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]

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.

Since Team Trump cannot get the discovery documents until they have been cleared, I suppose they would be motivated to do is as quickly as possible, so long as they avoid the problems that could arise from making even an honest mistake. But I also suppose they have the legal expertise to know how carefully to fill out such a document.

Unless . . . you think that they are taking their time filling out the forms deliberately? If so, I have been saying all along that Team Trump has as much interest in delaying the trial as the DOJ does, so that would not be a good way to prove me wrong about something.

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.

There could be other reprecussions for making a mistake besides being prosecuted.

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.

How was it widely reported? Are such back and forth between the FBI and a clearance applicant reported to the public by FBI officials?

Or was it yet another of the numerous leaks that always seem to benefit the Democrats to the detriment of Trump, if taken at face value.

No doubt Trump's lawyers would like to avoid having the media snarkily report that they "failed to include foreign contacts." Kushner has many more foreign contacts than a typical schmoe, as to most of Trump's attorneys. So, any such comparisons are downnright silly.

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.

He's not required to testify against himself, even in order to testify against Trump. No better way to motivate him to stand on that right than to tie his fate to Trump's.

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

What would you hope would result from that?

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.

So rare that I have never seen a single example. If ever there was one, I would suspect that the crime boss heavily bribed someone in order to be allowed to to that.

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.

I don't believe I used the phrase "innocent man," so I stopped reading that paragraph right there. I hope the rest was not particularly important.

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.

Logistically, you are correct, which is why I said that I agreed that would be what would happen - in the unlikely conviction of either.

Politically, prison for Nauta and letting Trump have house arrest would outrage both Reps and Dems, but most benefit Reps who have opposed the Weaponized Government. For the current leadership at DOJ and FBI, the election of almost any Republican who currently has a chance to win would be the end of their government positions. It would mean the appointment of special counsels to investigate them as well as more congressional hearings into their abuse of power.

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

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.

So much ridiculous “in your feelings” talk plus your description of Dave couldn’t be further from the truth.

 

[MT15]

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

I have served on 2 juries for criminal trials, and in my anecdotal experience everyone on the jury in both cases took the jury instructions very seriously. We didn’t consider things we were instructed not to consider, we deliberated respectfully. Both experiences were positive ones.

I don’t think very many people would go into a situation like that and just disregard their civic duty. I also think that attorneys are pretty good at detecting the unserious people and excluding them.

 

[MT15]

I guess he thinks it’s clever of him to get my handle wrong. Isn’t it funny, though, that my handle is the only one he has trouble with? What a coincidence.

 

[FullMonte]

Since Team Trump cannot get the discovery documents until they have been cleared, I suppose they would be motivated to do is as quickly as possible, so long as they avoid the problems that could arise from making even an honest mistake. But I also suppose they have the legal expertise to know how carefully to fill out such a document.

Legal expertise to know how to carefully fill out such a document? I literally initiate dozens of these documents every year for individuals who barely graduated high school, and they don't seem to have much trouble filling them out fairly quickly. They'll occasionally have a question for me to clarify whether or not they should include something. It's not a complicated form, and the questions are very straightforward.

Unless . . . you think that they are taking their time filling out the forms deliberately? If so, I have been saying all along that Team Trump has as much interest in delaying the trial as the DOJ does, so that would not be a good way to prove me wrong about something.

Yes, that is my suspicion. I hope you aren't trying to somehow infer that I am trying to prove your claim that Trump's team wants to delay the trial wrong. I'm 100% certain they want to delay it as long as possible. I think Trump's main goal here is to delay it until after the election so that if, somehow, he were to win, he can appoint an Attorney General who would stop it. I'm not sure that would work, though. I don't think a new Attorney General can do anything about a Special Counsel that was appointed prior to him taking office. I'm pretty sure that was the idea behind making Durham a special counsel.

There could be other reprecussions for making a mistake besides being prosecuted.

There are. I've mentioned them multiple times. The repercussions are that you have to take the time to fill out additional paperwork explaining the mistake, and providing the correctr information. Remember, the only reason we are talking about this is because when I explained that the first time, you asked me if the creators of the form were joking when they said knowingly falsifying information would result in prosecution.

How was it widely reported? Are such back and forth between the FBI and a clearance applicant reported to the public by FBI officials?

Just for clarification, the FBI does not handle background checks and clearances. That is handled by a Central Adjudicating Facility, typically the Office of Personnel management, but there are others. It was actually a whistleblower who testified to congress about the situation.

No doubt Trump's lawyers would like to avoid having the media snarkily report that they "failed to include foreign contacts." Kushner has many more foreign contacts than a typical schmoe, as to most of Trump's attorneys. So, any such comparisons are downnright silly.

Of course he does. Which is why you would think that after being informed that your investigation was on hold because of contacts you failed to disclose, you would then ensure that you listed all of them on your response. You wouldn't think that it would take multiple attempts to get them all, and still have the adjudicators determine that because of the nature of some of your foreign contacts, you should not be granted a clearance.

And, I'm not sure what you mean by "any such comparisons." I wasn't comparing anything. I was pointing out a well publicized example of someone repeatedly making the same error on their form, and not facing any prosecution since you seemed convinced that making such an error would result in prosecution.

He's not required to testify against himself, even in order to testify against Trump. No better way to motivate him to stand on that right than to tie his fate to Trump's.

Of course he's not required to testify against himself or against Trump, never did I say (or imply) that he did. You stated, quite clearly, that since Nauta was a subordinate to Trump, the fact that he was following Trump's directives somehow meant that he and Trump were not equals in the criminal act. I pointed out that in order for that to be relevant, Nauta would have to make the claim that he was only following Trump's directive, which he did not do.

What would you hope would result from that?

I'm not sure what you are asking. I said that Nauta is free to not work with prosecutors and face whatever the trial brings. I have no "hope" of anything resulting from it. I would assume it would lead to a trial of Nauta, with evidence presented to the jury, and the jury making a decision on guilt or innocence.

Politically, prison for Nauta and letting Trump have house arrest would outrage both Reps and Dems, but most benefit Reps who have opposed the Weaponized Government. For the current leadership at DOJ and FBI, the election of almost any Republican who currently has a chance to win would be the end of their government positions. It would mean the appointment of special counsels to investigate them as well as more congressional hearings into their abuse of power.

Well...politically, there is no outcome, short of the DOJ admitting that this was politically motivated, and everyone in the leadership of the FBI, the DOJ, and the Attorney General all resigning that will not outrage Republicans. So, we'll focus on the rest. I don't think anyone will have an issue with Nauta being sentenced in accordance with the sentencing guidelines, in line with other individuals who have been convicted of the same charges; and Trump being sentenced in accordance with the sentencing guidelines, in line with other individuals who have been convicted of the same charges, and then the DOJ, defense, and court working out that due to the unique situation of Trump being a former president, he cannot be sent to a federal prison, and must be under some type of house arrest. I don't see anyone saying "Hey former president Trump only got house arrest, Nauta should get the same."

 

[brandon]

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.

So much ridiculous “in your feelings” talk plus your description of Dave couldn’t be further from the truth.

Yea, imagine my surprise when he calls me rational and @DaveXA childish.

Literally every other conservative poster has put me on ignore, lol.

 

[Snarky Sack]

So much ridiculous “in your feelings” talk

No clue what that means.

plus your description of Dave couldn’t be further from the truth.

Normally, Dave is a pretty rational poster who likes to have adult discussions. But in this quote:

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.

He seems like a petulant child. "Lap up all the crap?" "Orly Taitz?" Then, in post # 1377, he's back to his grownup self.

I get that when we find ourselves treading water in a debate, sometimes we get frustrated and lash out. That isn't weird. The weird thing is that it was Brandon who I was debating with when suddenly there was Dave being so angry. Brandon was doing fine, I thought.

Oh, well not a big deal at all. Only responding to you MT15 because another poster I dare not name slammed me for misstating your name. Apologies.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Yea, imagine my surprise when he calls me rational and @DaveXA childish.

Does it even matter that I called one post childish, not the Dave himself?

Literally every other conservative poster has put me on ignore, lol.

Can't imagine why. No sarcasm, I enjoy debating you.

But, I enjoy debating and discussing with all of you. I won't be on this board much longer, and I'll miss it.

 

[brandon]

Does it even matter that I called one post childish, not the Dave himself?

Doesn’t matter to me either way. I just thought it was humorous.

Can't imagine why. No sarcasm, I enjoy debating you.

Yea, I’m usually a bigger dick than I have been to you. Sorry for not giving you the full gamut of my white-hot rage-debating. It’s really something to behold.

You just haven’t pissed me off enough, which honestly, is a testament to the fact that I honestly do think you’ve been one of the better conservative posters here.

But, I enjoy debating and discussing with all of you. I won't be on this board much longer, and I'll miss it.

Do you need help? Seriously?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Doesn’t matter to me either way. I just thought it was humorous.


Yea, I’m usually a bigger dick than I have been to you. Sorry for not giving you the full gamut of my white-hot rage-debating. It’s really something to behold.

I'll wait for the next conservative to appear, or for me to finally set you off, then.

You just haven’t pissed me off enough, which honestly, is a testament to the fact that I honestly do think you’ve been one of the better conservative posters here.

TY, sir!

Do you need help? Seriously?

Oh no, nothing like that. I'm on a temporary break from another board (no, I was not banned). On July 10th, I'll be back there. I doubt I'd be able to keep up with two boards. I already get yelled at here for getting names wrong.

Posting on two boards, I'd tell a poster there "I already posted that!" when it was here, that kind of thing.

 

[MT15]

CNN has the audio tape that has been reported. I haven’t listened, but Dick Nixon says this:



I know Sack will swear this was leaked by Smith, but leaking it doesn’t help Smith at all. It helps Trump by getting it out there well in advance of the trial and tainting the jury pool which is what he’s been doing non-stop for weeks now.

Trump has had this tape from the beginning, his people were the source of the tape originally. They were recording him at his behest. It may have also been released as part of the first group of discovery documents.

 

[FullMonte]

CNN has the audio tape that has been reported. I haven’t listened, but Dick Nixon says this:



I know Sack will swear this was leaked by Smith, but leaking it doesn’t help Smith at all. It helps Trump by getting it out there well in advance of the trial and tainting the jury pool which is what he’s been doing non-stop for weeks now.

Trump has had this tape from the beginning, his people were the source of the tape originally. They were recording him at his behest. It may have also been released as part of the first group of discovery documents.

I'm wondering if the conversation was also recorded by the publishers of the book that were talking to Trump. It's possible that they are the ones who gave the audio to CNN.

I listened, and it clearly doesn't look good for Trump, and he sinks his "the PRA allows me to keep this stuff" argument in the recording because he says, directly that the document was prepared by the military. As such, it is not covered by the PRA.

 

[MT15]

According to what I have read, Trump had the recording made to help with a forthcoming book about him. Smith got it through a subpoena to Trump. But my memory could be faulty here.

 

[MT15]

 

[superchuck500]

CNN has the audio tape that has been reported. I haven’t listened, but Dick Nixon says this:



I know Sack will swear this was leaked by Smith, but leaking it doesn’t help Smith at all. It helps Trump by getting it out there well in advance of the trial and tainting the jury pool which is what he’s been doing non-stop for weeks now.

Trump has had this tape from the beginning, his people were the source of the tape originally. They were recording him at his behest. It may have also been released as part of the first group of discovery documents.

Highly, highly unlikely intentionally Smith leaked it - it's criminal evidence central to his case. This isn't an administrative investigation, a congressional hearing, or the nightly news, there's no way he leaked it.

But like you said, there are other potential sources. It's not clear how many copies of this recording are out there and who may have access to it.

 

[Snarky Sack]

CNN has the audio tape that has been reported. I haven’t listened, but Dick Nixon says this:



I know Sack will swear this was leaked by Smith, but leaking it doesn’t help Smith at all. It helps Trump by getting it out there well in advance of the trial and tainting the jury pool which is what he’s been doing non-stop for weeks now.

Trump has had this tape from the beginning, his people were the source of the tape originally. They were recording him at his behest. It may have also been released as part of the first group of discovery documents.

Well, I listened to the tape. Recommend you do also.

Many people could have leaked it, but Smith would not be a likely suspect. In fact, Trump is much more likely, but so is the publisher.

I agree about Trump tainting the jury pool. That stuff about how Hillary would have just printed it from her private email server? Then the joke about "to Anthony Weiner?" It will remind the jury of the DOJ's politicization. No doubt Smith would have wanted to play it without that part. Now, if he does, and pretends that part is not there, the Trumpers on the jury will know he's lying and won't hesitate to tell the others.

He's talking to journalists off the record? Good luck selling that as "espionage."

 

[superchuck500]

Well, I listened to the tape. Recommend you do also.

Many people could have leaked it, but Smith would not be a likely suspect. In fact, Trump is much more likely, but so is the publisher.

I agree about Trump tainting the jury pool. That stuff about how Hillary would have just emailed it from her private server? Then the joke about "to Anthony Weiner?" It will remind the jury of the DOJ's politicization. No doubt Smith would have wanted to play it without that part. Now, if he does, and pretends that part is not there, the Trumpers on the jury will know he's lying and won't hesitate to tell the others.

He's talking to journalists off the record? Good luck selling that as "espionage."

If it's in evidence in the state's case, the defense can use other parts of the recording in their case - they wouldn't have to rely on leaking it to CNN many months before the trial on the hopes that prospective jurors would remember it. Just play that part in the trial.

The recording was made in a chat with Trump by a writer and publisher working on a Mark Meadows memoir, with a Trump staffer present. It is unclear when the investigation obtained the recording and how many people had access to it before that. I think the most likely source of the leak is someone that had access to it before it was obtained by the investigation (which likely instructed the owner of the recording to treat it as criminal evidence).