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]

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.

If they had to explain it to the court, why would you have to guess? Just look up what the lawyers explained to the court. Unless you just like to guess, which is fine. I do also.

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.)

Yes, Trump is hard on his lawyers. He goes through them.

If I had a lawyer in a criminal case, I would follow their advice to the letter and follow the spirit as well.

Because a teacher paying a lawyer is going to be a financial strain. I'd only be able to afford one lawyer and barely that, so I cannot lawyer shop or take the risk of only following some of their advice.

Trump is different. This case is very much political, and Trump likely views it as entirely political. I doubt he believes that he could be convicted, and even if he were, it will not harm his chances of being elected. Putting him on trial is not convincing anyone that he should not be president who did not think so already.

So he cannot be the silent client that I would be. He must speak publicly so that the DOJ does not accomplish their goal of "We'll stop it" 2.0.

 

[MT15]

If they had to explain it to the court, why would you have to guess? Just look up what the lawyers explained to the court. Unless you just like to guess, which is fine. I do also.

Yes, Trump is hard on his lawyers. He goes through them.

If I had a lawyer in a criminal case, I would follow their advice to the letter and follow the spirit as well.

Because a teacher paying a lawyer is going to be a financial strain. I'd only be able to afford one lawyer and barely that, so I cannot lawyer shop or take the risk of only following some of their advice.

Trump is different. This case is very much political, and Trump likely views it as entirely political. I doubt he believes that he could be convicted, and even if he were, it will not harm his chances of being elected. Putting him on trial is not convincing anyone that he should not be president who did not think so already.

So he cannot be the silent client that I would be. He must speak publicly so that the DOJ does not accomplish their goal of "We'll stop it" 2.0.

So, even though his public statements incriminate him, he should keep on? I don’t think you will find a lawyer in the world who thinks that’s a good idea.

She had to explain herself to the FBI.

Trump lawyer who vouched for documents meets with FBI

A lawyer for former president Donald Trump who signed a letter stating that a “diligent search” for classified records had been conducted and that all such documents had been given back to the government has spoken with the FBI.

apnews.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

So, even though his public statements incriminate him, he should keep on? I don’t think you will find a lawyer in the world who thinks that’s a good idea.

No, of course not. They are probably asking Trump to sign statements that they have advised him to shut up.

He won't. If his statements incriminate him, which is a big if, so what? Trump can still become president if he is convicted, so then he will just pardon himself. I'm not saying for sure that will happen, but I would bet Trump thinks it will happen.

She had to explain herself to the FBI.

Trump lawyer who vouched for documents meets with FBI

A lawyer for former president Donald Trump who signed a letter stating that a “diligent search” for classified records had been conducted and that all such documents had been given back to the government has spoken with the FBI.

apnews.com

Oh, yeah. I remember now. I think I had a lengthy discussion about that, but it might have been on another forum.

Supposedly, she (Christina Bobb) was the lawyer in the position to need to sign it, but she was not the lawyer who did the search or talked to Trump about the search. So there is no clear responsibility. I'm sure that the document says something to the effect of "I didn't do the search, but another lawyer told me that they did, and that's what I'm signing off on - that the other lawyer told me that."

The DOJ will need to show that Trump told the lawyer to tell Bobb to sign off. Most likely, Trump told that lawyer to sign it himself, and the lawyer came up with the idea of getting Bobb to do it. Because what does it matter that she was the lawyer who should sign it, if she wasn't the lawyer that was able so sign off on it without first making it meaningless? It was a little game of "Hot Potato," that Bobb solved by cooling off the potato before accepting it. Smart woman!

What should have happened, from the standpoint of wanting to "get Trump," was that the FBI should have read the document closely and said, "woah, what is this shirt? You are signing that another lawyer told you something? That's not what we need, at all. Go back and re-write the document to show somebody vouching that it's all been turned in."

 

[MT15]

Smart is definitely a hot take on signing a document like that, lol. I don’t think many people think that was a smart move on her part.

 

[MT15]

Evidently both Bobb and Corcoran were called to testify before the grand jury. Her lawyer declined to comment.

Second Trump attorney met with Mar-A-Lago probe grand jury in recent weeks | CNN Politics

Trump attorney Christina Bobb appeared before a federal grand jury in Washington, DC, in recent weeks in connection with the investigation into former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents, two sources have told CNN.

www.cnn.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

Smart is definitely a hot take on signing a document like that, lol. I don’t think many people think that was a smart move on her part.

The smart part was changing it to be meaningless, before she signed it:

Bobb signed the certification as the “custodian of records” at the direction of another Trump lawyer, Evan Corcoran, only after adding caveats to make the declaration less ironclad since she had not conducted the search herself, according to three sources familiar with the matter.

The certification was drafted by Corcoran, who also searched Mar-a-Lago for documents demanded by the subpoena, and sent it to Bobb before the justice department’s counterintelligence chief, Jay Bratt, arrived on 3 June to collect a folder of responsive records, the sources said.

But unsure as to whether the subpoena had been fully complied with, Bobb told Corcoran to amend the certification to say that “based upon the information that has been provided to me” all documents responsive to the subpoena were being returned after a “diligent” search, the sources said.
Did you say that this document is available? I'd appreciate a link.

Evidently both Bobb and Corcoran were called to testify before the grand jury. Her lawyer declined to comment.

Second Trump attorney met with Mar-A-Lago probe grand jury in recent weeks | CNN Politics

Trump attorney Christina Bobb appeared before a federal grand jury in Washington, DC, in recent weeks in connection with the investigation into former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents, two sources have told CNN.

www.cnn.com

No doubt they pointed fingers at each other.

Corcoran and Bobb each had a role in telling prosecutors in writing that the Trump team had searched for documents and turned over all classified material in his possession last June.

Cardinal rule of accountability: If more than one person is responsible, none of them is responsible.

I'll bet Peter Strzok would have checked the document before accepting it. He would have been on top of it. If he were not on top of Page, at the time.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Sometimes I talk about what I want to talk about.

Sure, everyone does. When you do it in response to someone trying to have a conversation with you, though, you are acting in bad faith.

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.

His efforts to conceal entire boxes and/or documents are detailed in the subpoena, including contemporary recollections and text exchanges.

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

How does that translate into the DOF misleading the media?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Sure, everyone does. When you do it in response to someone trying to have a conversation with you, though, you are acting in bad faith.

So it's cool for everyone BUT me to do it?

His efforts to conceal entire boxes and/or documents are detailed in the subpoena, including contemporary recollections and text exchanges.

So?

How does that translate into the DOF misleading the media?

DOF? What the heck is DOF?

Do you mean DOJ? I never said DOJ misled the media.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So it's cool for everyone BUT me to do it?

No, but I am not talking to everyone else at the moment.

So?

You said that if other people on here are right in that Trump claimed he was allowed to have the documents, he wasn't working hard to conceal them. I showed you exactly how the government believes it and what they use to support the assertion.

DOF? What the heck is DOF?

Do you mean DOJ? I never said DOJ misled the media.

Clearly, I meant the DOJ, and you said it right here:

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?

Edit: To be clear, you mentioned it as a potential thing the DOJ did. I am trying to figure out if you believe it to be a legitimate possibility and, if so, what do you have to support it.

 

[LA - L.A.]

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?

Nixon's legal situation is more closely paralleled to Trump's situation than Hillary's was. What Nixon did is a much better "precedent' to what Trump is accused of than what Hillary did.

Nixon was going to be indicted and tried. The only reason he wasn't is because he resigned.

Had Trump complied with requests or the subpoena requiring him to return documents that he had no legal right to have, he would not have been indicted.

If Trump would have cooperated and returned all the documents, that he had no legal right to have, he would not have been indicted.

Even now, Trump could probably plea this down to nothing, but he refuses to do so.

Trump is a victim of himself and no one else.

 

[LA - L.A.]

You mean besides willfully retaining them since he left the Senate?

Show these things and you will prove your point once and for all. Show everyone:

• That Biden, upon finding he had documents that weren't legally his:
  • Told anyone in the government that he did not have those documents
  • Had his attorney falsely certify that he did not possess any of those documents
  • Hid those documents from people who tried to retrieve them

The only way Trump did the same thing as Biden is if Biden did all of those things.

Prove away!

 

[LA - L.A.]

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.

A guy walks into a bank with a gun and sincerely says "give me all the money, because I have a right to take all of it."

Guy gets arrested and tried.

Prosecutors play recording of guy saying "give me all the money, because I have a right to take it" as proof the guy tried to take all the money.

Guy admits "yeah, I tried to take all the money, but I had a right to take all the money, so I didn't do anything wrong"

What is going to be the reasonable verdict in that trial?

Ignorance of the law is never an excuse or an accepted legal defense, so it doesn't matter if Trump honestly thought he had a right to keep all the documents.

Trump broke the law when he refused to return the documents. Intent doesn't have to be proven on that count and Trump believing he had a right to that document is not an accepted legal defense. The only way Trump can beat that charge is to prove he didn't have any of the documents. He can not do that because it's not true. Him showing documents to people is proof that he had documents that broke the law.

On the obstruction of justice charge it does have to been shown that Trump intentionally tried to keep the documents after he was ordered to return them. The prosecution has already shared the slam dunk evidence that proves Trump intentionally tried to retain the documents after being ordered to return them:

• There is proof that Trump had his attorney falsely certify that he had no documents
• There is proof that Trump knowingly lied and said he didn't have any documetns
• There is proof that Trump hid documents from those trying to retrieve them.

All of that proves that he intentionally obstructed justice and it doesn't matter if Trump thought he could keep those documents, just like it doesn't matter if someone who robs a bank thinks they have a right to rob a bank.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Nixon's legal situation is more closely paralleled to Trump's situation than Hillary's was. What Nixon did is a much better "precedent' to what Trump is accused of than what Hillary did.

Nixon was going to be indicted and tried. The only reason he wasn't is because he resigned.

Had Trump complied with requests or the subpoena requiring him to return documents that he had no legal right to have, he would not have been indicted.

If Trump would have cooperated and returned all the documents, that he had no legal right to have, he would not have been indicted.

Even now, Trump could probably plea this down to nothing, but he refuses to do so.

Trump is a victim of himself and no one else.

well, according to Snark, nothing Trump did was wrong. So how could he return and cooperate if there was nothing for him to return and cooperate on?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Show these things and you will prove your point once and for all. Show everyone:

• That Biden, upon finding he had documents that weren't legally his:
  • Told anyone in the government that he did not have those documents
  • Had his attorney falsely certify that he did not possess any of those documents
  • Hid those documents from people who tried to retrieve them

The only way Trump did the same thing as Biden is if Biden did all of those things.

Prove away!

I never said that Biden did precisely exactly the same things that Trump did. I believe that I have said at least a dozen times that no one case is ever exactly the same as a previous case, but courts and prosecutors still go by precedent.

 

[Snarky Sack]

A guy walks into a bank with a gun and sincerely says "give me all the money, because I have a right to take all of it."

Guy gets arrested and tried.

Prosecutors play recording of guy saying "give me all the money, because I have a right to take it" as proof the guy tried to take all the money.

Guy admits "yeah, I tried to take all the money, but I had a right to take all the money, so I didn't do anything wrong"

What is going to be the reasonable verdict in that trial?

Ignorance of the law is never an excuse or an accepted legal defense, so it doesn't matter if Trump honestly thought he had a right to keep all the documents.

If ignorance of the law is no excuse, why did Comey justify not prosecuting Clinton with a claim of "no criminal intent?"

There is no precedent that would allow a bank robber to think that he is entitled to rob a bank.

Trump had (and has) plenty of precedent to believe that presidents (and Sec States) can retain documents without it being a criminal violation.

Trump is being prosecuted for being Trump. Every knows that. Some people just think they are being clever when they refuse to admit it.

Trump broke the law when he refused to return the documents. Intent doesn't have to be proven on that count and Trump believing he had a right to that document is not an accepted legal defense. The only way Trump can beat that charge is to prove he didn't have any of the documents. He can not do that because it's not true. Him showing documents to people is proof that he had documents that broke the law.

On the obstruction of justice charge it does have to been shown that Trump intentionally tried to keep the documents after he was ordered to return them. The prosecution has already shared the slam dunk evidence that proves Trump intentionally tried to retain the documents after being ordered to return them:

"Intent" =/= "Criminal intent."

• There is proof that Trump had his attorney falsely certify that he had no documents
• There is proof that Trump knowingly lied and said he didn't have any documetns
• There is proof that Trump hid documents from those trying to retrieve them.

Oh?

Show me that proof. Especially the first one.

I want to see your proof that Trump had his attorney falsely certify that he had "no documents." Or that he had his attorney falsely certify anything at all. Show me.

All of that proves that he intentionally obstructed justice and it doesn't matter if Trump thought he could keep those documents, just like it doesn't matter if someone who robs a bank thinks they have a right to rob a bank.

Answered.

 

[SaintForLife]

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

It's called a search. Not sure if you've heard of that before.

 

[Snarky Sack]

No, but I am not talking to everyone else at the moment.

So, you are this naggy with others, also?

Clearly, I meant the DOJ, and you said it right here:



Edit: To be clear, you mentioned it as a potential thing the DOJ did. I am trying to figure out if you believe it to be a legitimate possibility and, if so, what do you have to support it.

Yes, I believe that it is a legitimate possibility. There is no need to always ask me if I mean what I say, that just slows the convo down.

It is one or the other. They misled us, or they changed their minds.

The DOJ put out dramatic images of classified documents. The search warrant referenced classified documents. Are you seriously claiming that the DOJ never said anything about classified documents being part of their case against Trump?

 

[SaintForLife]

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

Yes, you were wrong. We can move on.