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

 

[Snarky Sack]

I agree but you are arguing that trump shouldn't even be accused of doing what he has admitted to doing. He's publicly admitted he took documents multiple times. He's publicly stated that he has the right to them when the laws of our country clearly state that he does not.

That is what the prosecutors will have to prove.

They will also need to show criminal intent which will be hard with him announcing loudly that he believed he had the right to do it.

He has stated publicly that he could declassify documents by thinking about it and he cannot.

Then why did the prosecutor not charge him for mishandling classified documents?

You can support trump all you want. You can even deny his guilt. What you can't do is deny his own words and expect to be taken seriously.

No one who supports Trump will be taken seriously on this board as anything but a target for attacks. I'm fine with that, but at least be honest.

 

[SaintForLife]

Ah, more making stuff up I see. You are free to rebut a source, even the WP. And people can rebut yours. If you can't take the heat...

As you said in the previos post:

"Either quote whoever said that or gtfo."

Show me anyone that has complained about Optimus Washington Post dumps or gtfo. You guys always complain about mine, but are silent about his.

I could care less what he posts. I'm just showing you guys obvious hypocrisy.

 

[Saintamaniac]

No one who supports Trump will be taken seriously on this board as anything but a target for attacks. I'm fine with that, but at least be honest.

Once again, it is not you who are the target of attacks. It is your support for a known liar. That support requires you to make false statements or obfuscate the truth in order to support trump. In that aspect, your false statements and obfuscation of facts will be attacked and it will be attacked with the truth whether you agree with it or not.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Show me anyone that has complained about Optimus Washington Post dumps or gtfo. You guys always complain about mine, but are silent about his.

I could care less what he posts. I'm just showing you guys obvious hypocrisy.

Instead of turning to whataboutism how about quoting whoever said that. Once you do that, then you can turn to whataboutism to show hypocrisy.

 

[DaveXA]

As you said in the previos post:

"Either quote whoever said that or gtfo."

And you still haven't quoted anyone saying it.

Show me anyone that has complained about Optimus Washington Post dumps or gtfo. You guys always complain about mine, but are silent about his.

What is there to say about his? You haven't said anything about it until now. Why would someone else say anything about it? People aren't questioning you posting articles. They're questioning the credibility of the writers or publishers.

I could care less what he posts. I'm just showing you guys obvious hypocrisy.

You clearly care enough to keep beating this drum.

 

[SaintForLife]

This is just not true. Either quote whoever said that or gtfo.

And the rules apply to everyone, period.

https://madaboutpolitics.com/threads/capitol-riot-arrests.110947/post-261139

They did not shut down the global economy because of a virus.

They probably did it because their financial system is on life support and they needed an excuse. The only way for them to continue to stay in power is with something that has even more control over us. Like Chinas social credit surveillance for example + a 100% digital currency. And also a much...

madaboutpolitics.com

https://madaboutpolitics.com/thread...-and-voting-rights-efforts.117006/post-349006

 

[SaintForLife]

If you're a Trump supporter, you better have a thick skin if you're gonna post here. Maybe that's not fair, but most here can't stand Trump. That's why I've said more than a few times to focus on the issues and leave your personal attacks at the door. People attacking your posts will feel like personal attacks, but they're not. You can attack the source of a post if you find the source not credible, but personally attacking another poster is a no go.

Most of the Trump supporters who have been banned were for valid reasons. Several Democrat posters have been banned as well for the same reasons.

The whining is old though. You've been here long enough to know what to expect.

Oh I know exactly what to expect. I brought it up because you guys were gaslighting to Snark claiming how you guys treat Trump supporters here.

 

[DaveXA]

Oh I know exactly what to expect. I brought it up because you guys were gaslighting to Snark claiming how you guys treat Trump supporters here.

He gaslit himself more than anything else tho.

And I can't help it if Trump supporters are viewed the way they are. Posting history contributes to that.

 

[DaveXA]

https://madaboutpolitics.com/threads/capitol-riot-arrests.110947/post-261139

They did not shut down the global economy because of a virus.

They probably did it because their financial system is on life support and they needed an excuse. The only way for them to continue to stay in power is with something that has even more control over us. Like Chinas social credit surveillance for example + a 100% digital currency. And also a much...

madaboutpolitics.com

https://madaboutpolitics.com/thread...-and-voting-rights-efforts.117006/post-349006

RG was straight up a troll. The creating an alt quip was more a joke than anything serious. He stopped posting over 2 years ago.

Iirc, Peace was actually an alt and was banned for that reason. So....

 

[DaveXA]

Regardless, this has been hashed and rehashed before. Let's move on.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Are you saying that the justice system isn't supposed to go by precedents?

I'm saying that my understanding, and I could be wrong because I'm not a lawyer, is that case law is based on precedent. An indictment isn't based on case law as there is no case until someone is brought to court, tried and convicted or acquitted.

So unless I'm wrong, and I could very well be, what is the case law for Trump not being indicted for the crimes he has confessed to in public?

 

[Snarky Sack]

I'm saying that my understanding, and I could be wrong because I'm not a lawyer, is that case law is based on precedent. An indictment isn't based on case law as there is no case until someone is brought to court, tried and convicted or acquitted.

Which Hillary was not, and part of Comey's justification for that was that such a case had never been prosecuted before. Why would not the same apply to Trump?

So unless I'm wrong, and I could very well be, what is the case law for Trump not being indicted for the crimes he has confessed to in public?

False premise. Trump never confessed to any crime. In fact, Trump has stated over and over that it is legal to do what he did. That will be the main line of his defense, I believe. I could be wrong about that also.

But I'm not sure what his defense would be except "what I did was legal," and as evidence, "HRC did something very similar and was not even prosecuted, much less convicted," and "no current or former president has ever been prosecuted for retaining documents."

I guess you could say that the lack of precedent is the precedent in that presidents are not prosecuted for taking documents out of the White House, even if they technically violate some of the rules.

Violation of the Presidential Records Act carry no criminal penalties, not even a fine that you would get if you kept a library book past due date.

So the prosecutors are relying on Trump's reaction after being subpoena'd, not on the fact that he had classified documents that he would claim to have declassified, and not on the fact that he had documents at all.

Trump will indeed use the hated "buttery males" defense, and it will work with some members of the jury.

Counts 1 - 31 are for "willful retention of national defense information," i.e. talking documents out of the White House. In other words, doing what every president before him did, and even a Senator, that we know of (and so will the jury).

Counts 32 - 37 are repetitive claims that Trump unlawfully concealed information and lied. This is a crime that could not have been possible if Trump had been treated the same as Hillary by being allowed to pick and choose what he returned and what he destroyed. I'm not sure what direct evidence they will have that "Trump lied."

 

[J-DONK]

https://madaboutpolitics.com/threads/capitol-riot-arrests.110947/post-261139

They did not shut down the global economy because of a virus.

They probably did it because their financial system is on life support and they needed an excuse. The only way for them to continue to stay in power is with something that has even more control over us. Like Chinas social credit surveillance for example + a 100% digital currency. And also a much...

madaboutpolitics.com

https://madaboutpolitics.com/thread...-and-voting-rights-efforts.117006/post-349006

I want to point out that cataloging comments people made about previous conservatives users is weird. Who does that?

 

[DaveXA]

Which Hillary was not, and part of Comey's justification for that was that such a case had never been prosecuted before. Why would not the same apply to Trump?

Because they're absolutely not the same thing, no matter how many times you bring it up, so stop wasting everyone's time with the Hilary nonsense. The same doesn't apply to Trump because, well, they're not the same.

False premise. Trump never confessed to any crime. In fact, Trump has stated over and over that it is legal to do what he did. That will be the main line of his defense, I believe. I could be wrong about that also.

Except, the problem for Trump is he's trying to say what's legal is actually in fact illegal. The jury and judge aren't going to care whether he thought it was legal. They're gonna go by the evidence presented by the defense and prosecution. And, whether Trump testifies is questionable at this point.

But I'm not sure what his defense would be except "what I did was legal," and as evidence, "HRC did something very similar and was not even prosecuted, much less convicted," and "no current or former president has ever been prosecuted for retaining documents."

I guess you could say that the lack of precedent is the precedent in that presidents are not prosecuted for taking documents out of the White House, even if they technically violate some of the rules.

I guess we'll find out how the jury and judge sees it.

Violation of the Presidential Records Act carry no criminal penalties, not even a fine that you would get if you kept a library book past due date.

The PRA isnt relevant to the charges outlined in the indictment as far as i can tell. I'm not sure why it's being referenced.

So the prosecutors are relying on Trump's reaction after being subpoena'd, not on the fact that he had classified documents that he would claim to have declassified, and not on the fact that he had documents at all.

Trump will indeed use the hated "buttery males" defense, and it will work with some members of the jury.

I'd be surprised if any juror gives any weight to the Clinton emails case because it has nothing to do with Trump's case, and I'd hope Trump's lawyers are smart enough to see that. Actually, I hope they do bring it, it will only help the prosecution.

Counts 1 - 31 are for "willful retention of national defense information," i.e. talking documents out of the White House. In other words, doing what every president before him did, and even a Senator, that we know of (and so will the jury).

Counts 32 - 37 are repetitive claims that Trump unlawfully concealed information and lied. This is a crime that could not have been possible if Trump had been treated the same as Hillary by being allowed to pick and choose what he returned and what he destroyed. I'm not sure what direct evidence they will have that "Trump lied."

Eh, that will be settled in court.

 

[DaveXA]

I want to point out that cataloging comments people made about previous conservatives users is weird. Who does that?

To be fair I asked him to show where people accused two posters of being alt accounts. Maybe he had them ready, which indeed would be odd, or he had an idea of where to look. Idk. But anyway, we need to let this go and move on cuz it's all getting circular.

 

[bird]

I'm saying that my understanding, and I could be wrong because I'm not a lawyer, is that case law is based on precedent. An indictment isn't based on case law as there is no case until someone is brought to court, tried and convicted or acquitted.

So unless I'm wrong, and I could very well be, what is the case law for Trump not being indicted for the crimes he has confessed to in public?

Welp, I just served a term on a grand jury. Without offering details an Indictment is approved after hearing testimony from law enforcement only. The vote does not have to be unanimous and the burden of proof is simply a majority of believability, 50.1 percent. A petit or trial jury requires beyond a reasonable doubt and unanimity. The potential reason for indictments not being issued for Trump would probably be the prosecutor not thinking that there is enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt or that they are gathering more evidence.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Counts 1 - 31 are for "willful retention of national defense information," i.e. talking documents out of the White House. In other words, doing what every president before him did, and even a Senator, that we know of (and so will the jury).

Provide ONE example of any POTUS or Senator WILFULLY retaining National Defense Information.

Yes, there are two recent examples of past VP's retaining documents, but there's no evidence that they did so willfully. Once they discovered that they had such documents, they reported it and arranged for there return. On the other hand, once it was brought to trump's attention that he has retained the the property of the US Government and was asked to return it, he choose to ignore the request.

Trump put himself in legal jeopardy with the actions he took to retain those items. He went from simply retaining National Defense Information to WILLFULLY National Defense Information.

will·ful ˈwil-fəl

variants or wilful
Synonyms of willful
1
: obstinately and often perversely self-willed
a stubborn and willful child


2
: done deliberately : INTENTIONAL
willful disobedience


willfully
ˈwil-fə-lē
adverb
willfulness noun

 

[Snarky Sack]

Provide ONE example of any POTUS or Senator WILFULLY retaining National Defense Information.

Biden had boxes of classified information in his garage leftover from his days as VP.

Yes, there are two recent examples of past VP's retaining documents, but there's no evidence that they did so willfully. Once they discovered that they had such documents, they reported it and arranged for there return. On the other hand, once it was brought to trump's attention that he has retained the the property of the US Government and was asked to return it, he choose to ignore the request.

So did Clinton, and she actually destroyed some of it.

Trump put himself in legal jeopardy with the actions he took to retain those items. He went from simply retaining National Defense Information to WILLFULLY National Defense Information.

Same arguments, same back and forth.

I'll wait to see what the jury sees.