Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (3 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

 

[brandon]

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

Is there a law in which, if he broke it, Trump would be "convictable" in Florida?

If there isn't, do you think that's a good thing?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Is there a law in which, if he broke it, Trump would be "convictable" in Florida?

If there isn't, do you think that's a good thing?

Sure,murder robbery, something like that. Even then it would be better if it were a county or state prosecution not a federal one.

I don't think that the people on this board realize how much the doj and FBI have disgraced themselves in the eyes of a large chunk of the country.

 

[DaveXA]

Sure,murder robbery, something like that. Even then it would be better if it were a county or state prosecution not a federal one.

I don't think that the people on this board realize how much the doj and FBI have disgraced themselves in the eyes of a large chunk of the country.

No they haven't. Maybe in the eyes of Trumpers, sure, but I don't give a sheet what they think. They lap up all the crap spewed on FNC, Q-anon or Orly Taitz nonsense and spew conspiracy gobbity goop.

Regardless, this discussion is about Trump violating federal law, so as such, is a federal case and your droning on about jury nullification is nothing but a distraction.

 

[Snarky Sack]

No they haven't. Maybe in the eyes of Trumpers, sure, but I don't give a sheet what they think. They lap up all the crap spewed on FNC, Q-anon or Orly Taitz nonsense and spew conspiracy gobbity goop.

Regardless, this discussion is about Trump violating federal law, so as such, is a federal case and your droning on about jury nullification is nothing but a distraction.

It's really weird how y'all switch back and forth like that.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I don't think that the people on this board realize how much the doj and FBI have disgraced themselves in the eyes of a large chunk of the country.

Approximately 50% of the country approves of what the DOJ and FBI are doing.

Approximately 40% of the country disapproves of what the DOJ and FBI are doing.

That approximately 40% already were true believers in conspiracies about the "deep state." They already had a very distrustful and cynical view of the DOJ and the FBI long before Trump's indictment and before Trump ever ran for president.

Trump's indictment didn't cause them to see the DOJ or FBI as disgraceful, that ship done sailed and sunk.

What's actually happening is that approximately 40% are letting their biases see the Trump indictment in a biased way that confirms the biases they already had.

Here's my source on the statistics:

What The Polls Say After Trump’s Second Indictment

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly-ish polling roundup. After eight years, Americans have made up their minds about former President Donald Trump. And it appea…

fivethirtyeight.com

But when it comes to questions about charging and convicting Trump, a consistent divide emerges: A plurality support what prosecutors are doing, but a substantial minority thinks they went too far.

• Per Ipsos/ABC News, 48 percent of adults believed he should have been charged, and 35 percent believed he should not have been.
• Per Data for Progress, 50 percent of likely voters thought the charges were appropriate to hold Trump accountable, and 45 percent thought they were politically driven to attack him.
• Per Ipsos/Reuters, 48 percent of adults believed Trump is being treated fairly relative to President Biden’s and former Vice President Mike Pence’s own possession of classified documents, and 34 percent believed he was being treated unfairly.
• Per Civiqs/Daily Kos, 50 percent of registered voters believed Trump is guilty of crimes that merit jail time, and 42 percent believed he is not.

 

[MT15]

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

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

Anyone who actually believes in the criminal justice system of the US should object to it. What you are cheerleading is for a juror to violate their oath that they swear to upon being seated.

Show me which lawyer you are reading that says what you are saying.

 

[MT15]

It's really weird how y'all switch back and forth like that.

What do you mean by that?

 

[MT15]

Sure,murder robbery, something like that. Even then it would be better if it were a county or state prosecution not a federal one.

I don't think that the people on this board realize how much the doj and FBI have disgraced themselves in the eyes of a large chunk of the country.

Depends on how you define “a large chunk”. Here is a roundup of recent polling from 538:

“But when it comes to questions about charging and convicting Trump, a consistent divide emerges: A plurality support what prosecutors are doing, but a substantial minority thinks they went too far.

• Per Ipsos/ABC News, 48 percent of adults believed he should have been charged, and 35 percent believed he should not have been.
• Per Data for Progress, 50 percent of likely voters thought the charges were appropriate to hold Trump accountable, and 45 percent thought they were politically driven to attack him.
• Per Ipsos/Reuters, 48 percent of adults believed Trump is being treated fairly relative to President Biden’s and former Vice President Mike Pence’s own possession of classified documents, and 34 percent believed he was being treated unfairly.
• Per Civiqs/Daily Kos, 50 percent of registered voters believed Trump is guilty of crimes that merit jail time, and 42 percent believed he is not.”

What The Polls Say After Trump’s Second Indictment

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly-ish polling roundup. After eight years, Americans have made up their minds about former President Donald Trump. And it appea…

fivethirtyeight.com

As more indictments happen and the documents trial gets underway, I believe the % thinking he is not fit for office will go up. The question is will enough R primary voters realize it?

What is obvious to me from reading that article is that Republicans seem to be sticking with Trump right now, even though he seems unelectable in the general.

 

[MT15]

Judge Luttig thinks the GOP can still save themselves, but they are almost out of time.

Opinion | It’s Not Too Late for the Republican Party

The G.O.P. needs to have the reckoning with Trump that it vainly hoped would never be necessary.

www.nytimes.com

 

[FullMonte]

If I recall correctly, Trump's lawyers have not yet told the court that they all submitted their SF-86's.

The SF-86 is form that has 133+ pages, nearly all of which are densely packed with very personal questions. It ends with this day brightener:

https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf

It may be 136 pages...but did you actually look at it beyond it's length? You say it is "densely packed with very personal questions"? That's very misleading. The first 69 pages cover your name and current address, whether you are a US citizen (born in the US, born somewhere else to US parents, or naturalized), do you have dual citizenship, and the addresses you have lived at for the past 10 years, any schools you have attended in the past 10 years, and everywhere you have worked in the past 10 years (including federal service and military service), three personal references, basic information about your spouse/cohabitant, and basic information about your immediately family. That information can be gathered by even a partially competent person in a few hours.

Then we get into things like "Have you, your spouse or legally recognized civil union/domestic partner, cohabitant, or dependentchildren EVER had any foreign financial interests that someone controlled on your behalf? No? Skip the next two pages. Etc...etc...

In the past year, I've initiated around 60 or so SF-86 investigations. The average time from me initiating it to the member telling me they have submitted it is around 2 days. The average amount of time someone spends filling it out is less than 2 hours. If I haven't heard back from them in a week, I begin hassling them to get it done. And, for clarification, the form is actually filled out on a website.

Any layman would want to take their time in filling it out, carefully researching dates and places, names and contact information. Any lawyer would see this as an invitation to self-incrimination, or a falsifying document charge.

Yeah...it takes quite a bit of time and research to find out where you lived for the past decade, and where your mother was born.

A lawyer for Trump would have to suspect that the DOJ is hoping for a slip-up that they can turn into a criminal case against that lawyer.

Wow...you really hate the DOJ, don't you? You think the DOJ wants to waste time with that nonsense? I thought they wanted to get Trump. Why would they want to slow that process with some minor procedural charge that....guess what? Doesn't turn into a criminal case. Unless you intentionally lie on your form, all that happens is you get contacted and asked to explain the discrepancy between what you put and what the investigation found.

I'm no legal expert, so you may be right. I've always thought people are tried together when they committed the same crime at the same time together. Like "two men entered the bank with guns drawn, robbed it of two large bags of cash, and fled the scene, only to be caught by a passing group of policemen." Obviously, Trump and Nauta could not have been equal partners committing the same crimes.

How is that obvious? If Trump tells Nauta that he wants to make sure he can get what he wants out of the boxes, and Nauta tells him that he'll bring the boxes to Trump's residence...they are equal partners committing the same crime.

Anything the prosecution or defense does in any criminal case is for strategic reasons. I don't get the strategy, unless it is hoping to force Nauta to turn on Trump.

The strategy is simple. They have two people conspiring to commit a crime. Prosecuting both and getting two convictions is fine with the DOJ. But, if one wants to work with the prosecutors to lessen their sentence, that's fine with the DOJ as well.

Ok, that answers my implied question above about what you think their strategy is. Almost the same as mine, except yours is a follow through on their previous statement to Nauta that if he did not turn on Trump, he would suffer the same fate. Would you agree that the offer of leniency will likely remain on the table until the prosecution rests?

Well, if you accept that they would use the threat of prosecution to convince a defendant to work with them, how can you not have the follow through that if that person does not work with the prosecutors they will be prosecuted? It would be a horrible strategy to threaten to prosecute someone if they don't work with you, and if they don't work with you, not prosecute them. As to how long the offer will remain on the table, I suspect that will depend on how solid the prosecution thinks their case is without Nauta's help.

I'm not sure Nauta would see having the same fate as Trump as a bad thing. In virtually every scenario, other than jail or prison time, he comes out smelling like the proverbial rose, continuing to live the life in Mar-a-Lago, but now enjoying celebrity status and Trump's gratitude for the loyalty, which he values more than anything else.

I don't see them having the same fate. There is a very real possibility that Trump gets convicted, and gets some form of house arrest. I don't see Nauta getting that.

I'll stop at this point. Have a great week.

 

[DaveXA]

It's really weird how y'all switch back and forth like that.

Cryptic nonsense post makes no sense. Par for the course I guess.

 

[DaveXA]

It may be 136 pages...but did you actually look at it beyond it's length? You say it is "densely packed with very personal questions"? That's very misleading. The first 69 pages cover your name and current address, whether you are a US citizen (born in the US, born somewhere else to US parents, or naturalized), do you have dual citizenship, and the addresses you have lived at for the past 10 years, any schools you have attended in the past 10 years, and everywhere you have worked in the past 10 years (including federal service and military service), three personal references, basic information about your spouse/cohabitant, and basic information about your immediately family. That information can be gathered by even a partially competent person in a few hours.

Then we get into things like "Have you, your spouse or legally recognized civil union/domestic partner, cohabitant, or dependentchildren EVER had any foreign financial interests that someone controlled on your behalf? No? Skip the next two pages. Etc...etc...

In the past year, I've initiated around 60 or so SF-86 investigations. The average time from me initiating it to the member telling me they have submitted it is around 2 days. The average amount of time someone spends filling it out is less than 2 hours. If I haven't heard back from them in a week, I begin hassling them to get it done. And, for clarification, the form is actually filled out on a website.

Indeed, I've filled it out before and my wife has as well. On a website (e-qip). Took me 90 minutes and her a bit longer because she's a naturalized citizen and her family history is more complicated than mine.

Yeah...it takes quite a bit of time and research to find out where you lived for the past decade, and where your mother was born.



Wow...you really hate the DOJ, don't you? You think the DOJ wants to waste time with that nonsense? I thought they wanted to get Trump. Why would they want to slow that process with some minor procedural charge that....guess what? Doesn't turn into a criminal case. Unless you intentionally lie on your form, all that happens is you get contacted and asked to explain the discrepancy between what you put and what the investigation found.

Yeah, I tend to think he buys into a lot of the conspiracy theory nonsense which would partially explain his deep distrust of our intelligence agencies. Probably watches too many movies too, lol.

How is that obvious? If Trump tells Nauta that he wants to make sure he can get what he wants out of the boxes, and Nauta tells him that he'll bring the boxes to Trump's residence...they are equal partners committing the same crime.



The strategy is simple. They have two people conspiring to commit a crime. Prosecuting both and getting two convictions is fine with the DOJ. But, if one wants to work with the prosecutors to lessen their sentence, that's fine with the DOJ as well.



Well, if you accept that they would use the threat of prosecution to convince a defendant to work with them, how can you not have the follow through that if that person does not work with the prosecutors they will be prosecuted? It would be a horrible strategy to threaten to prosecute someone if they don't work with you, and if they don't work with you, not prosecute them. As to how long the offer will remain on the table, I suspect that will depend on how solid the prosecution thinks their case is without Nauta's help.



I don't see them having the same fate. There is a very real possibility that Trump gets convicted, and gets some form of house arrest. I don't see Nauta getting that.

I'll stop at this point. Have a great week.

 

[MT15]

The funniest thing I saw on this page, you ask? (well, I will tell you anyway)

that Sack thinks Nauta will have Trump’s undying gratitude if he doesn’t flip on Trump.

 

[J-DONK]

Someone should save this post because it's going to happen:

This time next year Trump will try to leverage his base for a pardon for whoever ends up running as the GOP nominee that's not a convicted felon. Conservatives will come on this board, and try to tell us that's not why Trump is supporting candidate X.

The fact the Trumpers are talking about jury nullifications. They know Donnie is done.

 

[superchuck500]

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.

How many times have you sat in a federal criminal jury?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Sure,murder robbery, something like that. Even then it would be better if it were a county or state prosecution not a federal one.

I don't think that the people on this board realize how much the doj and FBI have disgraced themselves in the eyes of a large chunk of the country.

Approximately 50% of the country approves of what the DOJ and FBI are doing.

Which is sad.

Approximately 40% of the country disapproves of what the DOJ and FBI are doing.

Sounds like a large chunk of the country, alright. Than

That approximately 40% already were true believers in conspiracies about the "deep state." They already had a very distrustful and cynical view of the DOJ and the FBI long before Trump's indictment and before Trump ever ran for president.

I doubt it was 40% that thought that before Operation Crossfire Hurricane came to light. Although, you may be right, given Comey's bizarre actions in the Clinton classified document withholding case.

For that matter, the FBI has been disgracing itself since the J. Edgar days, just ask the MLK family. Back then it just took longer to come to light.

Trump's indictment didn't cause them to see the DOJ or FBI as disgraceful, that ship done sailed and sunk.

What's actually happening is that approximately 40% are letting their biases see the Trump indictment in a biased way that confirms the biases they already had.

Here's my source on the statistics:

What The Polls Say After Trump’s Second Indictment

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly-ish polling roundup. After eight years, Americans have made up their minds about former President Donald Trump. And it appea…

fivethirtyeight.com

Thanks for the source. I'll analyze the polling data provided for validity, robustness, and reliability when i have time. Meanwhile I'll accept them for the sake of argument.

What does that 40% figure tell you about the probability of anything other than a hung jury?

 

[brandon]

How many times have you sat in a federal criminal jury?

Man’s clearly never made it past voir dire.

 

[Snarky Sack]

It may be 136 pages...but did you actually look at it beyond it's length? You say it is "densely packed with very personal questions"? That's very misleading. The first 69 pages cover your name and current address, whether you are a US citizen (born in the US, born somewhere else to US parents, or naturalized), do you have dual citizenship, and the addresses you have lived at for the past 10 years, any schools you have attended in the past 10 years, and everywhere you have worked in the past 10 years (including federal service and military service), three personal references, basic information about your spouse/cohabitant, and basic information about your immediately family. That information can be gathered by even a partially competent person in a few hours.

Then we get into things like "Have you, your spouse or legally recognized civil union/domestic partner, cohabitant, or dependentchildren EVER had any foreign financial interests that someone controlled on your behalf? No? Skip the next two pages. Etc...etc...

In the past year, I've initiated around 60 or so SF-86 investigations. The average time from me initiating it to the member telling me they have submitted it is around 2 days. The average amount of time someone spends filling it out is less than 2 hours. If I haven't heard back from them in a week, I begin hassling them to get it done. And, for clarification, the form is actually filled out on a website.

Yeah...it takes quite a bit of time and research to find out where you lived for the past decade, and where your mother was born.

For once let's agree to agree. It is a lengthy form that will take time to fill out, and should be filled out as accurately as possible, correct?

Wow...you really hate the DOJ, don't you? You think the DOJ wants to waste time with that nonsense? I thought they wanted to get Trump. Why would they want to slow that process with some minor procedural charge that....guess what? Doesn't turn into a criminal case. Unless you intentionally lie on your form, all that happens is you get contacted and asked to explain the discrepancy between what you put and what the investigation found.

So they were just kidding when they put this on the form?

The DOJ has earned my hate by spending seven years interfering with U.S. elections.

They would not hesitate to turn a minor procedural charge into a criminal case if they thought it might force someone to give evidence against Trump.

How is that obvious? If Trump tells Nauta that he wants to make sure he can get what he wants out of the boxes, and Nauta tells him that he'll bring the boxes to Trump's residence...they are equal partners committing the same crime.

Trump is an equal partner with his valet? The valet could claim no subordinate relationship that led him to simply follow Trump's dirctions instead of questioning the legality of it? Respectfully, that is a stretch even for this board.

The strategy is simple. They have two people conspiring to commit a crime. Prosecuting both and getting two convictions is fine with the DOJ. But, if one wants to work with the prosecutors to lessen their sentence, that's fine with the DOJ as well.

"if one wants to?" It could be either one?

Do you think that Trump could get off on the charges if he turns states evidence to help the DOJ make their case on Nauta stick?

Again, a stretch.

Well, if you accept that they would use the threat of prosecution to convince a defendant to work with them, how can you not have the follow through that if that person does not work with the prosecutors they will be prosecuted? It would be a horrible strategy to threaten to prosecute someone if they don't work with you, and if they don't work with you, not prosecute them.

Yes, of course. I think that is a rewording what I said, but accurately, praise Allah. You are agreeing with me, I'm pretty sure, but you do it in a tone of disagreement for whatever reason.

Oh . . . I get it, now.

As to how long the offer will remain on the table, I suspect that will depend on how solid the prosecution thinks their case is without Nauta's help.

You see no ethical problem with the DOJ going after a servant of a wealthy man with the full weight of its prosecutorial powers in order to force the servant to testify? Would you be OK, if they also went after Nauta's family?

I don't see them having the same fate. There is a very real possibility that Trump gets convicted, and gets some form of house arrest. I don't see Nauta getting that.

Interesting. I agree, but I'd like to know why you think that is. Trump getting some form of house arrest for a conviction that could send another person guilty of the same exact crime to prison?

I'll stop at this point. Have a great week.

You as well, Monte.