Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (2 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]

Sack is conflating things. He keeps saying Trump isn’t accused of mishandling classified documents as if that is some big “gotcha” of some sort, but there’s a good reason for that and it’s not what he thinks.

If I understand it correctly, and I will look for an article here in a minute, the statute Trump is charged under doesn’t mention classification status of national defense documents because the statute pre-dates the establishment of the classification system.

So to say the government isn’t charging him with mishandling classified documents is true, but not really accurate. It has no meaning to the charges, but rest assured those documents were classified.

My point was that if the documents were classified, why would Trump not be charged with mishandling classified documents? They are not, which is both true and accurate.

For some reason, after all the hoopla about "mishandling classified material," that is no longer a thing. I think it is fair to ask why.

The jury will certainly be wondering. It was the DOJ who put out the "shocking" (staged) pictures of classified document covers purportedly having classified documents under them.

Due to Trump’s vanity, we also have a recording of him admitting he knew they were classified, and knew he could have declassified them while he was president, and acknowledging that he did not. All done while showing this one document off to random people at Bedminster.

You sure they were "random?" I thought they were journalists to whom he was speaking off the record.

A classified document that Trump’s lawyers cannot find at this point.

Link?

Defense of this is just so foolish on so many levels, it boggles the mind.

Meaningless invective.

 

[Saintamaniac]

I'm not going to agree to toss out parts of the argument Trump can make to defend himself because they make you uncomfortable.

Whataboutism has never been used to get out of being charged or convicted of a crime. It is nonsensical. But if that is all you have then so be it I guess. Be prepared to see your orange god convicted of the charges against him.

That argument makes since if the charges are for having classified documents and not "national security documents." You could make the case that Trump knew they were classified, and knew he had no security clearance.

You - Saintamaniac - could make that case, but apparently the DOJ cannot, because that is not what they charged him with. So, that point is moot.

So you are saying here that you don't believe that national security documents are classified in any sense and that you or any other regular American citizen can take national security documents and view them, keep them or show them to anyone you feel like? Because if that's not what you are saying, you are acknowledging that he had no right to have them. THAT is the charge against him.

I'm saying that some of those documents, NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS, may have been classified.

But . . . if he kept them because he thought that he had a right to keep them, that is not a guilty person's move. That would eliminate criminal intent. Which was an important reason given for not prosecuting you know who.

"Your honor. I thought that girl really meant yes go ahead and have sex with me when she no please stop several times." Yeah, I think that would work just as well as "Your honor, I thought I had every right to keep those files despite the law actually saying the opposite."

It's apparent that you will go to no end in a failed attempt to defend trump. I love Barack Obama. I shed tears the night he was elected. If this were him instead of trump, I would again shed a tear because a man that I admired and looked up to had so disappointed me and made me look foolish for ever putting so much faith in trust in him. I would truly be embarrassed because I know that someone I thought was the real deal had deceived me in such a manner. My conscience and my pride in myself would not allow me to stoop so low as to deny reality to defend the indefensible. I guess we all have our own standards.

As I said previously, I am not trying to change your mind in your support of trump. What I will do is point out every fallacy and every false equivolency you trot out in a failed attempt at defending the indefensible. You can count on that.

 

[MT15]

My point was that if the documents were classified, why would Trump not be charged with mishandling classified documents? They are not, which is both true and accurate.

For some reason, after all the hoopla about "mishandling classified material," that is no longer a thing. I think it is fair to ask why.

The jury will certainly be wondering. It was the DOJ who put out the "shocking" (staged) pictures of classified document covers purportedly having classified documents under them.



You sure they were "random?" I thought they were journalists to whom he was speaking off the record.

Link?

Meaningless invective.

Are you claiming the documents are not classified? After we have a recording of Trump acknowledging one that is classified?

It was reported at the time. The defense doesn’t know where the document is, and it appears to not be among those recovered at Mar-a-Lago, which makes sense because he had it at Bedminster.

“Multiple sources familiar with the investigation previously told CBS News that defense attorneys were not certain the Iran memo in question was ever recovered and returned to the government.”

Iran memo not among the 31 records underlying charges in Trump federal indictment

Former President Donald Trump was heard in a July 2021 meeting discussing "highly confidential" information he admitted he could no longer declassify.

www.cbsnews.com

Here is why a lot of legal analysts think the DOJ charged Trump under statutes that don’t depend on the classification status of the documents. Trump was always going to say he declassified them, even say he could do it by thinking about it. Even though that is a ridiculous argument, and is not valid at all, charging him the way they did just takes that whole sidebar off the table. The case will not be sidetracked with that.

The tape of him saying he knew he didn’t declassify the Iran document wasn’t known to them at the time they charged him. And it well may be the source of additional charges in NJ in the very near future.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I use the standard definition of willful, but I'm sure there is some legalistic definition that I'm not aware of, so I'm not going to venture a guess on that.

Does Merriam-Webster work?

willful
adjective
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

As to how to prove willfulness:

I would say/guess that if the prosecution could prove that Trump kept documents in order to conceal the fact that he had them in the first place, that would legally be considered evidence that he knew he was breaking the law.

But . . . if he kept them because he thought that he had a right to keep them, that is not a guilty person's move. That would eliminate criminal intent. Which was an important reason given for not prosecuting you know who.

What does criminal intent have to do with willfulness?

I'm just guessing. If someone can show me that I'm wrong about that standard, I'll be happy to learn. Sorry, but it would need to be "show me," not "tell me."

Your track record does not indicate this willingness to learn. You've been shown, for example, that these charges have nothing to do with the Presidential Records, yet you keep bringing it up.

 

[Snarky Sack]

So you are saying here that you don't believe that national security documents are classified in any sense and that you or any other regular American citizen can take national security documents and view them, keep them or show them to anyone you feel like?

Nooooo! I'm not saying that, LoL!

I'm saying what . . . I . . . said:

That argument makes since if the charges are for having classified documents and not "national security documents." You could make the case that Trump knew they were classified, and knew he had no security clearance.

You - Saintamaniac - could make that case, but apparently the DOJ cannot, because that is not what they charged him with. So, that point is moot.

Because if that's not what you are saying, you are acknowledging that he had no right to have them. THAT is the charge against him.

No, I'm not acknowledging that he had no right to have them. In case I did, it would look something like this: "Yeah, I guess he really did have no right to have them."

I'm saying that some of those documents, NATIONAL SECURITY DOCUMENTS, may have been classified.

My guess would be that they are all or nearly all classified. I would hope so, if they are for national security, for Pete's sake!

So, why do you think that the DOJ is not charging for the classified angle, after making such a big deal of it in what they fed the media?

"Your honor. I thought that girl really meant yes go ahead and have sex with me when she no please stop several times." Yeah, I think that would work just as well as "Your honor, I thought I had every right to keep those files despite the law actually saying the opposite."

That you compare the two speaks volumes.

It's apparent that you will go to no end in a failed attempt to defend trump. I love Barack Obama. I shed tears the night he was elected.

Did you really? Well, at least you are not an "unbiased" journalist who gets tingles up his legs when he hears the name "Obama." Obama did not shed any tears for the U.S. agents killed in Mexico with guns allowed to walk by his ATF.

If this were him instead of trump, I would again shed a tear because a man that I admired and looked up to had so disappointed me and made me look foolish for ever putting so much faith in trust in him. I would truly be embarrassed because I know that someone I thought was the real deal had deceived me in such a manner. My conscience and my pride in myself would not allow me to stoop so low as to deny reality to defend the indefensible. I guess we all have our own standards.

I . . . I think you are revealing too much about yourself on a message board, if I may say so.

As I said previously, I am not trying to change your mind in your support of trump. What I will do is point out every fallacy and every false equivolency you trot out in a failed attempt at defending the indefensible. You can count on that.

Good! I look forward to our intellectual debate continuing.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Does Merriam-Webster work?

Sure!

willful
adjective
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

I'm thinking that it is number 2 in this case. But some might snarkily suggest that 1 applies to Trump outside of the case.

What does criminal intent have to do with willfulness?

Look up. It is in all caps in your own post. Trump is charged with "willfully" doing things, IIRC. Criminal intent comes in because of Comey's precedent about Clinton not being charged due to not having criminal intent.

Your track record does not indicate this willingness to learn. You've been shown, for example, that these charges have nothing to do with the Presidential Records, yet you keep bringing it up.

Because that, along with "classified" were the buzzwords that were repeated over and over right up until this indictment. The Democrat narrative always assumes that no one has any memory, so history starts this morning.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Sure!

I'm thinking that it is number 2 in this case. But some might snarkily suggest that 1 applies to Trump outside of the case.

Works for me. Good place to start.

Look up. It is in all caps in your own post. Trump is charged with "willfully" doing things, IIRC. Criminal intent comes in because of Comey's precedent about Clinton not being charged due to not having criminal intent.

The discussion was specifically about willful retention. Regardless of criminal intent, would you say that refusal to return something after you were asked repeatedly, even going so far as to actively work to make people think you don't have it anymore would fit the definition?

Because that, along with "classified" were the buzzwords that were repeated over and over right up until this indictment. The Democrat narrative always assumes that no one has any memory, so history starts this morning.

Do you think the buzzwords thrown around by the media have any bearing on the case being brought forth by the special counsel?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Works for me. Good place to start.

The discussion was specifically about willful retention. Regardless of criminal intent, would you say that refusal to return something after you were asked repeatedly, even going so far as to actively work to make people think you don't have it anymore would fit the definition?

Actively working to make people think you don't have it anymore could be used to show criminal intent. (I'm guessing)

But on this board, I keep hearing complaints that he openly stated he has the right to keep them, and even was demanding the FBI return documents he claimed were his.

How is that making people think that you don't have them?

Do you think the buzzwords thrown around by the media have any bearing on the case being brought forth by the special counsel?

No, that is my point.

The DOJ misled the media into thinking that the case was about classified documents. Or the DOJ really thought it was about classified documents and changed their mind. Which do you think they did and why do you think they did that?

 

[MT15]

Actively working to make people think you don't have it anymore could be used to show criminal intent. (I'm guessing)

But on this board, I keep hearing complaints that he openly stated he has the right to keep them, and even was demanding the FBI return documents he claimed were his.

How is that making people think that you don't have them?

Trump moved documents around before the FBI came on an announced visit so they wouldn’t find them. He even had Nauta practice moving documents so they could do it at a moment’s notice. He asked his lawyers to lie to the FBI that they had all been returned. He directed them to make and sign a statement saying they had all been returned.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Trump moved documents around before the FBI came on an announced visit so they wouldn’t find them. He even had Nauta practice moving documents so they could do it at a moment’s notice. He asked his lawyers to lie to the FBI that they had all been returned. He directed them to make and sign a statement saying they had all been returned.

Those are the allegations.

Can you present the proof that they are true, so we don't have to wait for the prosecutor to present it at trial?

 

[MT15]

Those are the allegations.

Can you present the proof that they are true, so we don't have to wait for the prosecutor to present it at trial?

Do you think the DOJ would allege these things happened if they didn’t have testimony to back it up?

Oh, and the document that a Trump lawyer signed saying that all documents had been returned is an actual court document. You can read it. It’s dated before the search warrant that discovered hundred more documents. So that’s not really an allegation.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Do you think the DOJ would allege these things happened if they didn’t have testimony to back it up?

Given the recent history of the DOJ and the FBI regarding Trump, I'm not about to say that something must not be true because the DOJ has too much integrity for that.

I have heard of cases in which prosecutors have over-charged a defendant hoping for a plea deal, and dropped some of charges before resting their case, having presented no evidence for those charges.

Oh, and the document that a Trump lawyer signed saying that all documents had been returned is an actual court document. You can read it. It’s dated before the search warrant that discovered hundred more documents. So that’s not really an allegation.

Did Trump sign that? His lawyer is not one of the defendants, as far as I know.

 

[MT15]

Given the recent history of the DOJ and the FBI regarding Trump, I'm not about to say that something must not be true because the DOJ has too much integrity for that.

I have heard of cases in which prosecutors have over-charged a defendant hoping for a plea deal, and dropped charges before resting their case.

Did Trump sign that? His lawyer is not one of the defendants, as far as I know.

No, but IIRC his lawyer had to answer for it. I’m going from memory here.

The DOJ had to present testimony to a FL grand jury to get the indictments. There was a judge presiding and the jury listened to the testimony. I’m guessing they have the testimony to back up the indictments.

Do you seriously think they are playing a big old game of chicken?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Actively working to make people think you don't have it anymore could be used to show criminal intent. (I'm guessing)

I didn't ask about criminal intent. I asked if you would say that refusal to return something after you were asked repeatedly, even going so far as to actively work to make people think you don't have it anymore would fit the definition of willful retention?

But on this board, I keep hearing complaints that he openly stated he has the right to keep them, and even was demanding the FBI return documents he claimed were his.

How is that making people think that you don't have them?

You have also seen people present evidence that Trump worked to actively conceal documents in his possession as well as acknowledging that he had documents he was ot entitled to have.

No, that is my point.

The DOJ misled the media into thinking that the case was about classified documents. Or the DOJ really thought it was about classified documents and changed their mind. Which do you think they did and why do you think they did that?

Do you have any evidence that the DOJ said anything to the media?

 

[Snarky Sack]

No, but IIRC his lawyer had to answer for it. I’m going from memory here.

By "had to answer for it," do you mean they got in trouble for not being truthful? What do you mean?

The DOJ had to present testimony to a FL grand jury to get the indictments. There was a judge presiding and the jury listened to the testimony. I’m guessing they have the testimony to back up the indictments.

I'm sure they do have testimony. I'm sure Trump's lawyers will cross-examine them about it.

Do you seriously think they are playing a big old game of chicken?

I don't seriously know.

I'm waiting for the trial to see the evidence.

 

[MT15]

By "had to answer for it," do you mean they got in trouble for not being truthful? What do you mean?

I'm sure they do have testimony. I'm sure Trump's lawyers will cross-examine them about it.

I don't seriously know.

I'm waiting for the trial to see the evidence.

I think they had to explain to the court why they signed a document saying all the items subpoenaed were returned, only to have the FBI discover roughly a hundred or so more documents when they carried out the search warrant. My guess is that they said they were told by their client that all the documents were returned.

Trump’s lawyers are kind of between a rock and a hard place. They cannot trust what their client tells them, and they probably don’t want to really know what is going on because they need to maintain plausible deniability. On the other hand, their client is ignoring their legal advice by continuing to publicly discuss the case. (Or one would assume any lawyer would tell a client under indictment to quit talking about the case.)

 

[Snarky Sack]

I didn't ask about criminal intent.

Sometimes I talk about what I want to talk about.

I asked if you would say that refusal to return something after you were asked repeatedly, even going so far as to actively work to make people think you don't have it anymore would fit the definition of willful retention?

Yes, if that happened.

But if the other posters are correct about Trump insisting he had the right to have them, he wasn't working to make people think that he did not have it.

You have also seen people present evidence that Trump worked to actively conceal documents in his possession as well as acknowledging that he had documents he was ot entitled to have.

How would I have seen that evidence? That won't be presented until the trial. If Trump said, "I had documents that I was not entitled to have," let me see it.

Do you have any evidence that the DOJ said anything to the media?

It was the DOJ (maybe through the FBI) who put out the pictures of the classified cover sheets.

 

[bird]

Sometimes I talk about what I want to talk about.

Yes, if that happened.

But if the other posters are correct about Trump insisting he had the right to have them, he wasn't working to make people think that he did not have it.

How would I have seen that evidence? That won't be presented until the trial. If Trump said, "I had documents that I was not entitled to have," let me see it.

It was the DOJ (maybe through the FBI) who put out the pictures of the classified cover sheets.

Trump thinks he is entitled to anything he wants. The legality, morality and ethics of his actions are irrelevant to him.