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 did not outright say it, and I won't put words in your mouth. I'll just ask:

Is the upshot of what you say here, that yes, you are fine with the DOJ and FBI not allowing the American people to choose their own candidate, at least in the case of Donald Trump?

As of now, Trump is destined to win the nomination. None of the legal maneuvering that the DOJ is doing will disqualify Trump from running, no matter how it comes out. A very unlikely pre-election conviction would not make him unable to run.

Only an impeachment by the Republican controlled congress, and a removal (from eligibility) by the Senate, in which the Democrats have a majority, but not the super-majority needed for removal, would do that.

Nothing the DOJ does to stop Trump convinces his supporters of anything other than that the DOJ is out to stop Trump, and has been since 2016.

I'm fine with the DOJ indicting/charging a Presidential candidate if the charges are true that he/she has committed crimes that would disqualify a federal official for public office. I acknowledge there's no such standard for the office of the President, but there really should be. The President shouldn't have to worry about being charged with things that are misdemeanors or minor offenses, but, they should be held accountable for serious crimes, and protecting classified documents and data is a major national security issue and a cornerstone of a President's duties.

And sure, that may not technically disqualify him because there's no language that specifically addresses that in the Constitution. I'm sure the founding fathers never expected this kind of nonsense from a Presidential candidate. Maybe they figured that American people are smart enough not to elect a criminal, idk.

And you say even if he's found guilty, that doesn't disqualify him, but, if he's found guilty, he'll spend most if not the rest of his life in prison. I suppose he could still run from a jail cell, but common sense would say the Republican Party would boot him from the primaries if he's found guilty before the primaries start.

 

[coldseat]

Have you considered trying to defeat him on the issues?

What exactly are Trump and the GOP's issues? To elect Trump so that he can destroy the independence of the DOJ and FBI, put in his lackeys and then go off on a destructive revenge plot "against his enemies"?

That's really the only cause or issue him and the GOP have campaigned on to date.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I'm fine with the DOJ indicting/charging a Presidential candidate if the charges are true that he/she has committed crimes that would disqualify a federal official for public office. I acknowledge there's no such standard for the office of the President, but there really should be. The President shouldn't have to worry about being charged with things that are misdemeanors or minor offenses, but, they should be held accountable for serious crimes, and protecting classified documents and data is a major national security issue and a cornerstone of a President's duties.

Fair point. Much better than the "no one is above the law! All lawbreaking is prisecuted" nonsense.

I still believe it is voters who should decide which actions render a person unfit for presidential duties.

Maybe we would be better of if some wise and benevolent group of people chose our president for us, or chose which two would run and the general election. Seriously, that might give us better choices than Donald Trump versus Hillary clinton.

But if there were such a group I don't think that I would start the committee lineup with Peter Strzok, and I know that James Comey, Merrick Garland, and Christopher Wray. should never get near it.

And sure, that may not technically disqualify him because there's no language that specifically addresses that in the Constitution. I'm sure the founding fathers never expected this kind of nonsense from a Presidential candidate. Maybe they figured that American people are smart enough not to elect a criminal, idk.

How disappointed they would have been over the decades if they knew how many we did elect.

And you say even if he's found guilty, that doesn't disqualify him, but, if he's found guilty, he'll spend most if not the rest of his life in prison. I suppose he could still run from a jail cell, but common sense would say the Republican Party would boot him from the primaries if he's found guilty before the primaries start.

I doubt seriously that they will ever put Trump into prison. Look how differential they have been with his non-arrest. Do you believe that the Republican Party should pick the candidates with no say from the voters? Same for the democrats?

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Do you believe that the Republican Party should pick the candidates with no say from the voters? Same for the democrats?

They have every right to decide who they allow to be affialated with their party.

 

[DaveXA]

Fair point. Much better than the "no one is above the law! All lawbreaking is prisecuted" nonsense.

Who's saying that?

I still believe it is voters who should decide which actions render a person unfit for presidential duties.

Not always. If an individual doesn't qualify, whether it's President or any other position, the voters don't get that choice. If Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to run, he's disqualified because according to the Constitution he's not a natural born US citizen. If an individual leads an insurrection or rebellion vs the US, they can be disqualified from running for any office.

In this case, you're correct that the Republican voters will still have to decide whether the crimes he committed are enough not to vote for him. I hope they have enough integrity to realize his actions should not be justified and their vote should go to someone else.

Maybe we would be better of if some wise and benevolent group of people chose our president for us, or chose which two would run and the general election. Seriously, that might give us better choices than Donald Trump versus Hillary clinton.

No, and I never suggested that. Clinton isn't a choice anyway. We still stuck in 2016?

But if there were such a group I don't think that I would start the committee lineup with Peter Strzok, and I know that James Comey, Merrick Garland, and Christopher Wray. should never get near it.

Lol, no.

How disappointed they would have been over the decades if they knew how many we did elect.

Sure, and Trump would be at the top of that list.

I doubt seriously that they will ever put Trump into prison. Look how differential they have been with his non-arrest. Do you believe that the Republican Party should pick the candidates with no say from the voters? Same for the democrats?

Considering the normal punishment or consequences of government officials charged with the crimes that Trump is facing is years of jail time, he's gonna be in a world of hurt when he finds out he's not immune to prosecution and punishment. But hey, if he wants a jury trial and take his chances there, good luck to him.

 

[superchuck500]

The word "discovery" narrowly defined as the turning over evidence the defendant could theoretically be accomplished in one day. I guess we all remember "My Cousin Vinny" in which the prosecutor just said, "Dahlin' could you copy all of the Sack and Suds files and have them ready for Mister . . . uh . . . Gambini to pick up this afternoon?"

But is the DOJ really going to turn over everything they have to the Trump Team, with no balking, no concealment, and no claims of implied privilege? Of course not. Discovery will be a protracted brawl, and that only the first round of the case To torture the brawl analogy, so far the DOJ has been like a prizefighter, alone in the ring shadow boxing and yelling taunts at his opponent. When Team Trump steps in the ring, it won't be a one fighter show no longer.

Along with discovery, Team Trump gets a reasonable amount of time to prepare their case, i.e. study the prepared material, interview witnesses, follow up on leads they get from the discovery, and plan strategy. The DOJ took ten months from the raid to the indictment, getting a head start on all of those activities. How much time should Team Trump be reasonably given?

I know it's a great movie but sorry, the discovery process in My Cousin Vinny isn't how it works. The prosecution doesn't just give a copy of all of its files to the defense.

If you look at the rules, there's only a few things that the defense gets. Yes, they are meaningful and, in some cases they are critical. But also yes, much of it can be accomplished quickly - and may already be prepared.

But looking at the allegations, the known facts, the universe of witnesses and the case in general, I don't think discovery is particularly burdensome in this case. And I don't think there's a lot to fight about - we'll just have to see how that plays out but this case is pretty straightforward and relies on evidence that it not particularly complex or scientific.

The defense can interview witnesses only to the extent that those witnesses are willing to be interviewed, there won't be depositions like in a civil case. And again, Trump and his legal team have been along for the ride in this case since NARA sent Trump the 'return the documents please' letter. The claim that DOJ has a ten-month head start is specious. But of course we will have to wait and see how the pre-trial activities play out. I'm just providing the more realistic counterpoint to your notions of what is involved in the process and the time it will take.

 

[Snarky Sack]

They have every right to decide who they allow to be affialated with their party.

Yes, they sure do!

What does it say that they haven't announced that Trump is kicked out of their Party?

What would happen if they did?

Rhetorical question. Trump would run a third party campaign to which the media would obsessively give air time and print space. The non Democrat vote would be split and Biden- Harris wins again.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I know it's a great movie but sorry, the discovery process in My Cousin Vinny isn't how it works. The prosecution doesn't just give a copy of all of its files to the defense.

Which was my point of course.

If you look at the rules, there's only a few things that the defense gets. Yes, they are meaningful and, in some cases they are critical. But also yes, much of it can be accomplished quickly - and may already be prepared.

But looking at the allegations, the known facts, the universe of witnesses and the case in general, I don't think discovery is particularly burdensome in this case. And I don't think there's a lot to fight about - we'll just have to see how that plays out but this case is pretty straightforward and relies on evidence that it not particularly complex or scientific.

The defense can interview witnesses only to the extent that those witnesses are willing to be interviewed, there won't be depositions like in a civil case. And again, Trump and his legal team have been along for the ride in this case since NARA sent Trump the 'return the documents please' letter. The claim that DOJ has a ten-month head start is specious. But of course we will have to wait and see how the pre-trial activities play out. I'm just providing the more realistic counterpoint to your notions of what is involved in the process and the time it will take.

Do you have a prediction about when the trial starts? Maybe just "no more than X months?"

 

[SFIDC3]

Yes, they sure do!

What does it say that they haven't announced that Trump is kicked out of their Party?

What would happen if they did?

Rhetorical question. Trump would run a third party campaign to which the media would obsessively give air time and print space. The non Democrat vote would be split and Biden- Harris wins again.

Which is exactly what I'm hoping will happen.....it's exactly what the R party (which has gone completely off the rails of sanity) deserve.....

 

[Snarky Sack]

Which is exactly what I'm hoping will happen.....it's exactly what the R party (which has gone completely off the rails of sanity) deserve.....

Why would the GOP bring that about is the point.

Along with losing their WH shot, they also lose many House seats. A hand full would join the MAGA Party or whatever, and many more would their seat when many of last elections GOP straight ticket pullers only vote for Trump.

 

[superchuck500]

Which was my point of course.

Do you have a prediction about when the trial starts? Maybe just "no more than X months?"

I’m not sure - it’s really early, we don’t know what the time variables are going to be. Local rules provide that within 21 days of arraignment, the parties will file a joint status report that is to include dates when they believe trial can commence.

If I had to guess, I’d say next spring seems reasonable. The NY case is set for trial in March, so there may be some conflict there. Typically state prosecutors defer to feds when there are scheduling conflicts.

 

[brandon]

Why would the GOP bring that about is the point.

For the good of the country.

 

[MT15]

Which was my point of course.

No, Chuck just totally contradicted your claim that the prosecution would fight discovery. I have also read that Smith is basically ready for discovery. As soon as Trump’s lawyers get clearance, they’re getting everything they’re entitled to have.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Why would the GOP bring that about is the point.

Along with losing their WH shot, they also lose many House seats. A hand full would join the MAGA Party or whatever, and many more would lose a shrimp voters only vote for Trump.

i think in the long run, it would benefit the GOP. They lost the Senate that they should have won and they barely won congress that they should have took heavily. the percentage of people who were turning their nose at the GOP in those races they should have won is because those are the ones who are tired of clown show. and that small percentage are the ones who decide the elections.

 

[Snarky Sack]

i think in the long run, it would benefit the GOP. They lost the Senate that they should have won and they barely won congress that they should have took heavily. the percentage of people who were turning their nose at the GOP in those races they should have won is because those are the ones who are tired of clown show. and that small percentage are the ones who decide the elections.

I agree that it would benefit the party, if they cut off Trump now. But that would be in the long run just that you say. It would take them 10 years to rebuild, and during that time they would have virtually no power, losing majorities in both houses and giving the White House to the Democrats

They're only hope for a shorter than 10-year time would be for the Democrats to so harm the country, that they lose Democrats to the new trump-free Republican party.

I'm just not sure how that would play with non-Trump supporting republicans. Many of them of course would be happy to have a thorn and the party side gotten rid of. But surely a large chunk of them would make the connection that if the party can get rid of trump, they can get rid of anyone they want.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I agree that it would benefit the party, if they cut off Trump now. But that would be in the long run just that you say. It would take them 10 years to rebuild, and during that time they would have virtually no power, losing majorities in both houses and giving the White House to the Democrats

They're only hope for a shorter than 10-year time would be for the Democrats to so harm the country, that they lose Democrats to the new trump-free Republican party.

I'm just not sure how that would play with non-Trump supporting republicans. Many of them of course would be happy to have a thorn and the party side gotten rid of. But surely a large chunk of them would make the connection that if the party can get rid of trump, they can get rid of anyone they want.

they won't cut him out until he is convicted. if he isn't convicted, they would bolster him up.

 

[SFIDC3]

Why would the GOP bring that about is the point.

Along with losing their WH shot, they also lose many House seats. A hand full would join the MAGA Party or whatever, and many more would lose a shrimp voters only vote for Trump.

As much as I can't stand the corrupt, sleazy, no scrupled Mitch McConnell, I can guarantee him and a few others like him (who aren't total cult members and want power at any cost), would kick Trump to the curb if they think it would be advantageous....they are already straddling that line.....

They also know that if they do, Trump is vindictive enough to do exactly above, rock and a hard place, exactly where they deserve to be.....

 

[MT15]

I'm just not sure how that would play with non-Trump supporting republicans. Many of them of course would be happy to have a thorn and the party side gotten rid of. But surely a large chunk of them would make the connection that if the party can get rid of trump, they can get rid of anyone they want.

Do you think a political party has to accept anyone? Can they get rid of people of bad character, or do they have to accept whoever says they are Republican? Do they have any standards at all?