Trump indicted over classified documents

214,452 Views | 3469 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by aggiehawg
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 7:19p, 6/12/23
AG
Stat Monitor Repairman said:


Trans John Kerry says Trump could be forced to wear ankle monitor.

What say all you jailhouse lawyers?
WTF?

Yeah. The SS won't know where he's at. We need an ankle bracelet for that...
Reply Quote
1
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fka ftc • 7:51p, 6/12/23
AG
fka ftc said:
aggiehawg said:
Im Gipper said:
Quote:
but the FPOTUS cannot be prosecuted for crimes allegedly committed whilst POTUS.


What are you talking about? The constitution specifically says that after someone's impeached, they can be tried and convicted after removal:

but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

You get this from Barnes Law? Or your secret source? Her name DelRiego?
WTF are you talking about?
He's conflating a couple of things. The reference is of course to Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 of the Constitution. Which said that the penalty of impeachment and conviction by sentence can only be removal from office and barred from future office. It then says the CONVICTED can still be subject to criminal proceedings.

The OLC opinion takes the case of a previous ruling where someone acquitted criminally could or could not then be subject to impeachment. The ruling was in favor saying Congress retained its impeachment ability regardless of criminal proceedings.

The reverse of this is not decided science. In that case, can you criminally try a POTUS for alleged crimes committed whilst POTUS without impeachment and conviction by the Senate. That is not what the Constitution says.

I'm Gipper believes it is settled science even though the OLC itself says its never been subject to review and that I am a fraud or poser or other similar ad hom reference.


You've got the OLC opinion backwards. I thought it was a typo at first but you've repeated it several times in several posts
Reply Quote
3
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 8:05p, 6/12/23
The OLC concluded that a person acquitted by the senate could be criminally indicted for same offenses and they said you could. Then they admit no court has ever actually ruled on in it. They base their conclusion on a case where it was held a person acquitted criminally could still be impeached.

That is a flawed analysis as the question is whether a sitting POTUS can be indicted for a crime he is alleged to have committed whilst POTUS without first being impeached and convicted. I contend he cannot.

The US Constitution Art 1 Sec 3 Cls 7 only states that following CONVICTION by the Senate, the person impeached can still be held criminally responsible, which is what I'm Gipper was getting at. That again is not the question.

The question is whether a sitting POTUS can be indicted for a crime he is alleged to have committed without being impeached. Again, I contend he cannot.

The above assumes POTUS can successfully claim Presidential Immunity. That question is actually not a question for SCOTUS but is for the Congress to decide... through the impeachment process.
Reply Quote
2
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:23p, 6/12/23
Reply Quote
7
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:37p, 6/12/23
AG
I should know better than try to discuss anything with MFB incarnate but I guess one last time…


You're generally mischaracterizing the "debate" the OPC lays out. The issue the 2000 OLC memo mostly grapples with is generally whether a President being acquitted by the Senate and then later, once out of office, being tried criminally would violate double jeopardy concerns.

The OLC concludes no, it does not. It essentially concludes impeachment is a special civil issue, separate from a criminal issue.

The OLC never puts any weight on or even really ever suggests a former President cannot be criminally prosecuted at all for an alleged crime committed while in office. There would be no reason for the OLC to write pages and pages about a former President being criminally tried after a Senate trial if the President cannot be criminally prosecuted, full stop. Nor does the OLC offer any qualifications on what kind of crimes a former President can be tried for.

And indeed, if one believes a former President can be criminally prosecuted even with a "not guilty" verdict in the Senate then it pretty clearly follows a former President can be criminally prosecuted if they weren't tried at all…there would be zero double jeopardy concern in that circumstance.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 8:43p, 6/12/23
Then he can claim Presidential Immunity. Boom.

As mentioned, SCOTUS would have no authority to determine Presidential Immunity (or they shouldn't), as whether a POTUS is acting within their oath of office is a question for Congress.

Double jeopardy has no part in any of this. A POTUS cannot commit a crime if he believes he is acting within his oath of office. It's just that simple.

If not, then the Executive Branch is able to eliminate the Executive and that's not a real pleasant thought, even though to an extent it's what happened to Trump.
Reply Quote
2
Charpie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 9:09p, 6/12/23
AG
That guy is never right. Not sure why you keep posting his tweets
Reply Quote
6
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 9:12p, 6/12/23
AG
will25u said:
Wait what? Motion in limine used to quash the indictment? Confused.
Reply Quote
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 9:19p, 6/12/23
It's not a motion in limine. It's a motion to suppress that's being described. Rule 12(b)(3)(C)

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
3
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 9:22p, 6/12/23
AG
Reply Quote
1 edit
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 9:24p, 6/12/23
AG
Im Gipper said:
It's not a motion in limine. It's a motion to suppress that's being described. Rule 12(b)(3)(C)


It's a campaign fundraising filing that's being described
Reply Quote
8
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:27p, 6/12/23
AG
What?
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Charpie • 9:33p, 6/12/23
Charpie said:
That guy is never right. Not sure why you keep posting his tweets
Sperry usually has good info. So I don't know what you're talking about.
Reply Quote
1
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:41p, 6/12/23




I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
1
agz win
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:46p, 6/12/23
AG
Federal Court is diffe(R)ent.
Reply Quote
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:56p, 6/12/23
Of all the political hit jobs that Trump has been subjected to since 2015. One thing is clear to me on this one …

Trump 100% brought this upon himself.

This whole case is absolutely senseless. You'd have to sign up for Onlyfans to find someone that could **** themselves as hard Trump has in this case.

The whole thing is so stupid and senseless that it's incredulous.

It's the worst episode of NCIS: Miami that you've ever seen.

Trump here was like Mike Tyson not respecting Buster Douglas.

Trump f'ed around and got popped.

So now out of all the problems we got in the world, we focused on this stupid ass case.

Tump's ego might have finally written a check his ass cant cash.

But we'll see.
Reply Quote
7
3 edits
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 10:02p, 6/12/23
Im Gipper said:
Can't fault the Judge here. You got to maintain- control over your courtroom and you got broad authority to do so. So this is just a bunch of journalists crying over nothing trying to get clicks. Theres no hay to be made from this issue.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Tibbers
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 10:14p, 6/12/23
Ag with kids said:
Stat Monitor Repairman said:


Trans John Kerry says Trump could be forced to wear ankle monitor.

What say all you jailhouse lawyers?
WTF?

Yeah. The SS won't know where he's at. We need an ankle bracelet for that...


Lol, if anything that's a shot against the bow of all who have said multiple celebrities just so happened to be wearing ankle braces from 2017-2020. What a loon, that lady…
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 10:16p, 6/12/23
AG
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Im Gipper said:
Can't fault the Judge here. You got to matin control over your courtroom and you got broad authority to do so. So this is just a bunch of journalists crying over nothing trying to get clicks. Theres no hay to be made from this issue.
she's a W appointee. This whole charade is going to end up being a very bad look for the (D) people that thought going after a former President like this was somehow a good idea. Even trump knew not to.
Reply Quote
5
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 10:20p, 6/12/23
will25u said:
We'll see what happens though.

The judge decides to dismiss this case here and now. Then what?

People would go mother ****ing ballistic.

That's what would happen. It would be crazy in this country, People would melt down. It would be the worst meltdowns we've ever seen. And an absolute triumph for Trump.

Then what would the DOJ do? Try and appeal the case to the 11th circuit?

That would be an insane course of events

Judge dismisses this case pre-anything and makes the 11th circuit deal with it.

Thats what I'd do if I was this Judge.

PUNT THIS MOTHER - ******.TO THE 11th CIRCUIT.

If the government wants to appeal. Let them deal with it.

Then we'll have a case on appeal during the presidential election where the federal government is appealing a criminal case against the former president, and current presidential candidate.

You cant make this stuff up. the House of Cards people could never conceive of a storyline this good.

What a time to be alive!
Reply Quote
2
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:23p, 6/12/23
Anyone who has spent any time around the federal government or military knows that you cant take classified materials off-site, and you have to follow the protocol for handling classified stuff. Everyone knows that.

But Trump.

This was the first time in his life he'd had to deal with regulations and protocol for stuff like classified material.

Trump was careless and under appreciated the situation, or wouldn't listen to whoever was trying to explain it to him.

So the fact that these boxes are anywhere near his personal residence. That's on him.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
jjtrcka22
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 10:31p, 6/12/23
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Anyone who has spent any time around the federal government or military knows that you cant take classified materials off-site, and you have to follow the protocol for handling classified stuff. Everyone knows that.

But Trump.

This was the first time in his life he'd had to deal with regulations and protocol for stuff like classified material.

Trump was careless and under appreciated the situation, or wouldn't listen to whoever was trying to explain it to him.

So the fact that these boxes are anywhere near his personal residence. That's on him.
True. He does not have experience with handling classified documents. But he also has seen other politicians take/mishandle classified documents and not have any real consequences. What precedent has there been to make him think it was really that big of a deal.
Reply Quote
6
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:31p, 6/12/23
There didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to anything in these boxes. I don't think it was a part of some organized plan or conspiracy. It seems to me like just plain carelessness and arrogance.

From what I can tell, the contents of these boxes were a mixed lot of with newspaper clippings and other random bs that Trump had collected over the years.

It seems like someone packed up all the crap that was in Trump's office and sent it to his personal residence. Nobody gave it a second thought. Nobody knew or cared what was In those boxes that were being treated as an inconvenience and annoyance.

So part of me thinks Trump thought the democrats were ****ing with him on all this. So instead of going through the stuff and sending the government what they asked for, he tried to fight 'em on it.

So now we've seen that they aren't ****ing around. Maybe Trump didn't take these people serious enough.

But the point is thais whole case is senseless. Make no rational sense why someone would handle this issue the way Trump has handled it thus far.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:35p, 6/12/23
Dragging around cardboard boxes of crap from you old job. And storing cardboard boxes of crap all around the house.

This might be the most boomer crime ever committed.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 10:42p, 6/12/23
AG
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Dragging around cardboard boxes of crap from you old job. And storing cardboard boxes crap all around the house.

This might be the most boomer crime ever committed.
you're missing the forest for the trees, bud. Cut trump out of the picture and look at what they're trying.

Like I've said frequently: the (D) DOJ was obsessed with whether they could. They never thought about whether they should.

ETA: Trump himself
Knew better with Obama and biden. Hell, even Hillary.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ThunderCougarFalconBird • 10:47p, 6/12/23
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Dragging around cardboard boxes of crap from you old job. And storing cardboard boxes crap all around the house.

This might be the most boomer crime ever committed.
you're missing the forest for the trees, bud. Cut trump out of the picture and look at what they're trying.

Like I've said frequently: the (D) DOJ was obsessed with whether they could. They never thought about whether they should.

ETA: Trump himself
Knew better with Obama and biden. Hell, even Hillary.
It's wild man. An absolutely wild course of events. It's intentional cahos.

In any reasonable word they would have negotiated the return of the boxes and that would be the end of it.

What we are seeing here is something extra.

God only knows what's going on here.

Maybe the judge dismisses the case for the good of all parties involved. It makes no sense to prosecute this case.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:55p, 6/12/23
Trump's handling of this whole situation is like lifting up a piece of tin just to see if there is a snake under there.

And Guess what? There was.

In the form of a 37-count federal indictment.

So why would you do that?

Why would Trump intentionally bring more grief on himself by ****ing around with cardboard boxes of documents.

Theres not point to this controversy. That's all I'm trying to say.

It's conflict for the sake of conflict.
Reply Quote
8
2 edits
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:03p, 6/12/23
One thing is for sure though ...

It's a good thing Trump came out and challenged that warrant right off the bat.

There was a lot of discussion about that issue and a lot pf people wrong about that issue.

I'm praying theres gonna be another Chinese spy balloon to distract us from the absolute stupidity of this trump case.

This Trump case is a steaming turd, but we are all watching it because it's the best thing on right now.

It's 12:30 am and we up sitting on the couch watching G.L.O.W. because its the only thing on.

We all primed up for some kind of additional crisis though. I will tell you that. this Trump deal is filler material. God only knows what we likely to see play out over the next few months.
Reply Quote
Gigem314
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 11:09p, 6/12/23
AG
It's all filler right now because the media treats old man Joe with kid gloves and refuses to highlight any real issues that actually impact the daily lives of Americans - because it would make the administration look bad.
Reply Quote
1
TRADUCTOR
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 11:10p, 6/12/23
Fall will be great in Texas, basically chaos while thermostat is set to 67.
Reply Quote
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jjtrcka22 • 11:21p, 6/12/23
AG
jjtrcka22 said:
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Anyone who has spent any time around the federal government or military knows that you cant take classified materials off-site, and you have to follow the protocol for handling classified stuff. Everyone knows that.

But Trump.

This was the first time in his life he'd had to deal with regulations and protocol for stuff like classified material.

Trump was careless and under appreciated the situation, or wouldn't listen to whoever was trying to explain it to him.

So the fact that these boxes are anywhere near his personal residence. That's on him.
True. He does not have experience with handling classified documents. But he also has seen other politicians take/mishandle classified documents and not have any real consequences. What precedent has there been to make him think it was really that big of a deal.
Have previous former Presidents refused to return classified documents?

It seems to me that this is the real issue. They asked him to return the classified documents in his possession. When that didn't work, they subpoenaed the classified documents in his possession. When that didn't work, they went in to search for the classified documents in his possession and seize them.

Sure, there may have been classified documents in the custody of NARA that they stored in a secure area at whatever storage facility they used waiting for the Presidential Library to be built. And once built, the classified documents are reportedly still kept under tight security. You can't really say that those documents are in the possession of the former President.

In Trump's case, he apparently has no site for a Presidential library or a museum and so his Presidential records are stored at a site in Washington, DC with additional security for any classified records. Those aren't in Trump's possession.
Reply Quote
5
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:24p, 6/12/23
Donald Trump has been the subject of more litigation than any human to have ever walked the face of the earth.
Reply Quote
4
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 11:24p, 6/12/23
AG
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Donald Trump has been the subject of more litigation than any human to have ever walked the face of the earth.
Where there is smoke, there is fire. Right?
Reply Quote
6
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 11:52p, 6/12/23
eric76 said:
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Donald Trump has been the subject of more litigation than any human to have ever walked the face of the earth.
Where there is smoke, there is fire. Right?
Trump sued the NFL on an anti trust case in 1986,

He's had high profile divorces.,

Stormy Daniels situation.

He's being sued over a golf course he owns over in Ireland.

He's been sued by Univision.

He's been sued over his beauty pageants.

He's been through a bunch of bankruptcies and assorted business litigation.

He's been through impeachment proceedings twice.

He's been sued by the lady he rejected for sex at the lingerie store.

He's been sued in his capacity as president.

Hes been sued in NY over the tax records.

He's been involved in litigation with Deutsch Bank.

Trump sued his niece and the NYT.

Trump sued the DNC and Hillary Clinton.

Trump's been sued over Jan 6th.

Trump has sued CNN.

TikTok has sued Trump.

Trans people have sued Trump.

Trump got sued over Trump University.

Trump was so experienced that he came to the aid of Mike Tyson when he got wrapped up in litigation in the 1990s

Point is that Trump is the most experienced litigant of all time. So if anybody has a chance of prevailing in this absolute piece of **** of a case, that man is Donald Trump.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
pagerman @ work
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 9:05a, 6/13/23
AG
Quote:
But the point is thais whole case is senseless. Make no rational sense why someone would handle this issue the way Trump has handled it thus far.

At the end of the day, Trump gonna Trump.

It's like he is pathologically incapable of varying his behavior, even when (especially when?) doing so would be the obviously better and smarter thing to do.
Reply Quote
3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.