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]

You're having too much fun with these emoticons!

Just kidding! No such thing as too much fun. Keep it up, please!

 

[MT15]

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Sad that he still do not understand what it means to be The President of the United States.

 

[superchuck500]

“Trump was indicted for our sins . . . “

The end grift is chef’s kiss

 

[Snarky Sack]

Goldman is a complete idiot, but his family makes good jeans, so there's that.

 

[MT15]

Goldman is a complete idiot, but his family makes good jeans, so there's that.

He’s not wrong here, is he? What Trump is saying isn’t true.

 

[MT15]

 

[Snarky Sack]

He’s not wrong here, is he? What Trump is saying isn’t true.

What Trump is saying is an exageration, as he so often does.

What the Presidential Records act does say is that "presidential records" do not include personal records, stocks of publications and stationery, or extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference.

Goldman says that the judge should not allow Trump's lawyers to make that argument, with the implication that if the judge does allow that, the judge is not objective.

I don't know that Trump's lawyers would want to make that argument, and I don't know how the judge would or should rule if they do. Point is that Goldman, a congressional aide whose wealthy family was able to finance his run for congress itself, is piling supposition on top of supposition to imply an accusation of bias on the part of the judge.

I'll talk about another aspect of this on another post.

 

[DaveXA]

What Trump is saying is an exageration, as he so often does.

Yes, and a bald faced lie. Presidents simply do not have the absolute right to take documents that legally belong to the government, they might be classified and they might not. But they're still government property. It's simply a false statement to claim taking and giving them back is solely at his discretion.

What the Presidential Records act does say is that "presidential records" do not include personal records, stocks of publications and stationery, or extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference.

Goldman says that the judge should not allow Trump's lawyers to make that argument, with the implication that if the judge does allow that, the judge is not objective.

I agree with Goldman here and it shouldn't affect the judge's objectivity.

I don't know that Trump's lawyers would want to make that argument, and I don't know how the judge would or should rule if they do. Point is that Goldman, a congressional aide whose wealthy family was able to finance his run for congress itself, is piling supposition on top of supposition to imply an accusation of bias on the part of the judge.

Ok. I don't know Goldman, but he's not wrong here.

I'll talk about another aspect of this on another post.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Yes, and a bald faced lie. Presidents simply do not have the absolute right to take documents that legally belong to the government, they might be classified and they might not. But they're still government property.

You skipped over the part about the actual law - the Presidential Records Act that I cited. I suppose it would do no good to repeat myself.

I think that a better way to put it would be that he was legally allowed to take the copies, which he was, and that there was no law requiring him to "return" them to the National Archives, where those copies had never been. Trump is not a lawyer, and he was not addressing a court. He was telling his supporters - and potential jury members - that he has not broken the law.

Is he "lying?" No more than the prosecutors are "lying" when they overcharge Trump, hoping for a plea deal.

It's simply a false statement to claim taking and giving them back is solely at his discretion.

There is no law that specifies that a president - having kept copies of documents - must "return" them. That is why the bulk of the counts against Trump will likely be dropped. Here is what counts 1-31 say:

Since Trump was allowed to take copies for convenience of reference, he did not have unauthorized possession of them. He was authorized by the PRA.

Count 32:

This one is more to the point. The government is essentially going to argue that by requesting the documents "back" from Trump, a legal obligation to provide them was created. They will be right. No matter how unfair it is, if the FBI decided from reading my posts that I probably have some unauthorized documents on my computer, they can subpoena my entire computer, including family pics, love letters to my wife, and banking information, and I have no legal choice but to give them.

The rest of the counts are restatements of the same theme: Trump was supposed to give us stuff and he hid it instead. The problem will be that they must prove that Trump himself did it. Nauta is on trial with Trump which means that he did not provide evidence of Trump's personal instructions. If Trump really did order documents be concealed, he likely spoke to his attorneys or Nauta.

Legally the government could be correct, but still lose the case to jury nullification. More importantly for the government's goal in all this, they could lose the election, the voters having galvanized behind Trump.

I agree with Goldman here and it shouldn't affect the judge's objectivity.

Ok. I don't know Goldman, but he's not wrong here.

I admit that it is an ad hominem attack. I just hate to see the great accomplishments of Levi Strauss used to put such a dimwit in office.

What the media is doing is analyzing Trump's actions in terms of trial strategy. But . . . Trump is running an election strategy. Like me, Trump knows that the trial will likely drag on and on, slowed by both sides for different reasons. The election will almost certainly be over before the trial, if the trial even ever starts.

 

[MT15]

Sack: you seem to take umbrage at a lawyerly opinion from Goldman (and weirdly emphasize what family he comes from) as an attempt to imply that the judge isn’t objective (which is faulty logic, but let’s go with it). Yet you seem to be fine with Trump’s continued attempts to plead his case in public, thereby possibly tainting the jury pool. You even seem to think jury nullification is an okay legal strategy for him.

Trump isn’t being charged with retaining personal papers. And I have never seen any indication from a legal source that he is entitled to make copies of national security documents and take them with him. Can you provide a source for that view, or is it your own?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Sack: you seem to take umbrage at a lawyerly opinion from Goldman (and weirdly emphasize what family he comes from) as an attempt to imply that the judge isn’t objective (which is faulty logic, but let’s go with it). Yet you seem to be fine with Trump’s continued attempts to plead his case in public, thereby possibly tainting the jury pool. You even seem to think jury nullification is an okay legal strategy for him.

Of course it is! Do you object to it? What do you think jury nullification is for, if not to stop such an injustice?

Trump isn’t being charged with retaining personal papers. And I have never seen any indication from a legal source that he is entitled to make copies of national security documents and take them with him. Can you provide a source for that view, or is it your own?

The Presidential records act does not exclude copies of "national security documents" as allowable copies.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Let me predict how the jury nullification will go in the unlikely even that this case ever gets to a jury:

At least three of the jury will be Trump supporters, based on the stats in Florida. If it is only three, the prosecution will have gotten very lucky, but lets say three.

One or more of them will - in answer to a juror who says Trump is guilty - say WTTE of So, what you're saying is that after seven years of one crooked investigation after another, they finally provoked Trump into a technical violation of an obscure law? Sorry, not enough send a man who tried to avoid the exact mess that we are in now on our border, in Europe and with our economy to prison. He'll need to be lose to get the country back on track.

Hung jury at best.

 

[brandon]

Let me predict how the jury nullification will go in the unlikely even that this case ever gets to a jury:

At least three of the jury will be Trump supporters, based on the stats in Florida. If it is only three, the prosecution will have gotten very lucky, but lets say three.

One or more of them will - in answer to a juror who says Trump is guilty - say WTTE of So, what you're saying is that after seven years of one crooked investigation after another, they finally provoked Trump into a technical violation of an obscure law? Sorry, not enough send a man who tried to avoid the exact mess that we are in now on our border, in Europe and with our economy to prison. He'll need to be lose to get the country back on track.

Hung jury at best.

So, in your eyes, Trump is above the law? He cannot ever be convicted for anything?

 

[CoolBrees]

A lawyer is going to ask any potential juror
If you can be impartial. You are under oath. You are saying there will be jurors willing to lie under oath just to torpedo an open and shut case?

Will this be that same tactic when he gets indicted for 1/6 in a few weeks?

Or will it be the same when he is indicted in Georgia later this summer?

 

[Snarky Sack]

So, in your eyes, Trump is above the law? He cannot ever be convicted for anything?

Not above the law. But not convictable in this one case. Not in Florida.

Blame the DOJ/FBI folk who got so excited to "protect the country (from the voters' choice) on many levels" that they forgot not to be so obvious in their extreme bias.

They pretty much immunized him from conviction, though the DOJ can hound him as they can anyone else.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You skipped over the part about the actual law - the Presidential Records Act that I cited. I suppose it would do no good to repeat myself.

I think that a better way to put it would be that he was legally allowed to take the copies, which he was, and that there was no law requiring him to "return" them to the National Archives, where those copies had never been. Trump is not a lawyer, and he was not addressing a court. He was telling his supporters - and potential jury members - that he has not broken the law.

Is he "lying?" No more than the prosecutors are "lying" when they overcharge Trump, hoping for a plea deal.

There is no law that specifies that a president - having kept copies of documents - must "return" them. That is why the bulk of the counts against Trump will likely be dropped. Here is what counts 1-31 say:

Since Trump was allowed to take copies for convenience of reference, he did not have unauthorized possession of them. He was authorized by the PRA.

Count 32:

This one is more to the point. The government is essentially going to argue that by requesting the documents "back" from Trump, a legal obligation to provide them was created. They will be right. No matter how unfair it is, if the FBI decided from reading my posts that I probably have some unauthorized documents on my computer, they can subpoena my entire computer, including family pics, love letters to my wife, and banking information, and I have no legal choice but to give them.

The rest of the counts are restatements of the same theme: Trump was supposed to give us stuff and he hid it instead. The problem will be that they must prove that Trump himself did it. Nauta is on trial with Trump which means that he did not provide evidence of Trump's personal instructions. If Trump really did order documents be concealed, he likely spoke to his attorneys or Nauta.

Legally the government could be correct, but still lose the case to jury nullification. More importantly for the government's goal in all this, they could lose the election, the voters having galvanized behind Trump.


I admit that it is an ad hominem attack. I just hate to see the great accomplishments of Levi Strauss used to put such a dimwit in office.

What the media is doing is analyzing Trump's actions in terms of trial strategy. But . . . Trump is running an election strategy. Like me, Trump knows that the trial will likely drag on and on, slowed by both sides for different reasons. The election will almost certainly be over before the trial, if the trial even ever starts.

Is unlawful possession of national defense material a crime? Yes.

Does the PRA specifically allow the president to take national defense material with them when they are no longer president? No.

Was he charged with violating the PRA? No.

The PRA has nothing to do with this. He had documents he wasn't supposed to have and he conspired to keep them even when the federal government asked him to return the material he wasn't allowed to have. That's the argument being made.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Trump has not been indicted for violating the President Records Act, so the legal rules of the Presidental Records act are irrelevant in regards to Trump's indictment.

Just for the sake of accurate knowledge, here are accurate facts about the Presidential Records Act:

Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2209, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents that were created or received after January 20, 1981 (i.e., beginning with the Reagan Administration). The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of...

www.archives.gov

Establishes public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records.

Requires that Vice-Presidential records be treated in the same way as Presidential records.

So, the public is the only legal owner of a President and Vice President's records.

Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.

So, yes the President can keep personal records, but they are required to keep their personal records separate from the official records that are owned by the public.

Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing.

So, yes a President can dispose of some records, but they have to get the written permission from the Archivist of the United States first.

Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.

So, at the moment a new president is sworn in, the Archivist has sole legal custody over all official presidential records. Only the
Archivist has the legal right to determine the physical storage location of the documents.

If the Archivist says "give me all the documents" all ex-presidents are legally obligated to give the Archivist all of the documents and on the Archivist's schedule, not the ex-president's schedule. Even if an ex-president has personal records mixed in with official documents, they are still legally obligated to hand over all documents to the Archivist.

Presidents are required to keep their personal records separate from official records to eliminate an ex-president using "some of the documents are personal" as a valid legal excuse to refuse to hand documents over to the Archivist.