Split Thread: Trump Document indictment (as opposed to other indictments)

[Regnad Kcin]

From gold plating everything, to business and personal finances, to ketchup on steak, to his hair styling, to spooging out Don Jr., wouldn't it be easier to compose a list of things he hasn't crimed?

[gnome]

Originally Posted by Samson

I am curious here.
The crime looks technical to me rather than dangerous for the nation.
Am I missing something?

It COULD have been treated as "technical" and been settled as an embarrassment rather than crimes, had he cooperated as soon as he was notified there was a problem. Instead he was defiant and lied and played games. FAFO.

[newyorkguy]

Just saw this. trump is fundraising off the federal indictments. Surprised? Not at all.

From a news story posted on The Hill news site:

Quote:

Former President Trump on Thursday swiftly moved toward fundraising efforts after claiming he’s been indicted in connection with the Justice Department’s investigation into his handling of classified documents. “We are watching our Republic DIE before our very eyes. The Biden-appointed Special Counsel has INDICTED me in yet another witch hunt regarding documents that I had the RIGHT to declassify as President of the United States,” Trump wrote in an email message asking supporters to donate. “Please make a contribution to peacefully stand with me today and prove that YOU will NEVER surrender our country to the radical Left,” the note concludes, suggesting contributions between $24 and $250. The Hill news link

It'll be an honor to donate!!!
MAGA!!!!

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Quote:

I don't think he is going to be charged with regards to January 6th.

He never specifically told anyone to be violent. He never specifically told anyone to stop the electoral college count. I think regarding this case he may have just saved himself by a hair. ...

Why is a specific command to be violent the key to his guilt? As for specifically telling the mob to stop the certification, I think he did just that.

Trump sent a mob to stop the certification of the election outcome. That is the crime re Jan 6th.

The problem is, in a case like this you have to deal with the first amendment and the issue of freedom of speech. (And the courts tend to be very cautious about applying any restrictions, especially to political speech.)

Thus, unless a person gives clear and direct instructions (such as 'push past the barriers, break windows, hurt the police officers') there is a chance the courts may simply view it as protected speech.

"I told them to stop the certification/take the country back/etc.. I thought mass protests outside congress would be enough. I didn't expect them to break in" would probably be his legal defense.

There is a difference between "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" and "Here's a gun... go shoot that guy".

(Note: I am not trying to defend Trump's actions. I think he is guilty of inciting the Jan6 terrorist attack.. I'm just saying it might be tricky to get a conviction on it.)

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Samson

I am curious here.
The crime looks technical to me rather than dangerous for the nation.
Am I missing something?

Well first of all, why does it have to be "dangerous for the nation" in order for it to be a crime worth prosecuting?

Even if I "just" steal a government car, or "just" spray graffiti on the walls of the pentagon, there is no real "danger", but the government still has to respond to fix whatever damage I do. Likewise, even if Trump stole the documents and just kept them securely under lock and key, those documents are still government property, they still have to expend resources to track them down, etc.

As for the risks to the nation:

- Some of the documents DO seem like they might be dangerous if they fell into the wrong hands. And Mar a lago was a club that had hundreds of visitors over the past few years, many of them foreign nationals with questionable backgrounds. He was unnecessarily risking their security by keeping them in a location that was not safe

- There is damage to the U.S. reputation with its allies. The U.S. benefits from intelligence gathered by other countries. If they now think information they provide to the U.S. might be compromised by someone like Trump who wants to keep classified information at his club, they may be less likely to want to share data with the U.S. in the future. This means they will be less informed about potential risks in the world.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

Just saw this. trump is fundraising off the federal indictments. Surprised? Not at all.

From a news story posted on The Hill news site:



It'll be an honor to donate!!!
MAGA!!!!

"I'm really rich" -- Donald Trump.

[a_unique_person]

Trump could ask for trial by judge alone. Cannon would do that.


She could wait for the jury to be seated then throw the case out. Trump is not guilty and no retrial and no appeals.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

"I'm really rich" -- Donald Trump.

The rich don't spend their own money if they can help it.

Which is not to say that President Trump isn't lying about his wealth

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

Just saw this. trump is fundraising off the federal indictments. Surprised? Not at all.

From a news story posted on The Hill news site:

"The Biden-appointed Special Counsel has INDICTED me in yet another witch hunt regarding documents that I had the RIGHT to declassify as President of the United States"

And, of course, his followers will ignore or never be aware that:
1. He's on tape admitting that he didn't declassify documents that he was showing off to someone.
2. Some of the documents (I think) are a type that he specifically didn't have the ability to declassify.

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

And, of course, his followers will ignore or never be aware that:
1. He's on tape admitting that he didn't declassify documents that he was showing off to someone.
2. Some of the documents (I think) are a type that he specifically didn't have the ability to declassify.

The other thing they miss when claiming the DoJ has been weaponized: the evidence comes from Republicans. I don't know of any Democrats in Trump's administration or legal team that have testified.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

The problem is, in a case like this you have to deal with the first amendment and the issue of freedom of speech. (And the courts tend to be very cautious about applying any restrictions, especially to political speech.)

Thus, unless a person gives clear and direct instructions (such as 'push past the barriers, break windows, hurt the police officers') there is a chance the courts may simply view it as protected speech.

"I told them to stop the certification/take the country back/etc.. I thought mass protests outside congress would be enough. I didn't expect them to break in" would probably be his legal defense.

There is a difference between "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" and "Here's a gun... go shoot that guy".

(Note: I am not trying to defend Trump's actions. I think he is guilty of inciting the Jan6 terrorist attack.. I'm just saying it might be tricky to get a conviction on it.)

This would be a crime in of itself. How exactly could they stop the certification without breaking the law?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen

Saw an interview with a Republican voter yesterday where he acknowledged it was pretty bad...then added 'but others have done much worse and they haven't gone after them.'

I'm going to assume that's a reference to 'Hilary's emails' or Biden / Pence's documents. Can these people really not see the difference between realising some documents haven't been handed in and then taking all the right steps to do so versus deliberately taking documents, lieing that you don't have them, hiding them etc?

No, because they're ******* morons.

[The Great Zaganza]

I think you got it all wrong:

if pressed, Trump supporters will admit that he stole secret information and hid it - but nothing he does matters, positive or negative. He really could shoot someone and wouldn't lose votes. And ignore the fact that the Swamp drained him, not the other way around.

At this point, he is not a candidate but a Religious Idol, a focus for their combined will for power over everyone else. They all would vote for Putin if they could and he promised to take on the Deep State.

[gnome]

"How could the FBI raid me, I had declassified the documents!"
"No you didn't."
"I totally did, I had presidential authority to declassify documents."
"But you never actually said you did it, so now there's FBI!"
"I attack the wokeness!"

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

The problem is, in a case like this you have to deal with the first amendment and the issue of freedom of speech. (And the courts tend to be very cautious about applying any restrictions, especially to political speech.)

Tunnel vision. What makes you think this is the only evidence against Trump?

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Thus, unless a person gives clear and direct instructions (such as 'push past the barriers, break windows, hurt the police officers') there is a chance the courts may simply view it as protected speech.

"I told them to stop the certification/take the country back/etc.. I thought mass protests outside congress would be enough. I didn't expect them to break in" would probably be his legal defense.

There is a difference between "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" and "Here's a gun... go shoot that guy".

(Note: I am not trying to defend Trump's actions. I think he is guilty of inciting the Jan6 terrorist attack.. I'm just saying it might be tricky to get a conviction on it.)

You aren't paying attention; I don't blame you. It's unhealthy to be a news junkie like I am.

He didn't just tell them to protest though he's been gaslighting to convince people that was all he did.

Trump has been leading the effort to stay in power since before the election. Pence surely testified what Trump said to him about refusing to certify the election and not to worry his minions would do the rest.

It sounds like Meadows is testifying against Trump. The biggest thing as long as we are talking about 1/6 was Trump's refusal to make any effort to stop the violence for almost 3 hours. There could be a lot more evidence Smith has that we don't know about.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by Mojo

No, because they're ******* morons.

No. Just being deliberately obtuse.

[gnome]

My prediction, Cannon works on a more subtle way to sink the case.
Trump, with no patience for subtlety, asks her to just rule in his favor.
Bristling at being ordered around (as Judges often are), and being unwilling to so openly torpedo her reputation, she tells him to pound sand and recuses herself.
He announces how much of a woke traitor she is.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by gnome

Originally Posted by Mojo

No, because they're ******* morons.

No. Just being deliberately obtuse.

Or both.

Probably both.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

Just saw this. trump is fundraising off the federal indictments. Surprised? Not at all.

May any fundraising off his wrongdoing be summarily fined and taken away.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Tunnel vision. What makes you think this is the only evidence against Trump?


You aren't paying attention; I don't blame you. It's unhealthy to be a news junkie like I am.

He didn't just tell them to protest though he's been gaslighting to convince people that was all he did.

Trump has been leading the effort to stay in power since before the election. Pence surely testified what Trump said to him about refusing to certify the election and not to worry his minions would do the rest.

It sounds like Meadows is testifying against Trump. The biggest thing as long as we are talking about 1/6 was Trump's refusal to make any effort to stop the violence for almost 3 hours. There could be a lot more evidence Smith has that we don't know about.

Indeed. It's easy to get caught up in the focus on Trump's specific wording in that speech... there's really no mystery at all about what he was doing, but his defenders really like to treat everyone else like they were born yesterday, which keeps the focus there because of the emotions provoked. Trump's actions have been overwhelmingly more extensive and damning than just that, though, as you say. This isn't *just* another "Russia, if you're listening" that defenders are trying to spin as a joke, despite how absurd that was all along and how it was later found that he repeatedly sought to take action to get Russia to act. This is a large scale concerted effort with many anti-American and illegal deeds already known in the public sphere.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Tunnel vision. What makes you think this is the only evidence against Trump?


You aren't paying attention; I don't blame you. It's unhealthy to be a news junkie like I am.

He didn't just tell them to protest though he's been gaslighting to convince people that was all he did.

Trump has been leading the effort to stay in power since before the election. Pence surely testified what Trump said to him about refusing to certify the election and not to worry his minions would do the rest.

It sounds like Meadows is testifying against Trump. The biggest thing as long as we are talking about 1/6 was Trump's refusal to make any effort to stop the violence for almost 3 hours. There could be a lot more evidence Smith has that we don't know about.

EXACTLY! Trump did everything except spell it out for his insurrectionists. Trump plays this game which is designed to give him plausible deniability. They revved up that crowd and sent them on their way.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

For sure, any Trump lawyer valuing their job will document anything that looks slightly illegal going forward.

Any future prosecutor will attempt to get a Judge to rule for a crime fraud exception.

Wouldn't they do that anyway if they could put together enough evidence to make a convincing case? It's not like there's a great deal of love lost between prosecutors and defense attorneys most of the time.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

KW says it's not easy to do that, despite the pundits saying it is.

Also, sure doesn't have to be smart to beat them, just shameless. She's already shown she has plenty of that.

Ken is a sharp guy, and he's sure putting the gloom-and-doom frame around this. He explains that assignment to Judge Cannon was foregone. They have to file in Florida and they have to disclose that Cannon previously presided over elements of this case (i.e., the search warrant).

On the one hand, I agree that Judge Cannon in particular and many right-leaning judges in general (cough, Justice Thomas, cough) are simply impervious to shame. Any strategy that expects Cannon to preclude any of the egregious or outrageous options available to her seems unwise.

On the other hand, Judge Cannon doesn't have a good reputation among her colleagues and superiors. Even Trump allies like Jonathan Turley admit the indictment is pretty solid. Since Judge Cannon's superiors roundly excoriated her for the search warrant nonsense, it seems reasonable to believe they have some desire to protect the overall reputation of the Florida judiciary, and that therefore they won't let her torpedo a high-profile, well-supported indictment via some irrevocable procedural shell game.

Moreover, if we start with Ken's declaration that the assignment of Judge Cannon was unavoidable, we have to suspect that dealing with that is part of the overall prosecution plan. I doubt they'd seek an indictment and risk a double-jeopardy bar without some "loose Cannon" strategy.

Shameless plug: Ken reached out to me through some mutuals in the matter of the Univ. of Utah student who threatened to "detonate" the engineering school's nuclear reactor if Utah didn't win a football game. Not only do I have experience with that kind of reactor, I have experience with that exact reactor.

[d4m10n]

Came across this screencap during the breaking news yesterday:

Two of these have dropped indictments so far, third one has a likely timetable later this summer.

[smartcooky]

For those who cannot see the image properly in d4m10n's post.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Came across this screencap during the breaking news yesterday:

Two of these have dropped indictments so far, third one has a likely timetable later this summer.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Quote:

The problem is, in a case like this you have to deal with the first amendment and the issue of freedom of speech. (And the courts tend to be very cautious about applying any restrictions, especially to political speech.)

Tunnel vision. What makes you think this is the only evidence against Trump?

I never denied the possibility that there is additional evidence out there. (Not everything gets reported in the media and I am sure there is some stuff Smith is keeping close to his chest.)

I'm just saying the issue of "free speech" makes conviction more difficult, and simply saying things that appeal to the MAGAchud alone would not secure a conviction. Maybe we're lucky and there is an unbroken chain of communication between Trump and the oathkeepers. (I know they tried to contact Trump....) Or maybe there are tapes that suggest he was planning for their violence. (His order to remove metal detectors at his pre-attack rally hint at that.)

Quote:

You aren't paying attention; I don't blame you. It's unhealthy to be a news junkie like I am.

Actually I pay a lot of attention, thank you very much... My opinions on the problems with the "free speech" aspect of Trump's culpability come from a youtube video by the Legal Eagle.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Quote:

He didn't just tell them to protest though he's been gaslighting to convince people that was all he did.

Trump has been leading the effort to stay in power since before the election.

I know Trump and his minions have been trying to undermine democracy for years... denying that he lost, attempts to convince officials in Georgia to "find votes" (something I hope he gets nailed for soon), his role (whatever it is) in the fake electors scheme..

I am only referring to the narrow set of crimes specifically surrounding his actions regarding the Jan 6 terrorist attack. I do not doubt that he acted to inflame the crowd. I do not doubt that he WANTED chaos, and had no concerns if people were hurt/killed. The problem is making the case that he gave specific-enough directions to the crowd over what to do to charge him directly for the attack.

Quote:

The biggest thing as long as we are talking about 1/6 was Trump's refusal to make any effort to stop the violence for almost 3 hours.

From a moral point of view, Trump's refusal to try calming the crowd is evidence of his guilt. The question is, from a LEGAL point of view, does failure to act count as something a person can be blamed for.

[Stacyhs]

Regarding the danger of Trump having classified documents: photos of stacks and stacks of the boxes on the ballroom stage of Mar a Lago show that they were not secured. The boxes were stored there from January to March 2021. He had boxes in his bedroom, a bathroom and a shower. I can't find info as to where this bathroom and shower were; in his private quarters or elsewhere in Mar a Lago.

Article and photos here.

[The Great Zaganza]

The shower WAS Trump's SCIF !

[smartcooky]

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I never denied the possibility that there is additional evidence out there. (Not everything gets reported in the media and I am sure there is some stuff Smith is keeping close to his chest.)

I'm just saying the issue of "free speech" makes conviction more difficult, and simply saying things that appeal to the MAGAchud alone would not secure a conviction. ....

We don't have the 1/6 indictment yet. I take any opinion that 'free speech/difficult to convict' before the actual indictment with a grain of salt. IOW that opinion by Legal Eagle isn't worth much. Sorry but I find these Debbie Downer posts annoying.

YMMV

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Regarding the danger of Trump having classified documents: photos of stacks and stacks of the boxes on the ballroom stage of Mar a Lago show that they were not secured. The boxes were stored there from January to March 2021. He had boxes in his bedroom, a bathroom and a shower. I can't find info as to where this bathroom and shower were; in his private quarters or elsewhere in Mar a Lago.

Article and photos here.

Even if they're in his private quarters, there had to be a dozen staff in and out of there each day. I mean there must be a plumber in there to unclog the toilet at least twice a day.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Even if they're in his private quarters, there had to be a dozen staff in and out of there each day. I mean there must be a plumber in there to unclog the toilet at least twice a day.

LOL! True!

Every reference I can find says "his bedroom, but only "a" bathroom and "a" shower. Nothing says it was in his bathroom or shower. I'm just curious where these were.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

LOL! True!

Every reference I can find says "his bedroom, but only "a" bathroom and "a" shower. Nothing says it was in his bathroom or shower. I'm just curious where these were.

You're suspicious that they were in rooms much more easily accessible to the general public than his personal quarters, in short? If they were in a shower, specifically, that does strongly suggest that they were not in his quarters, because presumably, he would be using "his" shower.

[William Parcher]

His private quarters may have more than one shower.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

His private quarters may have more than one shower.

That is, of course, possible. Hence why I used "strongly suggest" there, though, rather than something more solid. That's not the only potential option that would allow the shower in question to be in his private rooms, for that matter. All of them are reasonable to treat as unlikely without more specific information actually indicating them to be the case, though.

[sinnikal]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

His private quarters may have more than one shower.

And not one of those radical socialist lo-flo shower heads either.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

His private quarters may have more than one shower.

Wonder if he ever uses them for their intended purpose.

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by Steve

Wonder if he ever uses them for their intended purpose.

I'm sure he's had at least one of them gold-plated so that he can make the obvious tasteless jokes.

[dirtywick]

more curious why he had classified documents in the shower at all

[Steve]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

more curious why he had classified documents in the shower at all

It's Trump! You expect him to make sense?

[shemp]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

more curious why he had classified documents in the shower at all

So he could launder them.