Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (4 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

 

[Snarky Sack]

You speak of thousands of classified documents that Hillary supposedly had. All I know about are 3 emails that had a “c” marking somewhere within the emails. None were marked classified. Later I believe some were deemed to be worthy of being classified, but I believe those were after further consideration.

That was the story, but it turned out that Clinton ordered staff to strip classified markings off of documents so they could be sent over nonsecure communication. So, it is much more likely that they were not later deemed worthy of being classified, but classified again for the same reason they had been classified before Clinton's staffers stripped the marking at her direction.

They were classified the whole time. Just taking a marking off does not render the information unclassified. If it did, Trump could have solved his classified document problem by having staff cut the markings off

They weren’t slam dunks. None were TS. Clinton did delete what she said were personal emails.

Would you have bought it if Trump said he had burned all of his "personal" documents? I dont' buy it from Hilary either.

Comparing her misdeed to Trump’s is like comparing someone who was speeding to someone driving recklessly multiple times the speed that Clinton was driving, getting caught, leading cops on a high speed chase, and then claiming he was being chased unlawfully.

The difference that the FBI did not do the equivalent of your metaphorical high-speed chase with Hillary as they did with Trump. It was more like the slow-motion, he-can-stop-when-he's-ready chase of O.J. Simpson.

Clinton withheld requested documents just like Trump did, but the DOJ let who they thought was the next president take her time, hand in what she herself deemed necessary to hand in, and even destroy some of the material that she decided to destroy. Then to make sure it never came out, she was allowed to hammer and bleach bit the devices.

Just like when the DNC servers were hacked, the FBI never subpoena'd the servers, but let the DNC use a private company to examine them.

It's not a two-tiered justice system, it is a multi-tiered justice system. While they held power, the Clintons were on the top tier.

 

[DaveXA]

That was the story, but it turned out that Clinton ordered staff to strip classified markings off of documents so they could be sent over nonsecure communication. So, it is much more likely that they were not later deemed worthy of being classified, but classified again for the same reason they had been classified before Clinton's staffers stripped the marking at her direction.

They were classified the whole time. Just taking a marking off does not render the information unclassified. If it did, Trump could have solved his classified document problem by having staff cut the markings off

There's not a shred of evidence for this claim. None whatsoever.

Would you have bought it if Trump said he had burned all of his "personal" documents? I dont' buy it from Hilary either.

The difference that the FBI did not do the equivalent of your metaphorical high-speed chase with Hillary as they did with Trump. It was more like the slow-motion, he-can-stop-when-he's-ready chase of O.J. Simpson.

Clinton withheld requested documents just like Trump did, but the DOJ let who they thought was the next president take her time, hand in what she herself deemed necessary to hand in, and even destroy some of the material that she decided to destroy. Then to make sure it never came out, she was allowed to hammer and bleach bit the devices.

Just like when the DNC servers were hacked, the FBI never subpoena'd the servers, but let the DNC use a private company to examine them.

It's not a two-tiered justice system, it is a multi-tiered justice system. While they held power, the Clintons were on the top tier.

Lol. Your conspiracy theories are precious.

 

[SaintForLife]

I did expect them, and I was fine with them. This is not my first message board, so no virgin ears were defiled by the cacophony of attacks. But they were not the respectful posts that you describe them as, including one of them you might recognize.

Comey acted to help Comey first, last and always. He closed the investigation anticipating that Clinton would win the election, and he re-opened it and announced the re-opening to avoid being accused of hiding the fact that he had re-opened it from Congress.

He really had no choice but re-open the investigation once they found that Hillary's classified emails had been spread even to the laptop of Anthony "Richard Pics" Wiener. You're right that it may well have been a deciding factor in Trump winning. But he had set himself for that. Not doing that would have ended his career when it came out, even if Clinton was president by then.

Comey's inappropriate act was to close the investigation before he tracked down all of her inappropriately sent documents. He did it, not to help Clinton win, but because he was sure that she would win, as he said in his book.

Maybe he thought he would never be able to find them all, so just wrap it up and wait for President Clinton 2.0. But he was in it for himself alone.

Your frustration is that you think you have these killer arguments that I'll never be able to refute, but then I refute them. So you start in on talking about how I post. Talk about the way I post all you like, call me as many names as you like. But if you compare me to non-existent respectful posters on here, I'm going to call you on it.

Well, it looks like some things never change around here. Sorry Snark, but what you are describing are many posters normal behavior toward anyone who is a Trump supporter or even someone that supporters some of Trump’s policies or views. They also treat many conservatives that way too.

There have been many idiotic conservatives who posted here in the past who posted nothing worthwhile or crazy things. Nobody misses those kinds of posters. But they've also run off many reasonable conservative posters.

If you are a Trump supporter or you have supported any Trump policies & if they can't get you to change your mind about Trump then they get personal and the insults start flying.

You seem like a very reasonable person, but I'm not surprised how they interact with you. It's a normal pattern with them. They want this to be an echo chamber of people who despise Trump and the Republican Party.

 

[Lapaz]

That was the story, but it turned out that Clinton ordered staff to strip classified markings off of documents so they could be sent over nonsecure communication. So, it is much more likely that they were not later deemed worthy of being classified, but classified again for the same reason they had been classified before Clinton's staffers stripped the marking at her direction.

They were classified the whole time. Just taking a marking off does not render the information unclassified. If it did, Trump could have solved his classified document problem by having staff cut the markings off

Would you have bought it if Trump said he had burned all of his "personal" documents? I dont' buy it from Hilary either.

The difference that the FBI did not do the equivalent of your metaphorical high-speed chase with Hillary as they did with Trump. It was more like the slow-motion, he-can-stop-when-he's-ready chase of O.J. Simpson.

Clinton withheld requested documents just like Trump did, but the DOJ let who they thought was the next president take her time, hand in what she herself deemed necessary to hand in, and even destroy some of the material that she decided to destroy. Then to make sure it never came out, she was allowed to hammer and bleach bit the devices.

Just like when the DNC servers were hacked, the FBI never subpoena'd the servers, but let the DNC use a private company to examine them.

It's not a two-tiered justice system, it is a multi-tiered justice system. While they held power, the Clintons were on the top tier.

Where is the proof that Hillary ordered the classified markings to be removed? I’ve never heard that. I seriously doubt that, otherwise I think she would’ve been prosecuted, since that is knowingly mishandling.

She didn’t withhold documents that were knowingly classified, unless you can prove the aforementioned.

Trump was given more than a year to return the documents. That is far more slowly. I agree that the system isn’t fair to the Clinton’s, otherwise Hillary would’ve probably won the presidency, since Comey’s announcement probably lost her enough votes to throw it to Trump.

Almost all of Hillary’s emails have been recovered from the people that she sent them to and they were mostly what she claimed they were. Trump may have cost lives with his reckless behavior. Hillary’s were about State Department discussions with other state leaders that didn’t risk anyone’s life.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Well, it looks like some things never change around here. Sorry Snark, but what you are describing are many posters normal behavior toward anyone who is a Trump supporter or even someone that supporters some of Trump’s policies or views. They also treat many conservatives that way too.

There have been many idiotic conservatives who posted here in the past who posted nothing worthwhile or crazy things. Nobody misses those kinds of posters. But they've also run off many reasonable conservative posters.

If you are a Trump supporter or you have supported any Trump policies & if they can't get you to change your mind about Trump then they get personal and the insults start flying.

You seem like a very reasonable person, but I'm not surprised how they interact with you. It's a normal pattern with them. They want this to be an echo chamber of people who despise Trump and the Republican Party.

Thank you.

I think they say to me all the things they would like to say to Trump.

At least they aren't posting video of themselves cutting off my head in effigy like that has-been stand-up comic did to Trump.

 

[DaveXA]

Well, it looks like some things never change around here. Sorry Snark, but what you are describing are many posters normal behavior toward anyone who is a Trump supporter or even someone that supporters some of Trump’s policies or views. They also treat many conservatives that way too.

There have been many idiotic conservatives who posted here in the past who posted nothing worthwhile or crazy things. Nobody misses those kinds of posters. But they've also run off many reasonable conservative posters.

If you are a Trump supporter or you have supported any Trump policies & if they can't get you to change your mind about Trump then they get personal and the insults start flying.

You seem like a very reasonable person, but I'm not surprised how they interact with you. It's a normal pattern with them. They want this to be an echo chamber of people who despise Trump and the Republican Party.

Persecution complex much?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Where is the proof that Hillary ordered the classified markings to be removed? I’ve never heard that. I seriously doubt that, otherwise I think she would’ve been prosecuted, since that is knowingly mishandling.

No, she was not. Due to her place in the multi-tiered justice system.

Did Hillary Clinton ask aides to strip classified markings off a document? - Washington Examiner

Hillary Clinton apparently demanded members of her staff strip the classified markings from a set of seemingly classified talking points after aides had trouble sending the talking points using secure fax. In an email made public early Friday morning, Clinton asked one of her top advisers, Jake...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

"They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it," Sullivan wrote in June 2011 after learning an unspecified party hadn't sent the requested documents the previous evening, as they were supposed to have done.

"If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure," Clinton replied.

Official: Clinton ‘inner circle’ may have stripped email classification markings

The latest revelations about top secret information traversing Hillary Clinton's private email server have triggered accusations that someone in her "inner circle" likely stripped the classification markings, illegally.

www.foxnews.com

But a State Department official told Fox News that the intelligence community inspector general, who raised the most recent concerns about Clinton's emails, made clear that at least one of those messages contained information that only could have come from the intelligence community.

"If so, they would have had to come in with all the appropriate classification markings," the official said.

The official questioned whether someone, then, tampered with that message. "omewhere between the point they came into the building and the time they reached HRC's server, someone would have had to strip the classification markings from that information before it was transmitted to HRC's personal email."​

She didn’t withhold documents that were knowingly classified, unless you can prove the aforementioned.

We know she withheld documents and destroyed them, and we know that there were classified documents among the documents that she did return. We can't prove that the documents that she destroyed included classified document because they were destroyed before anyone got to examine them. That is why people destroy evidence.

Trump was given more than a year to return the documents. That is far more slowly. I agree that the system isn’t fair to the Clinton’s, otherwise Hillary would’ve probably won the presidency, since Comey’s announcement probably lost her enough votes to throw it to Trump.

See my reply above about Comey.

Almost all of Hillary’s emails have been recovered from the people that she sent them to and they were mostly what she claimed they were. Trump may have cost lives with his reckless behavior. Hillary’s were about State Department discussions with other state leaders that didn’t risk anyone’s life.

You have to be kidding. Sending classified documents to the laptop of Anthony (the) Weiner didn't risk anyone's life, but Trump keeping classified documents in his fortress-like home did?

I'd love to see you connect the dots on both of those.

EDIT: I don't know what all that strike through is about. I didn't put it there.

 

[Lapaz]

No, she was not. Due to her place in the multi-tiered justice system.

Did Hillary Clinton ask aides to strip classified markings off a document? - Washington Examiner

Hillary Clinton apparently demanded members of her staff strip the classified markings from a set of seemingly classified talking points after aides had trouble sending the talking points using secure fax. In an email made public early Friday morning, Clinton asked one of her top advisers, Jake...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

"They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it," Sullivan wrote in June 2011 after learning an unspecified party hadn't sent the requested documents the previous evening, as they were supposed to have done.

"If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure," Clinton replied.

Official: Clinton ‘inner circle’ may have stripped email classification markings

The latest revelations about top secret information traversing Hillary Clinton's private email server have triggered accusations that someone in her "inner circle" likely stripped the classification markings, illegally.

www.foxnews.com

But a State Department official told Fox News that the intelligence community inspector general, who raised the most recent concerns about Clinton's emails, made clear that at least one of those messages contained information that only could have come from the intelligence community.

"If so, they would have had to come in with all the appropriate classification markings," the official said.

The official questioned whether someone, then, tampered with that message. "omewhere between the point they came into the building and the time they reached HRC's server, someone would have had to strip the classification markings from that information before it was transmitted to HRC's personal email."​

We know she withheld documents and destroyed them, and we know that there were classified documents among the documents that she did return. We can't prove that the documents that she destroyed included classified document because they were destroyed before anyone got to examine them. That is why people destroy evidence.

See my reply above about Comey.

You have to be kidding. Sending classified documents to the laptop of Anthony (the) Weiner didn't risk anyone's life, but Trump keeping classified documents in his fortress-like home did?

I'd love to see you connect the dots on both of those.

EDIT: I don't know what all that strike through is about. I didn't put it there.

A lot of speculation, but no proof of anything you’ve said. Like I said, most of the emails have been recovered. Your supposition must be that the only ones that weren’t recoverable were the classified documents, but she destroyed the rest of the unclassified documents that were later recovered.

The bottom line is that there isn’t any evidence of intentionally mishandling classified documents against Hillary, but Trump absolutely did. MaraLargo is not a fortress, especially when Trump is not there. Those documents were insecure much of the time. That’s extremely dangerous. Sending State Department emails, like Powell and other previous State Department heads have done, was FAR less dangerous.

 

[FullMonte]

My perception that saintamananiac is your sock comes from his immediate and wordy post right after I said that I was ignoring you. I don't care if you use a sock or not other than what I mentioned above and admitted was a flaw in my personality.

The fact that you are still implying that you believe that I am using a false name to converse with you defies description.

I enjoy discussing issues with you, if you don't veer into personal insults, which as far as I know was a one-time thing with you.

If you think me saying you are "bad at this" when you ignored the multiple times that Trump repeated his claim that Carroll is not his type, and tried to claim that he was simply confirming that he did, in fact, say that previous is an insult...there isn't much else I can say.

If you ever want to get back to politics, I'm here for nine more days.

Naaa...I'm good.

 

[Snarky Sack]

The fact that you are still implying that you believe that I am using a false name to converse with you defies description.

I've agreed not to talk about that anymore about you or anyone else, so that we could get back to talking about the issues.

If you think me saying you are "bad at this" when you ignored the multiple times that Trump repeated his claim that Carroll is not his type, and tried to claim that he was simply confirming that he did, in fact, say that previous is an insult...there isn't much else I can say.

Naaa...I'm good.

Alright, then. You showed your lack of interest in talking about issues when you made it personal, so I'm not surprised.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

There have been many idiotic conservatives who posted here in the past who posted nothing worthwhile or crazy things. Nobody misses those kinds of posters. But they've also run off many reasonable conservative posters.

Still are a few, I suspect.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Are you yet again implying that there are alts on this board?

Yes they are and it's as ridiculous as someone claiming @Snarky Sack & @SaintForLife are the same person.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Sack has accused several posters of having multiple screen names. He used the term sock puppets with me. I ignored his accusations toward me. I don’t know nor care about his motives, but I suggest everyone ignore those accusations and just address substantive elements of his posts. Addressing those accusations diverts attention from discussing substantive topics.

I agree. If everyone reports people when they violate the rules, then repeat violators won't last long.

Not responding to repeat violators also avoids farther littering the board with nonsense.

ETA: I edited my post to remove an unnecessary, snarky remark that I directed at someone. The snarky remark also muddied my true intention which is what is posted above.

 

[LA - L.A.]

To my fellow liberals:

Don’t mistake a failure to convince @Snarky Sack of your position, or his weak arguments in general, as hostility.

My honest assessment of the situation is that we’ve been a lot less hospitable towards what amounts to a reasonable Trump voter than he’s been towards us.

His arguments aren’t going to start getting consistent or rational no matter how much that bothers you, but you have to remember that that’s because being a Trump supporter at this point is not a rational position to hold.

It’s necessary as a Trump voter to suspend rationality. All you can ask from a Trump voter is for a reasonable measure of civility when he makes his arguments, and he’s given that.

Feel free to point out logical fallacies and inconsistent positions, but don’t assume that that should be enough to change his position, as being a Trump voter is not and has not been based in logic and consistency. It shouldn’t offend you that he wasn’t convinced by your otherwise completely convincing argument, because anyone voting for Trump at this point has fended off any number of rational arguments.

Any argument that causes any level of cognitive dissonance is just completely ignored, which we’ve seen multiple times. It’s not intentionally disingenuous posting. It’s just what is required to continue holding on to his belief system.

So enjoy winning a few points against a sparring partner who honestly has been a lot better than the conservative posters we’ve had before.

(Did I manage to offend everyone?)

I think this is spot on about the behavioral dynamics of those who still staunchly support Trump. I know it's true for both of my sisters.

I would add that another common trait is that, they have sincerely convinced themselves that anyone who disagrees with them is persecuting them solely for supporting Trump. The more someone provides objective facts to support their disagreements, the more it seems like persecution to them.

It's not their fault really. They truly can't see what they are doing, so there's no way they can stop doing it. We just have to remind ourselves not to take their personal swipes personally and not get drawn into their dynamic.

Don't let the Chihuahuas drag you down.

 

[brandon]

Still are a few, I suspect.

Surely you enjoy a good Greenwald Twitter dump as much as the rest of us, right?

 

[Snarky Sack]

I agree. If everyone reports people when they violate the rules, then repeat violators won't last long.

Not responding to repeat violators also avoids farther littering the board with nonsense.

Yes, I recommend that everyone follow the rules and debate with a high level of civility.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I think this is spot on about the behavioral dynamics of those who still staunchly support Trump. I know it's true for both of my sisters.

I would add that another common trait is that, they have sincerely convinced themselves that anyone who disagrees with them is persecuting them solely for supporting Trump. The more someone provides objective facts to support their disagreements, the more it seems like persecution to them.

It's not their fault really. They truly can't see what they are doing, so there's no way they can stop doing it. We just have to remind ourselves not to take their personal swipes personally and not get drawn into their dynamic.

Don't let the Chihuahuas drag you down.

Isn't this the thread about the Trump indictment?

If you really insist on obsessing over snarky sack, even after recommending to your colleagues that they ignore me, shouldn't you start a new thread called Snarky Sucks or whatever?

I don't know if that would violate the terms of service.. at least it would leave threads like this to the grown ups.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Isn't this the thread about the Trump indictment?

If you really insist on obsessing over snarky sack, even after recommending to your colleagues that they ignore me, shouldn't you start a new thread called Snarky Sucks or whatever?

I don't know if that would violate the terms of service.. at least it would leave dreads like this to the grown ups.

Been there. Experienced that.
This is what they do.
They focused on me....and now they've set their sites on you.
Numerous times I tried to redirect their posts OFF of ME and onto the SUBJECT.
Alas, at times it was wasted efforts on my part.
One person, I think @brandon, mentioned correctly that you do NOT participate in personal attacks. He (I believe) stated that he feels you are wrong but gave you some credit for being issue focused.
I agree.