Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (5 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]

Except for the fact that he’s not being subjected to a double standard at all. In fact, Trump has been given deference never showed to other people who did what he did.

 

[FullMonte]

I'll see a quote on that also, if you please. Some folks on here I'll just let it go if they make an unsupported claim like that because that is the convention on this board. But with you, I'm from Missouri.

Sure...no problem:
"I’ll say it with great respect: Number one, she’s not my type."
( https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/she-s-not-my-type-trump-says-e-jean-carroll-n1021331 )

Don't trust NBC News as a source? Here is Trump, himself, on video, under oath, confirming that he said it, and saying it again. (at the 3:10 mark)

Oh, wait. Don't waste your time on that one. I just re-read your claim and that interpretation is absurd.

Please explain. Trump said that E. Jean Carroll was not his type (phyiscally, according to his sworn deposition). Moments later, upon seeing a photo of Ms. Carroll, he identified her as his wife, Marla Maples. That leaves only two possible interpretations. He married Marla Maples, even though she was not his type, physically. Or, Carroll, was his type, phyiscally.

Or, do you have some other interpretation that makes sense.

Is Joe Biden's sister that he mistook for his wife, "his type?"

Ok, bad example maybe.

Who knows? Is he accused of sexually assaulting his sister, and did he use "she's not my type" as some kind of defense to show that he did not do so? If that is the case, then mistaking her for his wife would clearly bring his credibility in saying "she's not my type" into question.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Except for the fact that he’s not being subjected to a double standard at all. In fact, Trump has been given deference never showed to other people who did what he did.

Clinton was given lots of deference by Comey, who admitted in his book that it was because the polls were showing that she would be the next president.

The DOJ never deferred to the FBI for a charging decision on Trump.

 

[FullMonte]

Clinton was given lots of deference by Comey, who admitted in his book that it was because the polls were showing that she would be the next president.

The DOJ never deferred to the FBI for a charging decision on Trump.

Didn't the Attorney General appoint a Special Counsel to head the Trump investigation? Doesn't that Special Counsel make decisions on things like charging? Isn't a Special Counsel, by legal definition, independent of the DOJ/FBI?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Can you point to where the law says anything about the number of potential witnesses having any bearing on whether or not depositions are warranted? What about similar rulings in previous cases?

No, I never said that depositions will have to be held due to the large number of witnesses (not "potential witnesses," they have been named as witnesses by the DOJ, when Smith asked for their names to be sealed).

I said that the large number of witnesses make it more likely that one of them will have some life event that warrants a deposition.

 

[DaveXA]

No, I never said that depositions will have to be held due to the large number of witnesses (not "potential witnesses," they have been named as witnesses by the DOJ, when Smith asked for their names to be sealed).

I said that the large number of witnesses make it more likely that one of them will have some life event that warrants a deposition.

Put it this way. The kind of life events that warrant a deposition are rare enough that I wouldn't count on it happening at all, even with 100 people.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Sure...no problem:
"I’ll say it with great respect: Number one, she’s not my type."
( https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/she-s-not-my-type-trump-says-e-jean-carroll-n1021331 )

Don't trust NBC News as a source? Here is Trump, himself, on video, under oath, confirming that he said it, and saying it again. (at the 3:10 mark)

The tape shows him saying "she's not my type" which was him repeating under questioning a previous statement he made upon seeing a picture of her only. If he later identified that same picture as Marla Maples, your tape does not show it. Was it the same picture?

That video is date stamped October 19, 2022. Trump's wife at that time was named Melania Trump, I'm pretty sure.

Please explain. Trump said that E. Jean Carroll was not his type (phyiscally, according to his sworn deposition). Moments later, upon seeing a photo of Ms. Carroll, he identified her as his wife, Marla Maples. That leaves only two possible interpretations. He married Marla Maples, even though she was not his type, physically. Or, Carroll, was his type, phyiscally.

Or, do you have some other interpretation that makes sense.

Indeed I do. Since Marla Maples was his ex-wife at the time, it makes perfect sense that a woman who he thought looked like his ex-wife would not be his type.

Who knows? Is he accused of sexually assaulting his sister, and did he use "she's not my type" as some kind of defense to show that he did not do so? If that is the case, then mistaking her for his wife would clearly bring his credibility in saying "she's not my type" into question.

Your claim is based on the supposition that resemblance of a woman to a man's wife is enough proof that the woman she resembles is "his type," that any claim otherwise is perjury.

Based on Biden mistaking his sister for his wife, only two conclusions are possible:

Biden's sister is "his type," and if he said she isn't, he'd be lying.

or


Mistaking a woman for your wife does NOT prove that the woman is "your type."

Of course the whole thing is just silly since Maples is his ex-wife, not his wife.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Didn't the Attorney General appoint a Special Counsel to head the Trump investigation? Doesn't that Special Counsel make decisions on things like charging? Isn't a Special Counsel, by legal definition, independent of the DOJ/FBI?

I hope you're not seriously claiming that by appointing a special counsel, Garland was showing more deference to Trump than Loretta Lynch showed to H. Clinton by meeting with her husband on a plane held at the tarmac for the meeting and then passing the decision on the the FBI instead recusing herself.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Put it this way. The kind of life events that warrant a deposition are rare enough that I wouldn't count on it happening at all, even with 100 people.

Time will tell. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

 

[FullMonte]

The tape shows him saying "she's not my type" which was him repeating under questioning a previous statement he made upon seeing a picture of her only.

You are...really...really...really bad at this.

"and I said it and I say it with as much respect as I can but she is not my type" is repeating a statement he made previously, and confirming that he did make that statement previously.

"physically, she's not my type" is not repeating the statement he made previously. He is restating it again.

"and the only difference between me and other people is I'm honest, she's not my type" is again restating it, and not confirming that he did make that comment.

If he later identified that same picture as Marla Maples, your tape does not show it. Was it the same picture?

No. In the previous instance, they were discussing an interview he did, and during that interview, he told the interviewer that E. Jean Carroll was not his type. During his deposition, he was asked about a photo of him meeting Carroll in a receiving line. He was then shown a photo, and asked if that was the photo (of him meeting Carroll in the receiving line) that he referred to. He confirmed that it was, and then the attorney asked who the woman in the photo was (the photo he had just confirmed was a photo of him meeting Carroll in the receiving line). He responded by identifying Carroll's husband (by name), and then said "I don't even know the woman. I don't know who (points to the photo) It's Marla." The attorney asks if he sees Marla in the photo, and he says "That's Marla, yeah. That's my wife."


(Starts around the 45 second mark)

That video is date stamped October 19, 2022. Trump's wife at that time was named Melania Trump, I'm pretty sure.

Yes, she was. The photo they were discussing was taken back around the time the assault happened, when Trump was married to Marla Maples.

Indeed I do. Since Marla Maples was his ex-wife at the time, it makes perfect sense that a woman who he thought looked like his ex-wife would not be his type.

Except, that's not what happened. It makes zero sense to say that a woman who looks so much like your wife (at the time) that you can't tell them apart would not be your type physically.

Your claim is based on the supposition that resemblance of a woman to a man's wife is enough proof that the woman she resembles is "his type," that any claim otherwise is perjury.

No. It's based on the assumption that someone who says "she's not my type physically" and then confuses her for the woman he married is not credible. I didn't say anything about perjury.

Of course the whole thing is just silly since Maples is his ex-wife, not his wife.

Except that she was his wife at the time.

I hope you're not seriously claiming that by appointing a special counsel, Garland was showing more deference to Trump than Loretta Lynch showed to H. Clinton by meeting with her husband on a plane held at the tarmac for the meeting and then passing the decision on the the FBI instead recusing herself.

No, I didn't say anything like that. I said that, by definition, a special counsel is independent of the DOJ. You've spent a lot of time recently asking me to support my claims...so, now it's my turn. If you are saying that the Attorney General and/or the DOJ is somehow involved in what Jack Smith is doing, please provide your evidence to support that.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I'm going to go on record here to say that I believe it is more likely than not that there will indeed be depositions in this Trump Criminal case. True, that is not the usual procedure. But just as true, this is far from a usual case.

I have several reasons for believing that, but I think it is better just to watch it play out and see whether I am correct or not.

Since you have said multiple times that you are only going to be on this board for two more weeks, why make this declaration?

What purpose does it serve?

 

[LA - L.A.]

That's easy. COVID! Amirite?

Edit: And lol, didn't realize the answer is in the post.

C'mon man. You looked. You know you looked. Just kidding of course. I think I have COVID mental block, because that didn't even occur to me.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Have you ever been deposed? It’s not fun for the witness. I have probably prepped 75 witnesses for deposition - not one of them enjoyed it and some of them damn near had nervous breakdowns (in fairly inconsequential civil litigation). None of them was in the final stages of a chronic disease, that’s grotesque.

I've been deposed a couple of times and I second (third, forth, fifth and to infinity and beyond) what you said. It's stressful, because every word you say can cause real problems for someone else or yourself, even if you're being completely honest.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Since you have said multiple times that you are only going to be on this board for two more weeks, why make this declaration?

What purpose does it serve?

It serves no particular purpose other than carrying on the conversation about whether there will be depositions.

Tell you what, if the two weeks bothers you, I will come back to admit if I turn out to be wrong. Not like I'm banned in two weeks.

I voluntarily left another board for a month because I lost a bet. When my month is over, I'll go back and not have much time for this one. Or maybe I'll lurk and offer helpful comments from time to time. Probably not, though. I wouldn't want to be thought of a hit-and-run poster. Hit-and-run poker players are despised.

If anyone has any suggestions on whether I should go for good, or just post less often, or should just forget that other board and hang out witchall, feel free to speak up.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I've been deposed a couple of times and I second (third, forth, fifth and to infinity and beyond) what you said. It's stressful, because every word you say can cause real problems for someone else or yourself, even if you're being completely honest.

Here's what I hate about depositions, having videotape a few of them, and seen many of them on youtube and seen one presented once at a hearing: Depositions make anyone look guilty. It's very unnatural to see a person from one angle, with the camera in the same position for hours. Look at the camera and you look deranged. Look away from the camera and you look like your hiding something.

I've been on the witness chair in a case that was very important to me, and I was not uncomfortable at all. I was relieved to be telling my story and having my day in court. I was able to look at my lawyer, look at my family, look at the judge while answering questions. If I had been deposed, I'm sure I would have looked much worse than I did in person. Won my case in a slam dunk. Judge actually dressed down the attorney who brought the case in court.

I'd reserve depositions for foundational witnesses whose testimony will be so pat that the other side should probably stipulate to it, but refuses.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You are...really...really...really bad at this.

I think . . . that . . . I . . . will . . . just . . . ignore you.

Buh-bye.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Don’t hate the player . . .

That right there is the funniest thing I've heard in a while. I'm still laughing my arse off as I type this.

Very sincere thanks for that. It was much appreciated.

 

[efil4]

That right there is the funniest thing I've heard in a while. I'm still laughing my arse off as I type this.

Very sincere thanks for that. It was much appreciated.

I can honestly say it was not as funny at the time- my palms were sweating lolo.

Looking back now some 18 years, i can appreciate the camaraderie and professional ability for both sides. But being my first ever depo, w/ somewhat hostile plaintiff...meh.

The only other time i had that feeling was being interviewed by the FEDS ( in conjunction with an investigation into a former employer - like 8 years after my employment at that particular company ) THAT was insanely intimidating.