of show biz to beat the presumptive next Democratic president.

I don't consider jury nullification a way to not fight fair. Not in every case, anyway. Maybe none.

In the Trump trial, if several jury members believe that Trump is guilty of the charges, but vote not guilty because of their perception that the government has been weaponized against him and that others equally guilty were not even prosecuted, I don't see any unfairness in that.

Whether Republicans on jury continue to apply such nullifications depends on whether the Democrats continue to prosecute members of the opposing party, following the examples of third world dictatorships.

If Republicans ever do the same, I would expect nullificaton to be expected of Democrats on juries, and that they be treated as heroes and given book deals.