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

 

[Snarky Sack]

If the IRS did take action because of what Mr. Taibbi posted, that would be just as wrong. The IRS does claim that they sent both Mr. Taibbi and his attorney letters stating that there were concerns about identity fraud months before those posts of his were made. I don't know if that is true or not, but if it is, it would show that his testimony had nothing to do with it.

I don't doubt that they may have been looking at him long before he reported the FBI's weaponization of Twitter. The IRS looks at many hard-working middle class Americans, hoping to squeeze a few hundred more dollars out of them. I've had that happen to me for sure, and likely everyone has, whether they heard anything about it or not.

It is the home visit on the same day as his testimony that no reasonable person could possibly say was a coincidence. They were just concerned about Taibbi being a victim of identity fraud? That strains credulity to say the least.

Why are you so obsessed with me putting words into your mouth? I asked a question. I asked if you would agree that Comey's statement did more harm to Clinton than anything he did harmed Trump.

Fine. My answer is no, I would not agree to that.

I didn't say that you said anything, I didn't imply that you said anything. I asked if you would agree with what I said.

I don't.

No, I didn't mention them. Can you point to any voters (with the exception of those two individuals or any other investigators who were aware of what they were doing) who chose to vote for Clinton because of the actions those two individuals took?

No, which is why I never said that there were such voters. I mentioned their names for their actions in weaponizing the FBI. The Stzok-Page texts clearly indicate intent to weaponize the DOJ against Trump, and to soft-pedal the investigation of Clinton.

One thing that Page and Strzok are often accused of, unfairly in my opinion, is misusing their FBI phones for personal business instead of official FBI work. There was none of the usual "my wife doesn't understand me" "you're my soulmate" in those texts that people having affairs talk about. We were fortunate to be spared the nausiating reading of those kind of texts, because texts that personal were on their personal phones if they happened at all.

No, those messages on the FBI phone were about stopping Trump, and helping the next president who they were sure would be Clinton. In the atmosphere the leadership of the FBI had created in which it was firmly believed that HRC was the next president and that Trump was an enemy, things like "we'll stop it (Trump being elected)" and "(HRC) might be our next president. The last thing you need [is] going in there (to interview Clinton in a criminal investigation) loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more [DOJ] than [FBI]?”

EDIT: I should have said that those quotes above from Strzok and Page texts are from texts that they would have considered part of the official business of the FBI, as they saw it.

That last especially, was an FBI lawyer advising an FBI investigator on how to interview a witness. Maybe the policy of assuming HRC would win was an unofficial one, but it was clearly there.

 

[MT15]

Further perspective on the WaPo article about the DOJ moving slowly on Trump:





I’m okay that they moved slowly, although if they did it to avoid being called partisan that was a mistake. As we can see, the Rs are doing that anyway in the face of extreme deference by the DOJ.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Looks like Fox News might be turning on Trump.

 

[MT15]

Trump is an idiot of the first order, and has no business anywhere near the WH, or any office of public trust for that matter. This interview is proof of that.

About Strzok, he was no fan of Clinton. His motivations for opposing Trump were far more personal than political, as was reported at the time. He was an integral part of the Clinton investigation, and took it personally when Trump disparaged the FBI in general and the Clinton investigation team in particular.

From WSJ:

“Colleagues of Mr. Strzok’s said they never detected any political bias from him and were unsure of his political bent. An associate said the text messages were mostly reactions to controversial statements made by Mr. Trump during the campaign that were seen as being “outside the norms of proper behavior,” especially when he attacked the integrity of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe into Mrs. Clinton’s email server.”

“During the presidential campaign, many FBI agents were concerned about comments Mr. Trump made criticizing the bureau’s investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s private email server and saying the system had been “rigged” to help her. Agents were also unhappy with Mr. Trump’s vow during a debate to jail Mrs. Clinton if he won the election, since it suggested political influence over who gets prosecuted and imprisoned.

Frank Montoya, a former top counterintelligence agent, described Mr. Strzok as a “total pro.”

“It is easy to construe the texts as political or some kind of inherent bias against the president,” said Mr. Montoya, who worked closely with Mr. Strzok. “But it was probably more reflective of the outrage a lot of us felt not only when [Mr. Trump] assailed the independence of the FBI but said other things that really started rending the fabric of our society.””

FBI Agent Removed From Russia Probe Had Key Role in Clinton Email Investigation

The FBI agent who was removed from his post last summer for allegedly sending text messages critical of Donald Trump during the presidential campaign led the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and later served as the top agent on its probe into Russian...

www.wsj.com

 

[MT15]

 

[superchuck500]

I'll start with where we are. The Justice Department has an official and announced policy of not prosecuting sitting presidents. They will investigate them, and, if need be, turn over evidence it discovers to Congress. That's were we are, where should we go?

Sorry, superchuck, but I'm going to have say I don't know. I started multiple times to type an opinion, and had to keep deleting my words because I saw the rhetorical traps I was setting for myself.

I think that the DOJ should be extremely careful about prosecuting frontrunners in any political race, much less a presidential one. Other than that, I cannot think of a standard that could be set, even to use as a starting point. What makes a frontrunner? If they drop a half percent below another challenger, can they immediately be arrested and charged? What crime is seriously enough to prosecute even a frontrunner, and what crime can wait?

If your point is that it will be hard to set such a standard, you have made it with me.

I don’t think the non-prosecution policy on sitting presidents (because they lead the executive branch) has anything to do with prosecution of anyone else - including a person who formerly held that position or may hold it in the future.

I appreciate your effort at an answer and I recognize it’s a challenging question - but think about the fact that it has never happened before to a major party candidate. Given his history and personality, I don't think it's really a surprise to reasonable people that Donald Trump would have put himself in a position where he violated federal law in a non-trivial way.

Maybe we don't have to condemn the whole Justice Department because this is actually how it's supposed to work and as long as he's not actually the president, there are no policy justifications for non-prosecution. And it hasn't happened before because there hasn't been meaningful direct evidence of criminal conduct by the person. The standard is the same standard it always is. Is there legitimate, ostensibly admissible evidence that the person's conduct meets the elements of the charged crimes? There can be no other standard.

 

[superchuck500]

Judge Cannon sets August 14 trial date. This will certainly be continued but it should dispel the notion that the court is just going to let this thing meander along for years and years.

 

[DaveXA]

While the accusations against him are serious, his answer about why he didn't return the classified docs on time is just funny, paraphrasing...well, uh, I didn't have time to go through all of the boxes and take out what's mine and send back what's theirs.

The implication is that he co-mingled his personal effects with classified docs, which is not allowed. And he stated from the beginning that the classified docs belonged to him and now he's changed his response. He's gonna be in a world of hurt once the prosecutors put all this together.

Trump is just taking unnecessary risks, and what he's doing now is a good indicator of the mess it would be if he's president again.

 

[MT15]

Judge Cannon sets August 14 trial date. This will certainly be continued but it should dispel the notion that the court is just going to let this thing meander along for years and years.

Just coming to post this. It’s a good indication that the Judge understands that a speedy trial is in the best interests of the country.

 

[superchuck500]

Just coming to post this. It’s a good indication that the Judge understands that a speedy trial is in the best interests of the country.

I read in another post that apparently this is how she always does her criminal docket - sets a fairly quick trial schedule and then continues it as the parties request, so it may not necessarily mean anything other than business as usual in her section. But it is certainly true that the federal criminal trial schedule is supposed to be fairly expeditious (by design in the 6th Amendment).

 

[MT15]

I read in another post that apparently this is how she always does her criminal docket - sets a fairly quick trial schedule and then continues it as the parties request, so it may not necessarily mean anything other than business as usual in her section. But it is certainly true that the federal criminal trial schedule is supposed to be fairly expeditious (by design in the 6th Amendment).

I think it’s safe to say the DOJ won’t be slowing things down as I read that Smith had stated he could go to trial in 2 weeks.

 

[superchuck500]

I think it’s safe to say the DOJ won’t be slowing things down as I read that Smith had stated he could go to trial in 2 weeks.

Yep, safe to say the motions to continue to will all be coming from the defense.

 

[DaveXA]

I think it’s safe to say the DOJ won’t be slowing things down as I read that Smith had stated he could go to trial in 2 weeks.

Yeah, I expect all of the motions for continuance and what not to come from the defense team. Curious to see how it pans out.

 

[MT15]

 

[Taurus]

While the accusations against him are serious, his answer about why he didn't return the classified docs on time is just funny, paraphrasing...well, uh, I didn't have time to go through all of the boxes and take out what's mine and send back what's theirs.

The implication is that he co-mingled his personal effects with classified docs, which is not allowed. And he stated from the beginning that the classified docs belonged to him and now he's changed his response. He's gonna be in a world of hurt once the prosecutors put all this together.

Trump is just taking unnecessary risks, and what he's doing now is a good indicator of the mess it would be if he's president again.

This is what confuses the hell out of me. Trump is a coward, demonstrably so. He's coming apart at the seams right before our eyes, just like he did in early 2020. When the pressure is on and he can't sic his lawyers on it or shout it down, he folds like a cheap suit. Why, oh, why aren't any of his opponents capitalizing on this?

It's so simple.

"Whatever qualities Mr Trump may have had, it's clear the pandemic unmanned him completely. He curled up into a ball, sucked his thumb and pretended it would all go away. And now, AND NOW, while facing the direct and immediate threat of prison, he gives this completely insane interview. One, any defendant should know better than to give the prosecution additional ammunition and two, holy cow guys, did you see that? He was babbling like an idiot, completely unbalanced. Is this the guy you want as Commander in Chief when things get really tense? When nuclear Armageddon is on the line?

Godspeed and thank you, Mr Trump, but it's time to step aside and get the help you need."

 

[DaveXA]

This is what confuses the hell out of me. Trump is a coward, demonstrably so. He's coming apart at the seams right before our eyes, just like he did in early 2020. When the pressure is on and he can't sic his lawyers on it or shout it down, he folds like a cheap suit. Why, oh, why aren't any of his opponents capitalizing on this?

It's so simple.

"Whatever qualities Mr Trump may have had, it's clear the pandemic unmanned him completely. He curled up into a ball, sucked his thumb and pretended it would all go away. And now, AND NOW, while facing the direct and immediate threat of prison, he gives this completely insane interview. One, any defendant should know better than to give the prosecution additional ammunition and two, holy cow guys, did you see that? He was babbling like an idiot, completely unbalanced. Is this the guy you want as Commander in Chief when things get really tense? When nuclear Armageddon is on the line?

Godspeed and thank you, Mr Trump, but it's time to step aside and get the help you need."

This is what should be coming from Republican Party leaders, but they're too chicken sheet to do it.

 

[MT15]

It does sound like something Christie would say, though.

 

[DaveXA]

It does sound like something Christie would say, though.

Yeah, he and Hogan and maybe Asa Hutchinson and maybe a handful of others. But certainly not the leaders of the GOP unfortunately.