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

 

[Snarky Sack]

 

[Lapaz]

Too many, certainly, most? I'm not sure. I certainly don't think most want to cripple the government. Certainly now willingly. I do think most don't think that's what Trump wants to do even though it was clear during his administration he was going that direction.

I would say that he'd only have 4 years to do it. He's not a king and he'd be somewhat more limited, particularly pending these court cases and I think he loses the cooperation of Congress, which he would need to some degree to accomplish whatever agenda he has.

And, I think he'd have a hard time because for all the support Republicans in Congress have given him, they all have friends who work in government, and it's optimistic I agree, but these people walking the halls of Congress are not gonna let Trump bring the government to it's knees. There just too much money and too many people who would be harmed by what Trump would allegedly do.

Regardless, I don't think he gets elected anyway.

I think Trump does want to destroy or at least greatly weaken institutions that can check presidential powers. I think his goal is getting and keeping power. He sees a few other “democracies” like Turkey and Russia, and he thinks he can emulate their leaders to remain in power. He has found some weaknesses, but I suspect that he and his advisors have a plan to exploit other weaknesses. He would love to become a king, but he primarily wants power, and I bet he will promise people that help him with lucrative rewards, so that eliminates the money concerns. As long as the right can manipulate voting rights to win with less than majorities, his supporters can continue to scare the right wing politicians due to fear of losing their support. That’s what I think his play is. Whether he can execute it is questionable, but I think it is more likely in a 2nd term, because he will have less to lose by breaking norms. If he fails, he may end up in jail after his term, so he will be more incentivized to go for broke. He is like a cornered animal. He is much more dangerous now than ever.

 

[Lapaz]

Trump has a lot of ignominious firsts, because he has broken more laws and has been the least respectful of law and order of any president of all time. He has brought it all on himself. He thought he could get away with anything, like he has all of his life. Laws have never mattered to Trump, but he may finally pay for his crimes and disrespect.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Trump has a lot of ignominious firsts, because he has broken more laws and has been the least respectful of law and order of any president of all time. He has brought it all on himself. He thought he could get away with anything, like he has all of his life. Laws have never mattered to Trump, but he may finally pay for his crimes and disrespect.

I admire your optimism.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I think we can agree that being the sitting president would change the process. Trump isn't president, though, and that's what this discussion was about. Stop deflecting.

Pardon me, but Superchuck asked for a generic answer so I was trying to provide one.

 

[Snarky Sack]

2018: "President Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with the conversation."

Trump Wanted to Order Justice Dept. to Prosecute Comey and Clinton (Published 2018)

The encounter was one of the most blatant examples yet of how President Trump views the typically independent Justice Department as a tool to be wielded against his political enemies.

www.nytimes.com

2019: "On Thursday, Trump gave the names of four people — James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Stzrok and Lisa Page — when he was asked about his past formulation that former federal officials who were involved in investigations dealing with his campaign and that of rival Hillary Clinton were guilty of treason, and reminded that the crime is punishable by death.

Later, the White House issued a statement noting that Trump had directed American intelligence agencies to cooperate with a federal investigation he has ordered into any crimes that might have been committed in relation to those probes and ensuing activity by former FBI and Justice officials."

Trump turns the full force of the government on perceived political enemies

Analysis: The president is wielding power in ways not seen in the United States in generations — if ever.

www.nbcnews.com

July 2020: https://www.americanoversight.org/i...nistrations-politicization-justice-department

October 2020: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/07/trump-demands-barr-arrest-foes-427389

Couldn't read the NYT:

I'm just a hardworking school teacher.

I read the highlights of the others. Trump tweeted that some people needed to be more proactive in investigating the people who were weaponizing the DOJ against him. Not much ever came of it, other than a two month investigation that went nowhere. It was never "Trump's" DOJ. Neither Sessions, nor Barr, were ever his "wing man."

The entrenched bureaucracy of the DOJ and FBI was shown in hearings to be heavy, often maxed out donors to Democratic candidates. Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and Page needed to be investigated. I wouldn't have recommended the death penalty, or any criminal penalty absent a conviction.

Trump is a blowhard, there is no denying that. But the idea that he was able to weaponize the DOJ in his favor goes against everything we know about the DOJ's actions. Was he really trying to weaponize them in his tweets? Doubtful that he thought any of them would act on tweets. He could have called Barr into his office and said, "here is your mission," if he wanted to try to weaponize them.

Strzok and Page carried on an affair in which much of their communications over government devices was about their hatred for Trump and desire that he not be elected. Strzok was fired, and Page resigned. So was Comey, and rightfully so for his bizarre handling of the Clinton non-prosecution statement. At least he did not say that Clinton was "not exonerated." McCabe was allowed to take extended leave until his retirement date, but he has shown himself to be unfit with his media leaking. Evidence that he was part of the Strzok-Page anti-Trump clique are references to "Andy's office" but McCabe denied being there when the couple met.

Anyway, I thank you for providing that information.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Strzok was fired, and Page resigned. So was Comey, and rightfully so for his bizarre handling of the Clinton non-prosecution statement.

Comey was fired because he wouldn't end the Russia investigation. Please show me the evidence that Comey was fired for his bizarre handling of the Clinton non-prosecution statement.

At least he did not say that Clinton was "not exonerated."

Please show me the evidence that Comey didn't say that Clinton was not exonerated.

Evidence that he was part of the Strzok-Page anti-Trump clique are references to "Andy's office" but McCabe denied being there when the couple met.

Hearsay is not evidence. Please show me the evidence that McCabe was part of some anti-Trump clique.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Couldn't read the NYT:

I'm just a hardworking school teacher.

I read the highlights of the others. Trump tweeted that some people needed to be more proactive in investigating the people who were weaponizing the DOJ against him. Not much ever came of it, other than a two month investigation that went nowhere. It was never "Trump's" DOJ. Neither Sessions, nor Barr, were ever his "wing man."

The entrenched bureaucracy of the DOJ and FBI was shown in hearings to be heavy, often maxed out donors to Democratic candidates. Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and Page needed to be investigated. I wouldn't have recommended the death penalty, or any criminal penalty absent a conviction.

Trump is a blowhard, there is no denying that. But the idea that he was able to weaponize the DOJ in his favor goes against everything we know about the DOJ's actions. Was he really trying to weaponize them in his tweets? Doubtful that he thought any of them would act on tweets. He could have called Barr into his office and said, "here is your mission," if he wanted to try to weaponize them.

Strzok and Page carried on an affair in which much of their communications over government devices was about their hatred for Trump and desire that he not be elected. Strzok was fired, and Page resigned. So was Comey, and rightfully so for his bizarre handling of the Clinton non-prosecution statement. At least he did not say that Clinton was "not exonerated." McCabe was allowed to take extended leave until his retirement date, but he has shown himself to be unfit with his media leaking. Evidence that he was part of the Strzok-Page anti-Trump clique are references to "Andy's office" but McCabe denied being there when the couple met.

Anyway, I thank you for providing that information.

So this isn't an effort to weaponize the DoJ in any way?:

"Former FBI Director James Comey also testified that Trump asked him for a pledge of loyalty and then requested that Comey drop the investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — and after Comey refused both requests, he was fired."

Or this?:

"On Thursday, Trump gave the names of four people — James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Stzrok and Lisa Page — when he was asked about his past formulation that former federal officials who were involved in investigations dealing with his campaign and that of rival Hillary Clinton were guilty of treason, and reminded that the crime is punishable by death."

How about this one?:

"President Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with the conversation."

Maybe this one?:

"Trump twice amplified supporters’ criticisms of Attorney General William Barr, including one featuring a meme calling on him to “arrest somebody!” He wondered aloud why his rivals, like President Barack Obama, Democratic nominee Joe Biden and former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton hadn’t been imprisoned for launching a “coup” against his administration."

As for this comment of yours:

Trump is a blowhard, there is no denying that. But the idea that he was able to weaponize the DOJ in his favor goes against everything we know about the DOJ's actions. Was he really trying to weaponize them in his tweets? Doubtful that he thought any of them would act on tweets. He could have called Barr into his office and said, "here is your mission," if he wanted to try to weaponize them.

I never said he was able to, I said he attempted to, and any reasonable reading of the above quotes lends credence to that fact. It also goes beyond his tweets. Comey testified that Trump asked him to pledge his loyalty to him as the President and then pressured him to drop an investigation into his national security advisor. Is that alone not an attempt to weaponize the FBI at the very least?

 

[Snarky Sack]

So this isn't an effort to weaponize the DoJ in any way?:

"Former FBI Director James Comey also testified that Trump asked him for a pledge of loyalty and then requested that Comey drop the investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — and after Comey refused both requests, he was fired."

If true, that was an effort to de-weaponize the FBI, which had been weaponized against him, to include falsified documents provided to FISA courts in order to get warrants.

Or this?:

"On Thursday, Trump gave the names of four people — James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Stzrok and Lisa Page — when he was asked about his past formulation that former federal officials who were involved in investigations dealing with his campaign and that of rival Hillary Clinton were guilty of treason, and reminded that the crime is punishable by death."

Getting rid of those four amounts to de-weaponizing the FBI.

I assume you are aware of the "we'll stop it," "Fudge Trump," "Smell the Trump support," etc?

Strzok and Page carried on an affair in which much of their communications over government devices was about their hatred for Trump and desire that he not be elected. Strzok was fired, and Page resigned. So was Comey, and rightfully so for his bizarre handling of the Clinton non-prosecution statement. At least he did not say that Clinton was "not exonerated." McCabe was allowed to take extended leave until his retirement date, but he has shown himself to be unfit with his media leaking. Evidence that he was part of the Strzok-Page anti-Trump clique are references to "Andy's office" but McCabe denied being there when the couple met.

All of that points as well to de-weaponizing the DOJ.

How about this one?:

"President Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with the conversation."

If true, that is Trump telling his White House counsel what he wanted to do to get his advice. Apparently the advice was WTTE of "you can't do that. Since Clinton and Comey were not prosecuted, the DOJ was not weaponized.

Maybe this one?:

"Trump twice amplified supporters’ criticisms of Attorney General William Barr, including one featuring a meme calling on him to “arrest somebody!” He wondered aloud why his rivals, like President Barack Obama, Democratic nominee Joe Biden and former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton hadn’t been imprisoned for launching a “coup” against his administration."

A meme? No, a meme is not an attempt to weaponize the DOJ. I assume by "amplified" your source means "retweeted," also not weaponizing the DOJ. Wondered aloud? Same answer.

As for this comment of yours:

I never said he was able to, I said he attempted to, and any reasonable reading of the above quotes lends credence to that fact. It also goes beyond his tweets. Comey testified that Trump asked him to pledge his loyalty to him as the President and then pressured him to drop an investigation into his national security advisor. Is that alone not an attempt to weaponize the FBI at the very least?

No, asking Comey to drop a politically motivated investigation is attempting to de-weaponize the DOJ.

Asking Comey if he would be loyal makes sense in light of how much hatred for Trump many in the FBI have shown.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

If true, that was an effort to de-weaponize the FBI, which had been weaponized against him, to include falsified documents provided to FISA courts in order to get warrants.

Getting rid of those four amounts to de-weaponizing the FBI.

I assume you are aware of the "we'll stop it," "Fudge Trump," "Smell the Trump support," etc?


All of that points as well to de-weaponizing the DOJ.

If true, that is Trump telling his White House counsel what he wanted to do to get his advice. Apparently the advice was WTTE of "you can't do that. Since Clinton and Comey were not prosecuted, the DOJ was not weaponized.

A meme? No, a meme is not an attempt to weaponize the DOJ. I assume by "amplified" your source means "retweeted," also not weaponizing the DOJ. Wondered aloud? Same answer.

No, asking Comey to drop a politically motivated investigation is attempting to de-weaponize the DOJ.

Asking Comey if he would be loyal makes sense in light of how much hatred for Trump many in the FBI have shown.

Oh, that clears it all up. By that rationale, this indictment of Trump is the biggest effort yet to de-weaponize the DoJ and we should all be hoping for a quick conviction and a maximum sentence to fully restore everyone's faith. Cheers!

 

[Lapaz]

The entrenched bureaucracy of the DOJ and FBI was shown in hearings to be heavy, often maxed out donors to Democratic candidates. Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and Page needed to be investigated. I wouldn't have recommended the death penalty, or any criminal penalty absent a conviction.

Trump is a blowhard, there is no denying that. But the idea that he was able to weaponize the DOJ in his favor goes against everything we know about the DOJ's actions. Was he really trying to weaponize them in his tweets? Doubtful that he thought any of them would act on tweets. He could have called Barr into his office and said, "here is your mission," if he wanted to try to weaponize them.
.

Where is your evidence that the leaders were maxed out donors?

Are you suggesting that Biden has weaponized the DOJ? If so, where is your evidence that he gave them a mission?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Where is your evidence that the leaders were maxed out donors?

Are you suggesting that Biden has weaponized the DOJ? If so, where is your evidence that he gave them a mission?

Not at all. It was weaponized long before Biden became president. Biden is in no way capable of managing something like that.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Not at all. It was weaponized long before Biden became president. Biden is in no way capable of managing something like that.

I've never seen someone make the unforced error of putting themselves on the horns of a dilemma.

On the one hand, you say the DOJ was weaponized by Trump haters against Trump long before Biden became President, that would mean that the DOJ was weaponized against Trump while Trump was President.

On the other hand, you say that Trump is very smart, shrewd and a winner.

Your beliefs are internally contradictory. If it was true that the DOJ was weaponized against Trump during his presidency and if it's true that he is a shrewd winner, then it would also have to be true that Trump chose to let the DOJ be weaponized against him, because if he didn't want the to be weaponized against him he would have used his winning smarts to de-weaponize the DOJ.

Anyone that views Trump with even just a hint of objectivity will honestly and openly admit that Trump would never allow the DOJ to be weaponized against him while President.

So either it's not true that the DOJ was weaponized against him or it's not true that he's a smart, shrewd and winning person. They can't both be true.

Personally, I think both beliefs are false and not hinged to reality.

 

[Huntn]

I agree about Pence that once he was caught, he became cooperative. There was some shady business with Biden, but the FBI gave him time for it, so I guess you could say he "cooperated."

The better comparison is Clinton, who negotiated, stalled, and sorted documents herself, rather than give the FBI full access. At the end, I guess you could say that she cooperated. The FBI, for whatever reasons, settled on allowing her to pick and choose what to return, and then to choose the method of destroying the remaining material.

Do tell . . .

There was a time that Secretary of State kept all sorts of classified documents on their personal devices. When Hillary was being skewered by the GOP Colin Powell commented on it based on his experience before her.

 

[Snarky Sack]

There was a time that Secretary of State kept all sorts of classified documents on their personal devices. When Hillary was being skewered by the GOP Colin Powell commented on it based on his experience before her.

Yes, it was and likely still is a very common practice for senior people to take a "rank has its privileges" approach to classified documents. Hillary's private server and stripping of classified markings was really just a much more elaborate version of a general taking classified war plans home in his briefcase without mentioning it to his S2.

 

[DaveXA]

Yes, it was and likely still is a very common practice for senior people to take a "rank has its privileges" approach to classified documents. Hillary's private server and stripping of classified markings was really just a much more elaborate version of a general taking classified war plans home in his briefcase without mentioning it to his S2.

Except that's not how it actually works. There's no such thing as "rank has its privileges" when it comes to classified documents. They're all bound by the same rules as everyone else. Get educated and quit making sheet up.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Except that's not how it actually works. There's no such thing as "rank has its privileges" when it comes to classified documents. They're all bound by the same rules as everyone else. Get educated and quit making sheet up.

So senior people never take a "rank has its privileges" approach to classified documents?

 

[DaveXA]

So senior people never take a "rank has its privileges" approach to classified documents?

They're not supposed to, and if they do, they normally get held accountable for it. There are more than a few examples of senior officials being demoted, fired or criminally prosecuted for mishandling classified documents or data.

None of them are above the law.