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

 

[Dragon]

You really have bought all the lies hook, line and sinker...

The US had far more sick and dead people from Covid per capita than most countries it usually compares with mainly due to the lies and mishandling of the Trump administration

Trump Knew how serious this illness was, he was caught on tape admitting it and LIED!



Dont believe me - Watch the video I linked.

Trump is so hopelessly stupid that he keeps admitting his crimes and mishandling of things on tape and yet you still buy into his lies.

 

[CoolBrees]

All the best criminals have shot their mouth off and shown their crimes to reporters

 

[Taurus]

I agree with most of that.

Interesting take about the debates. I agree that DeSantis will not do well in them. But the conventional wisdom is that a challenger who is far behind the frontrunner benefits from a debate that levels the playing field, if only for a couple of hours, so DeSantis will debate if Trump will.

Curious as to why you think DeSantis will do badly?

He's got all the magnetism of an aluminum can.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Asked and now answered with source:

Only 2% of federal criminal defendants went to trial in 2018, and most who did were found guilty

Trials are rare in the federal criminal justice system: Just 2% of criminal defendants went to trial in fiscal 2018. Acquittals are even rarer.

www.pewresearch.org

Those are objective statistical facts, not opinions. Which brings us to:



You claim it's documented, but you have not documented the percentage of defendants that won their trials on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct or due to being politically motivated prosecutions. Using your own words, "if you want to show a link, I'll look at it."

The 8% of cases that were dismissed, were dismissed before going to trial, not during the trial. Trump will probably make pre-trial motions to dismiss, but it remains to be seen if the judge will grant them.

Circling back to the idea of the high percentage of convictions that the DOJ has for cases that it brings to trial. I saw something very relevant in the Durham hearings. @DaveXA and @FullMonte were also in on that discussion, so I respectfully tag them in case they want to respond.

Here at 4:00 a congressman asks Special Counsel Durham about the high standards that the DOJ uses to decide whether to take a case to trial. Watch for yourself, but I'll summarize: The DOJ takes cases to trial only when there is enough evidence that the jury can find not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that the resulting conviction will stand in any appeals.



Prompted by the congressman, Durham also agrees that there may be cases in which the DOJ can be sure that a technical violation of the law has occurred, but that it would decide not to prosecute. The congressman gives the example of a case that would give the appearance of criminalizing a political opponent. Durham responds "yeah," and goes on to describe a hypothetical case in which much of the evidence is highly classified so it will never see the light of day, so the case would not be prosecuted.

So what does all that mean? To me, it means that the prosecution in this case did not apply those rigorous standards normally applied by the DOJ to less political cases. The whole idea of a special counsel's success or failure being measured by the number of indictments or the seniority of the indicted may in itself pressure the Special Counsel toss those standards out the window, and indict the proverbial ham sandwich, as state and local prosecutors are noted for.

Look at the Durham Special Counsel assignment itself. He indicted three people and only got one conviction, the FBI agent who falsified an email so that the FBI could get warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. That's a 33% conviction rate, not ninety-something.

The Mueller investigation filed charges against 34 individuals and 3 companies, resulting in 8 guilty pleas, and a conviction at trial. That is a 24% conviction rate.

So the high conviction rates in apolitical indictments are meaningless in reference Special Counsel prosecutions in general, and to the trump indictment specifically. Clearly they are not charged under the normal rigorous standards of the DOJ's more apolitical prosecutors.

I think the problem is in appointing a Special Counsel to investigate. Why not appoint a special investigator as a finder of fact, a truth seeker. Then if the special investigators findings warrant it, a special counsel can be appointed.

 

[MT15]

Weren’t most of the individuals (and maybe the companies, I don’t remember) indicted by Mueller Russian nationals, who were never going to stand trial by any stretch of the imagination? Seems a bit off to include those in his record.

The Durham investigation really stands out all on its own, it seems to me. He didn’t win any convictions, because one individual chose to take a plea. My guess is that individual was kicking himself after seeing Durham fail miserably on both cases he took to trial.

 

[MT15]

Yeah, I looked it up. Your description of Mueller’s record is very misleading. Of all the people and companies indicted, and leaving off those who are unreachable because they reside outside US jurisdiction, I saw exactly one case that was dismissed. Everyone else either pleaded guilty or was convicted at trial. One corporation had the charges dismissed eventually by a former Bill Barr aide who was running that particular US Attorney’s office after Mueller had closed his investigation.

Wiki has the most concise read, everything is in a chart there. I did look at several other sources as well, but Wiki had the only chart that I found. Everything is sourced. You can easily find out everything you need to know.

 

[DaveXA]

Circling back to the idea of the high percentage of convictions that the DOJ has for cases that it brings to trial. I saw something very relevant in the Durham hearings. @DaveXA and @FullMonte were also in on that discussion, so I respectfully tag them in case they want to respond.

Here at 4:00 a congressman asks Special Counsel Durham about the high standards that the DOJ uses to decide whether to take a case to trial. Watch for yourself, but I'll summarize: The DOJ takes cases to trial only when there is enough evidence that the jury can find not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that the resulting conviction will stand in any appeals.



Prompted by the congressman, Durham also agrees that there may be cases in which the DOJ can be sure that a technical violation of the law has occurred, but that it would decide not to prosecute. The congressman gives the example of a case that would give the appearance of criminalizing a political opponent. Durham responds "yeah," and goes on to describe a hypothetical case in which much of the evidence is highly classified so it will never see the light of day, so the case would not be prosecuted.

So what does all that mean? To me, it means that the prosecution in this case did not apply those rigorous standards normally applied by the DOJ to less political cases. The whole idea of a special counsel's success or failure being measured by the number of indictments or the seniority of the indicted may in itself pressure the Special Counsel toss those standards out the window, and indict the proverbial ham sandwich, as state and local prosecutors are noted for.

Look at the Durham Special Counsel assignment itself. He indicted three people and only got one conviction, the FBI agent who falsified an email so that the FBI could get warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. That's a 33% conviction rate, not ninety-something.

The Mueller investigation filed charges against 34 individuals and 3 companies, resulting in 8 guilty pleas, and a conviction at trial. That is a 24% conviction rate.

So the high conviction rates in apolitical indictments are meaningless in reference Special Counsel prosecutions in general, and to the trump indictment specifically. Clearly they are not charged under the normal rigorous standards of the DOJ's more apolitical prosecutors.

I think the problem is in appointing a Special Counsel to investigate. Why not appoint a special investigator as a finder of fact, a truth seeker. Then if the special investigators findings warrant it, a special counsel can be appointed.

I don't have time to really dig into it here, but first blush, it seems comparing these cases isn't warranted. They're apples and oranges imo.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Weren’t most of the individuals (and maybe the companies, I don’t remember) indicted by Mueller Russian nationals, who were never going to stand trial by any stretch of the imagination? Seems a bit off to include those in his record.

Because it goes to my point that Special Counsels don't follow the same rigorous guidelines as the DOJ does when it is not going after perceived political enemies. In an apolitical case, why would the DOJ indict Russian Nationals that they cannot bring to trial? They would not. It violates the principle of not indicting unless you can get a conviction.

The Durham investigation really stands out all on its own, it seems to me. He didn’t win any convictions, because one individual chose to take a plea. My guess is that individual was kicking himself after seeing Durham fail miserably on both cases he took to trial.

The guy was caught red-handed, which is why he pleaded guilty. He should have made a plea deal, instead of pleading to a felony, but that likely would have required him to say who ordered him to do it. He was a low-level guy thrown under the bus, but he probably sees himself as a hero for protecting Operation We'll Stop It.

But suppose you are right. Yet another example of a Special Counsels not following the same rigorous standards that have led the DOJ to have such a high conviction rate.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Yeah, I looked it up. Your description of Mueller’s record is very misleading. Of all the people and companies indicted, and leaving off those who are unreachable because they reside outside US jurisdiction, I saw exactly one case that was dismissed. Everyone else either pleaded guilty or was convicted at trial. One corporation had the charges dismissed eventually by a former Bill Barr aide who was running that particular US Attorney’s office after Mueller had closed his investigation.

Wiki has the most concise read, everything is in a chart there. I did look at several other sources as well, but Wiki had the only chart that I found. Everything is sourced. You can easily find out everything you need to know.

I got my information from wiki also, but I did not see a chart. Maybe I'm reading a different article. I linked mine above.

Here is a screenshot (also linked):

 

[MT15]

In an apolitical case, why would the DOJ indict Russian Nationals that they cannot bring to trial? They would not. It violates the principle of not indicting unless you can get a conviction.

Because they were guilty? Why would you not indict them if your objective was bringing the whole sordid election interference to the light of day?

 

[MT15]

I got my information from wiki also, but I did not see a chart. Maybe I'm reading a different article. I linked mine above.

Here is a screenshot (also linked):

Here is where the chart is:

Criminal charges brought in the Mueller special counsel investigation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Snarky Sack]

Here is where the chart is:

Criminal charges brought in the Mueller special counsel investigation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

At a glance it appears we have the same numbers, with the difference of you not counting the foreign nationals, which changes the percentages. I would include them, for the reasons I gave. But your position is logical, also.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

I came across an article that fits well into this thread's topic:
*

More Mar-a-Lago search warrant information released in Trump classified docs case

A less-redacted version of the search warrant affidavit indicates officials became concerned after viewing Mar-a-Lago security footage obtained from Trump’s company.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

I came across an article that fits well into this thread's topic:
*

More Mar-a-Lago search warrant information released in Trump classified docs case

A less-redacted version of the search warrant affidavit indicates officials became concerned after viewing Mar-a-Lago security footage obtained from Trump’s company.

www.yahoo.com

I just wonder how Defendant Trump is supposed to get a fair and public trial with the prosecution insisting on showing its hole cards a corner at a time.

 

[bird]

I just wonder how Defendant Trump is supposed to get a fair and public trial with the prosecution insisting on showing its hole cards a corner at a time.

No, you don’t. Not really. You’re just trolling.

 

[FullMonte]

I came across an article that fits well into this thread's topic:
*

More Mar-a-Lago search warrant information released in Trump classified docs case

A less-redacted version of the search warrant affidavit indicates officials became concerned after viewing Mar-a-Lago security footage obtained from Trump’s company.

www.yahoo.com

Here's my question....Do these Trump cultists think that they are going to find something in the search warrant documents that shows that Trump is innocent or that he's being unfairly prosecuted? They believe that there is this massive conspiracy involving the Special Counsel, the DOJ, the Attorney General, the FBI, the judges that issued the warrants, and the grand jury that heard the testimony and saw the evidence that the prosecution presented and issued indictments. I'm pretty sure that with all of those people working together against Trump, they'll be sure that the fake documents that were used to create these bogus search warrants look good.

 

[Saintamaniac]

I just wonder how Defendant Trump is supposed to get a fair and public trial with the prosecution insisting on showing its hole cards a corner at a time.

You've already stated how; by screaming what about Clinton, claiming ignorance of the law and tainting the jury pool.

They're just being forced to show the proof you've been waiting to see and ignore.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Here's my question....Do these Trump cultists think that they are going to find something in the search warrant documents that shows that Trump is innocent or that he's being unfairly prosecuted? They believe that there is this massive conspiracy involving the Special Counsel, the DOJ, the Attorney General, the FBI, the judges that issued the warrants, and the grand jury that heard the testimony and saw the evidence that the prosecution presented and issued indictments. I'm pretty sure that with all of those people working together against Trump, they'll be sure that the fake documents that were used to create these bogus search warrants look good.

"Fake documents that were used to create these bogus search warrants"?????