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

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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?

I feel like this is a legitimate question to ask at this point, but are you having trouble reading and comprehending simple statements?

 

[Snarky Sack]

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

What do you mean by that?

I'll explain. Let's look at the exchange if I can get them in order:

First my stand alone post, replying to no one in particular:

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?

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.

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.

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.

In the middle of a discussion with brandon that is going somewhere as far as having a rational debate, another poster jumps in with a childish personal attack post that has little to do with the debate between me and brandon, except that the part in red concedes what I was arguing to brandon.

Why jump into an adult talk about jury nullification to say that "droning on" about it is a distraction, and talk about lapping spewed crup?

The weird part is that at the same time, brandon bows out of the discussion completely. Is this like the old fashioned "may I cut in" at high school dances, when there were not enough girls to go around?

I don't doubt that the poster who jumped in wanted to shut down the adult discussion. But it is confusing that brandon seemingly goes along with it.

Not accusing anyone of anything but the obvious trolling by the jumper-in. Just saying it is weird, that's all.

 

[DaveXA]

I'll explain. Let's look at the exchange if I can get them in order:

First my stand alone post, replying to no one in particular:













In the middle of a discussion with brandon that is going somewhere as far as having a rational debate, another poster jumps in with a childish personal attack post that has little to do with the debate between me and brandon, except that the part in red concedes what I was arguing to brandon.

Why jump into an adult talk about jury nullification to say that "droning on" about it is a distraction, and talk about lapping spewed crup?

The weird part is that at the same time, brandon bows out of the discussion completely. Is this like the old fashioned "may I cut in" at high school dances, when there were not enough girls to go around?

I don't doubt that the poster who jumped in wanted to shut down the adult discussion. But it is confusing that brandon seemingly goes along with it.

Not accusing anyone of anything but the obvious trolling by the jumper-in. Just saying it is weird, that's all.

Lmao, how can I take an unserious post seriously? Good grief.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Lmao, how can I take an unserious post seriously? Good grief.

You seem a little defensive Dave.

What is that about?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Trump never colluded with Russia.

Anyone dispute that statement with evidence?

 

[DaveXA]

In the middle of a discussion with brandon that is going somewhere as far as having a rational debate, another poster jumps in with a childish personal attack post that has little to do with the debate between me and brandon, except that the part in red concedes what I was arguing to brandon.

Why jump into an adult talk about jury nullification to say that "droning on" about it is a distraction, and talk about lapping spewed crup?

The weird part is that at the same time, brandon bows out of the discussion completely. Is this like the old fashioned "may I cut in" at high school dances, when there were not enough girls to go around?

I don't doubt that the poster who jumped in wanted to shut down the adult discussion. But it is confusing that brandon seemingly goes along with it.

Screw it, I'm gonna respond to this head scratcher. i didn't jump into your discussion. I just added my own 2 cents. If you're gonna whine about me calling Trumpers out, maybe that's a you problem?

This is a discussion board, not a chat room with 2 people. We can comment within an ongoing discussion if we feel inclined to. I can speak for myself, and Brandon can speak for himself.

Not accusing anyone of anything but the obvious trolling by the jumper-in. Just saying it is weird, that's all.

Grow up dude.

 

[DaveXA]

Trump never colluded with Russia.

Anyone dispute that statement with evidence?

 

[superchuck500]

Re: jury nullification

You don’t often see federal courts issuing opinions about jury nullification (which I think is a rare occurrence) but just this year, the Ninth Circuit made the following comments in a defendant’s challenge to the standard jury instruction that if the juror finds that state proved the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the juror must find the defendant guilty.

The defendant argued that this instruction is too narrow because it instructs the jury that they have no option where the state has proven its case - the verdict must be guilty - when it is always possible that the jury elects to acquit anyway, a result known as jury nullification.

The Ninth Circuit (unquestionably the most favorable circuit for criminal defendants) held that the instruction is not too narrow because it is indeed a proper statement of the juror’s duty:

The court went on to note that though the instruction is proper and it is indeed a violation of the juror’s sworn duty to “nullify” what was otherwise proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the charged crime, should a jury elect to do so, they don’t get in trouble for it and it doesn’t render the acquittal invalid.

This illustrates that in the courtroom, jury nullification only happens if jurors feel that compulsion on their own in the deliberation. The defense will not (cannot) talk about it. The prosecution will remind the jurors, in the opening and closing, of their sworn duty to convict if the state proves its case. And most importantly, when the judge “charges” the jury, the judge will very seriously instruct them of this duty and that they must convict where the state has proven its case.

I think people often under appreciate the seriousness of a criminal trial in the courtroom, especially in a federal court. The jurors are often there for weeks at a time, and in the forum where the judge is in clear command and they are reminded of their role and the court’s respect for it on a daily basis.

There’s no way to know how often nullification happens. Jurors can be polled as to their individual votes to acquit or convict but no one will ever know why unless one of them chooses to talk about it and even that might not fully accurate.

I personally think it’s fairly rare - the vast majority of jurors develop a deep respect for process and the court and the judge during their time on the panel. And I think they follow their instructions faithfully.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2023/02/14/21-50229.pdf

 

[LA - L.A.]

Which is sad.

No, what's sad is that so many people have the not-hinged-to-reality opinion that the DOJ and FBI are generally untrustworthy and a disgrace.

Sounds like a large chunk of the country...

Never said it wasn't a large chunk of the country. I just gave the factual specifics of your generalized statement. You don't have to take everything everyone says as a refutation, especially when it isn't.

Even though it's a large chunk, it's still a minority chunk.

I doubt...

You doubt everything and anything that challegnes anything and everything you already believe, even when presented with verified objective fact, so your doubts are empty and meaningless.

The other thing you do is take the few examples that are the exceptions of something and try to convince yourself and others that they are the typical examples of something. You may not realize that you do that a lot, but you do that a lot.

Thanks for the source. I'll analyze the polling data provided for validity, robustness, and reliability when i have time.

You rarely ever actually do later what you say you'll do later. You repeatedly say to people, "I'll get back to you later" and you very rarely ever get back to them. By all means, see if you can cherry pick apart fivethirtyeight's polling data.

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

It doesn't tell me anything regarding a hung jury, because I understand how statistics, jury selection, trials and juries work, and also because I'm not blindly devoted to Trump.

My hunch is that it's more likely the trial will end in a verdict of either guilty or not guilty, than it is that it will end with a hung jury.

 

[LA - L.A.]

So apparently I overlooked another behavior of Trump's that his supporters mimic. Just like Trump, they see themselves of victims of disrespect and insults, while they shovel out a crap ton of disrespect and insults at anyone and everyone who isn't in lock stop with them.

They shroud themselves in a false sense of victimhood and persecution while spewing a constant barrage of verbal assaults at everyone else.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Trump never colluded with Russia.

Anyone dispute that statement with evidence?

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Trump never colluded with Russia.

Anyone dispute that statement with evidence?

and Hillary Clinton did not violate any laws with her emails, correct?
or is that "different"?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Screw it, I'm gonna respond to this head scratcher. i didn't jump into your discussion. I just added my own 2 cents. If you're gonna whine about me calling Trumpers out, maybe that's a you problem?

This is a discussion board, not a chat room with 2 people. We can comment within an ongoing discussion if we feel inclined to. I can speak for myself, and Brandon can speak for himself.

Grow up dude.

I didn't say or imply that irs not allowed to take up another poster's exchange and for him to drop out. Just that it's weird for it to keep happening.

I wouldn't have mentioned it again had not BT asked for clarification.

Then I realized BT might have been making a joke. If so, it was a good one.

 

[Snarky Sack]

and Hillary Clinton did not violate any laws with her emails, correct?
or is that "different"?

Not enough that it would have been appropriate to interfere woth the election by prosecuting a front runner.

 

[DaveXA]

I didn't say or imply that irs not allowed to take up another poster's exchange and for him to drop out. Just that it's weird for it to keep happening.

I wouldn't have mentioned it again had not BT asked for clarification.

Then I realized BT might have been making a joke. If so, it was a good one.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I didn't say or imply that irs not allowed to take up another poster's exchange and for him to drop out. Just that it's weird for it to keep happening.

I wouldn't have mentioned it again had not BT asked for clarification.

Then I realized BT might have been making a joke. If so, it was a good one.

MT. You have been corrected on that before. Act like an adult ffs.

 

[FullMonte]

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?

Yes, it should be filled out as accurately as possible....but as far as taking time to fill out...Unless you have a vast network of foreign contacts or criminal history...the amount of time it will take is negligible....again...in the "a few hours" range.

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

No, they were not just kidding. But, apparently, you don't bother to read many things before you quote them and paste them. You quoted me as saying " Unless you intentionally lie on your form,..." and then you pasted and highlighted the portion of the form that says that If you intentionally lie on your form you can be punished...as if it disproves what I said. No, it actually confirms what I said.

And, here is a better example. It's been widely reported that Jared Kushner had to fill out his SF-86 multiple times because he failed to include foreign contacts each time. But what hasn't been reported is the criminal prosecution of him for doing so. Why? Because when the investigation uncovers information that does not match what you put on the form, they contact you and ask you to explain the discrepancy. If your response boils down to, "Oh, I forgot to include that information, here is the full information you need," they move forward with the background check.

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.

That theory would required them to have reason to believe that the lawyer has relevant evidence against Trump in this preceeding, and that they do not have enough to support subpoenaing the lawyer (which would be possible due to the crime/fraud exception), and then be willing to go through the hassle of trying to charge the attorney for incorrect information on their SF-86, and praying that the attorney doesn't simply explain that it was an error, and provide the correct information.

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.

Sure, he could have claimed a subordinate relationship, and stated that he was following Trump's directions. Apparently, he did not tell investigators what he did, and that he only did it because Trump told him to do it. If he had made that claim, he likely would have already agreed to some kind of plea arrangement and would be willing to testify under oath to that. Since he did not do that, yes, he is a co-conspirator. The fact that Trump is the boss doesn't somehow make the people who follow his directions and break the law innocent.

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

Of course it could. Nauta is free to choose not to work with the prosecutors and face whatever prosecution and trial results from that.

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?

I would say that's always a possibility, but I would assume it's exceedingly rare for the person seen as the "crime boss" to get a plea deal for cooperating against their underlings.

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 it as going after him to force him to testify. They seem to have clear evidence of his participating in illegal actions. I don't see how anything here can be perceived as them going after an innocent man to force him to testify. They are going after someone who broke the law, as they have done with other people who broke the law. And, just like in many other cases of conspiracy, there is always the opportunity for the lower individual(s) to cooperate in exchange for lenience.

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?

Because, as a former president, the law provides Secret Service protection for Donald Trump. That fact could (again COULD) play into his sentencing, and could somehow result in some form of house arrest. That is a matter that will need to be addressed at some point later, should their be a conviction. There is no law guaranteeing Nauta that same type of protection, so he would likely be treated like other individuals who were prosecuted for the same crimes as he is.

 

[superchuck500]