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

 

[DaveXA]

Yes, you were wrong. We can move on.

In your own mind, sure.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So, you are this naggy with others, also?

If the people I converse with on this board are acting in bad faith, I say something. Doesn't matter who it is.

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.

Sure there is. You don't like people making assumptions about your meaning or putting words in your mouth, so I want to make sure we are on the same page so we can prevent any confusion.

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

Is it not possible that talking heads were trying to feed the 24-hour news cycle and ran with a somewhat sensationalized version of the story, as they are wont to do? I feel like that makes some sense, at least, especially if they were doing so specifically because there were no leaks coming from the special counsel's office.

The DOJ put out dramatic images of classified documents. The search warrant referenced classified documents.

They found classified documents. Trump admitted he had classified documents. That doesn't mean the statutes he is charged under must specify classified documents. The case against Trump involves specific documents he refused to return and attempted to conceal from authorities regardless of classification level.

Are you seriously claiming that the DOJ never said anything about classified documents being part of their case against Trump?

I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth please.

 

[Snarky Sack]

If the people I converse with on this board are acting in bad faith, I say something. Doesn't matter who it is.

I would not even bother with someone I honestly thought was "acting in bad faith," if by that you mean that they are not sincere about what they are arguing. What is the point of talking if that's what you think?

Sure there is. You don't like people making assumptions about your meaning or putting words in your mouth, so I want to make sure we are on the same page so we can prevent any confusion.

Do as you enjoy.

Is it not possible that talking heads were trying to feed the 24-hour news cycle and ran with a somewhat sensationalized version of the story, as they are wont to do? I feel like that makes some sense, at least, especially if they were doing so specifically because there were no leaks coming from the special counsel's office.

Yes, that is very possible. Whoever did the misleading, many people had the impression that the DOJ was about to charge Trump with mishandling classified information. No one seems at all upset that they were misled on that. It's almost like they think "who cares what they use to get Trump as long as they GET TRUMP?"

They found classified documents. Trump admitted he had classified documents. That doesn't mean the statutes he is charged under must specify classified documents. The case against Trump involves specific documents he refused to return and attempted to conceal from authorities regardless of classification level.

That's the allegation, yes.

I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth please.

I'm not. I just want to make sure we are on the same page so we can prevent any confusion.

 

[Saintamaniac]

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

OK then what you said implicitly demonstrates your understanding that Trump indeed was in possession of national security documents, some of which if not all, were classified.

 

[Snarky Sack]

OK then what you said implicitly demonstrates your understanding that Trump indeed was in possession of national security documents, some of which if not all, were classified.

I understand that that is the allegation.

I don't know the legal definition of "National Security Documents," and I haven't seen the documents that Trump had. How could I possibly know that he was indeed in possession of national security documents?

Until I see the evidence, my assumption is that this is just "We'll stop it" 2.0.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I would not even bother with someone I honestly thought was "acting in bad faith," if by that you mean that they are not sincere about what they are arguing. What is the point of talking if that's what you think?

What can I say? I'm an optimist.

Do as you enjoy.

Yes, that is very possible. Whoever did the misleading, many people had the impression that the DOJ was about to charge Trump with mishandling classified information. No one seems at all upset that they were misled on that. It's almost like they think "who cares what they use to get Trump as long as they GET TRUMP?"

Is it the fault of the DOJ if it was the media that gave people the wrong impression, whether intentional or not?

That's the allegation, yes.

Would it then be safe to say that your entire argument over whether or not Trump is charged with mishandling classified documents is nothing more than a distraction?

I'm not. I just want to make sure we are on the same page so we can prevent any confusion.

Fair.

 

[Snarky Sack]

What can I say? I'm an optimist.

You go!

Is it the fault of the DOJ if it was the media that gave people the wrong impression, whether intentional or not?

If that is what happened, no.

Would it then be safe to say that your entire argument over whether or not Trump is charged with mishandling classified documents is nothing more than a distraction?

It would be safe to say that it is not a big deal, except that some people can't let anything go.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You go!

If that is what happened, no.

It would be safe to say that it is not a big deal, except that some people can't let anything go.

My god, you are so close.

 

[MT15]

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

This has been answered to you, possibly multiple times. I know because I answered it one time myself. Comey used those words because that was the wording of the statute at that time. Charging someone had to prove there was criminal intent. That is why Comey used the words he used. Simple as that.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This has been answered to you, possibly multiple times. I know because I answered it one time myself.

Based on that, you would only know that it has been answered to me one time.

Comey used those words because that was the wording of the statute at that time. Charging someone had to prove there was criminal intent. That is why Comey used the words he used. Simple as that.

That answer is wrong. The only words he changed to fit the wording of the statute was to change "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness." "Gross Negligence would have clearly violated letter of the law, but calling the exact same act "extreme carelessness" gave him juuuust enough wiggle room to let who he thought the next president off the hook.

I'm sure she would have shown her appreciation if she had managed to beat the Orange Man.

I guess I'm now officially the old man who can remember in detail what happened almost a decade ago, but forget who told me that I know when posters are XX.

Just out of curiosity, MT, what age do you identify as?

 

[MT15]

Based on that, you would only know that it has been answered to me one time.


That answer is wrong. The only words he changed to fit the wording of the statute was to change "gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness." "Gross Negligence would have clearly violated letter of the law, but calling the exact same act "extreme carelessness" gave him juuuust enough wiggle room to let who he thought the next president off the hook.

I'm sure she would have shown her appreciation if she had managed to beat the Orange Man.

I guess I'm now officially the old man who can remember in detail what happened almost a decade ago, but forget who told me that I know when posters are XX.

Just out of curiosity, MT, what age do you identify as?

So you won’t mind posting the statute, right? Not the current one, but the one in effect in 2015-2016.

 

[Snarky Sack]

So you won’t mind posting the statute, right? Not the current one, but the one in effect in 2015-2016.

I will be happy to do that, as soon as you start asking proof from everyone else who makes a claim.

 

[MT15]

I will be happy to do that, as soon as you start asking proof from everyone else who makes a claim.

No you will never do that, IMO. I have certainly provided links to you, when asked. What gives you the right to decide whether or not you will support a claim you have made by judging who I should ask for a link, and who I should not? Honest question, what makes you think that is a proper response to a simple request to show where you got your idea from?

Seems like petulance, if I‘m being honest here.

 

[Snarky Sack]

No you will never do that, IMO. I have certainly provided links to you, when asked. What gives you the right to decide whether or not you will support a claim you have made by judging who I should ask for a link, and who I should not? Honest question, what makes you think that is a proper response to a simple request to show where you got your idea from?

Seems like petulance, if I‘m being honest here.

Because you ask for a link of an outdated law. Websites are updated. I don't know if there is a site in which all versions of all laws are archived and you can search by date. What about an article that describes exactly what I said about Comey changing the wording? I could probably find that for you. I understand you don't want to go by my memory.

EDIT: Here it is, your choice to accept it or not.

Early Comey draft accused Clinton of gross negligence on emails

An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey’s statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former secretary of State of having been “grossly negligent” in handling classif…

thehill.com

An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey’s statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former secretary of State of having been “grossly negligent” in handling classified information, newly reported memos to Congress show.

The tough language was changed to the much softer accusation that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information when Comey announced in July 2016 there would be no charges against her.

The change is significant, since federal law states that gross negligence in handling the nation’s intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines.

{mosads}Spokesmen for the FBI and Clinton did not immediately return phone calls or emails seeking comment.

The draft, written weeks before the announcement of no charges, was described by multiple sources who saw the document both before and after it was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee this past weekend.

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information,” reads the statement, one of Comey’s earliest drafts from May 2, 2016.

 

[MT15]

I honestly don’t care about it enough for you to look. It’s so far in the past and it has zero bearing on what is going on now with Trump. I know I read an article that said that was the wording of one of the statutes at that time.

Back to Trump, evidently he has weighed in before on the possibility of having a president who is under indictment. For amusement purposes only. He cannot get out of his own way.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I honestly don’t care about it enough for you to look. It’s so far in the past and it has zero bearing on what is going on now with Trump. I know I read an article that said that was the wording of one of the statutes at that time.

Back to Trump, evidently he has weighed in before on the possibility of having a president who is under indictment. For amusement purposes only. He cannot get out of his own way.

It would have ground to halt if Clinton were president while under indictment. She could barely make it through the campaign without parts falling off of her as it was.

Trump is laughing at the indictment, he would be fine presidenting while Smith asks for more and more continuences.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Trump is laughing at the indictment, he would be fine presidenting while Smith asks for more and more continuences.

And there goes the white flag of reasoned discussion. I assure you Trump is not laughing at this indictment. The laughter you here from him is at the people, like yourself, giving him money and/or supporting him as he lies openly and outlandishly.

He knows that no matter what ridiculous lies he tells, he has loyal subjects like Snarky Sack who will twist and contort logic in a feeble attempt to defend his actions.

He knows he has you and he knows that you won't leave much the same way a pimp knows his workers won't leave. He's all you have. Pimpin' ain't easy but damn if Trump hasn't made it look easy as he is now pimp to over 40% of this country.

 

[MT15]

And there goes the white flag of reasoned discussion. I assure you Trump is not laughing at this indictment. The laughter you here from him is at the people, like yourself, giving him money and/ or supporting him as he lies openly and outlandishly.

He knows that no matter what ridiculous lies he tells, he has loyal subjucts like Snarky Sack who will twist and contort logic in a feable attempt to defend his actions.

He knows he has you and he knows that you won't leave much the same way a pimp knows his workers won't leave. He's all you have. Pimpin ain't easy but damn if Trump hasn't made it look easy as he is now pimp to over 40% of this country.

You are correct. But I don’t really think it’s 40%. Closer to 25-30% if I had to guess. The sad thing is that they’re so fanatical and so loud they make themselves seem more numerous than they actually are. Now don’t get me wrong - 25-30% is just terrible. It speaks to our dire straits as a representative republic to have so many citizens who lack the ability to reason.

His response is like a parody, really. It’s an appeal to emotion - not a sensible response at all.