Trump indicted over classified documents

208,673 Views | 3433 Replies | Last: 12 hrs ago by will25u
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fka ftc said:

FishrCoAg said:

jrdaustin said:

FishrCoAg said:


Unless you are required by law to have it done…
LIke Biden obviously did, right? I mean, he had only 7 years to go through his crap, where Trump had a huge two years.




Stealing a blue star of whataboutism for this reply.
There should be a flag for people claiming whataboutism.

We have a concept in our judicial system based on Common Law called "precedence". People who snark back with "whataboutism" are directly in conflict with the concept of "precedence".
"precedents"






I'm Gipper
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Im Gipper said:

fka ftc said:

FishrCoAg said:

jrdaustin said:

FishrCoAg said:


Unless you are required by law to have it done…
LIke Biden obviously did, right? I mean, he had only 7 years to go through his crap, where Trump had a huge two years.




Stealing a blue star of whataboutism for this reply.
There should be a flag for people claiming whataboutism.

We have a concept in our judicial system based on Common Law called "precedent". People who snark back with "whataboutism" are directly in conflict with the concept of "precedent".
"precedents"
Thanks. Would have to mislead people given no other context.

And the laugh when people refer to me as a hall monitor. Grammar police obviously have precedence over hall monitors.
FishrCoAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jrdaustin said:

FishrCoAg said:

jrdaustin said:

FishrCoAg said:


Unless you are required by law to have it done…
LIke Biden obviously did, right? I mean, he had only 7 years to go through his crap, where Trump had a huge two years.


Stealing a blue star of whataboutism for this reply.
Ok. So equal justice means nothing to you, correct? No need to hold a VP to the same standard with 2.5x the time and less records to go through. We've got our man, no?

Whataboutism is a fun card to play in the political arena. We're in the legal arena now, and precedent is a thing.


Treatment would have been equal if DT had just returned the docs when requested or even when subpoenaed, IMO.

Two wrongs don't make a right seems to be pertinent as well.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Treatment would have been equal if DT had just returned the docs when requested or even when subpoenaed, IMO.

Two wrongs don't make a right seems to be pertinent as well.
Not a chance in hell. And here's why.

The August 2022 search of MAL was very very broad and not confined to classified documents. No detailed return of what was seized was done. Trump's lawyers were not allowed to observe the search. The FBI took a ton of stuff that was not related to his time as President. Then when Trump sued to have a Special Master appointed to separate out his personal information, his attorney client communications, etc, DOJ fought that.

Why? If all they were after were properly deemed Presidential Records, whether classified or not, why object to a procedure to specifically do that?
jrdaustin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FishrCoAg said:

jrdaustin said:

FishrCoAg said:

jrdaustin said:

FishrCoAg said:


Unless you are required by law to have it done…
LIke Biden obviously did, right? I mean, he had only 7 years to go through his crap, where Trump had a huge two years.


Stealing a blue star of whataboutism for this reply.
Ok. So equal justice means nothing to you, correct? No need to hold a VP to the same standard with 2.5x the time and less records to go through. We've got our man, no?

Whataboutism is a fun card to play in the political arena. We're in the legal arena now, and precedent is a thing.
Treatment would have been equal if DT had just returned the docs when requested or even when subpoenaed, IMO.

Two wrongs don't make a right seems to be pertinent as well.
Make that Three wrongs. Remember Hillary, the subpoena, the subsequent DESTRUCTION of documents, and then "no reasonable prosecutor would indict"?

So doesn't that make this special prosecutor UNreasonable?

Not whataboutsim. Precedent.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Also read about all of the issues with how the raid on MAL was done. Bad faith all around.

Quote:

The Miami Field Office did not conduct the search. Mr. D'Antuono testified that FBI headquarters made the decision to assign the execution of the search warrant to the Washington Field Office (WFO) despite the location of the search occurring in the territory of the FBI's Miami Field Office. Mr. D'Antuono stated that he had "absolutely no idea" why this decision was made and questioned why the Miami Field Office was not taking the lead on this matter.4 Mr. D'Antuono stated that the FBI "learned a lot of stuff from [the] Crossfire Hurricane" investigationnotably "that the [FBI] Headquarters does not work the investigation, it is supposed to be the field offices working the investigations."5 Mr. D'Antuono indicated that his "concern is that [the] DOJ was not following the same principles . . . ."6 In fact, as recently as May 2023, in response to the report of Special Counsel Durham, the FBI asserted that "investigations should be run out of the Field" and not from Washington, D.C.7 2.

The Department did not assign a U.S. Attorney's Office to the matter. According to Mr. D'Antuono, it was unusual to not have a U.S. Attorney assigned to an investigative matter, especially a matter of this magnitude. He explained that he "didn't understand why there wasn't a US Attorney assigned" and "raised this concern a lot with" Department officials because this was out of the ordinary. 8 Mr. D'Antuono indicated that he "never got a good answer" and was told that the National Security Division would be handling this matterwith Jay Bratt, who leads the Department's counterintelligence division, as "the lead prosecutor on the case." 9 Mr. Bratt is the same Department lawyer who allegedly improperly pressured a lawyer representing an employee of President Trump.10 Mr. D'Antuono again noted his concern regarding lessons learned from Crossfire Hurricane, that the Justice Department was not following the principle that "Headquarters does not work the investigation . . . .
Read the rest LINK
Not a Bot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
All other things aside, there is an audio recorded conversation from July 21, 2021 in which Trump was bragging to people about his classified documents. He told them he knew they were classified and then showed them to people who were not cleared to view them.

He knew he was being recorded, too. He just couldn't help himself.

If that alone is proven (and there are multiple witnesses and an audio recording) there's a felony conviction right there even absent all the other things.

I voted for Trump. I wish Hillary and Hunter were right there with him on the indictment list, but I think he's toast. His bravado and ego got the best of him.
Charpie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So you want us to take Jim Jordan's word for it?

He's not exactly non partisan here
the_batman26
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Who's bipartisan anymore?
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Charpie said:

So you want us to take Jim Jordan's word for it?

He's not exactly non partisan here
What is your problem with me pointing out different legal issues? Jordan is reporting upon what he was told by a 22 year veteran of the FBI Washington D.C. Field Office. FBI violated their own procedures (and possibly the law) in seeking and executing the search warrant on MAL.

It was not run out of the appropriate field office. It was not run by a crim section of DOJ but instead by Nat Sec division. A lot of hinky things were happening.
Not a Bot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

jrdaustin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not a Bot said:

All other things aside, there is an audio recorded conversation from July 21, 2021 in which Trump was bragging to people about his classified documents. He told them he knew they were classified and then showed them to people who were not cleared to view them.

He knew he was being recorded, too. He just couldn't help himself.

If that alone is proven (and there are multiple witnesses and an audio recording) there's a felony conviction right there even absent all the other things.

I voted for Trump. I wish Hillary and Hunter were right there with him on the indictment list, but I think he's toast. His bravado and ego got the best of him.
Is it? What was the document? DOJ/FBI purportedly don't have the document in their possession.

What it the applicable definition of "show"? Did he allow them to read it? Do we know? If he's sitting at his desk and they're sitting across the room while he waves a paper to make a point, is national security compromised? There's nothing illegal about him showing a piece of paper, saying this is a classified document, but not sharing the contents of the document.

So you're prepared to jail a former POTUS for that? Trump's definitely done himself no favors, but criminalizing this event as a felony action is WAY overkill. Unless, of course, guilty until proven innocent is now the standard.
jrdaustin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Charpie said:

So you want us to take Jim Jordan's word for it?

He's not exactly non partisan here
So you want me to take Jack Smith's word for it?

He's not exactly non partisan here.

But blue parachute for you, sir!

ETA: And they aren't really Jordan's words. They are the words of Steven D'Antuono, a senior FBI agent that was among those in charge of the raid at Mar a Lago that had serious questions with the process and how it was executed.

So please tell us why Mr. D'Antuono's words should be discounted. I'm very curious to know.
the_batman26
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Smith has some serious dirt too, but no one wants to read into it.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
the_batman26 said:

Smith has some serious dirt too, but no one wants to read into it.
As does Gilmore, the prosecutor in South Florida. Major prosecutorial malfeasance.
Not a Bot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He showed multiple people a classified military document regarding a potential attack plan against (likely) Iran. In his own words he told them to "read it." He also says "this is secret" then went on to say it was classified. He wanted the conversation off the record. He knew what he was doing.

He was mad that someone made a claim in the media that he wanted to attack country A (likely Iran) and he wanted this document leaked showing the military gave him attack plans.

By the way, if they have the tapes they also have interviews with the four witnesses who were present.
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

He showed multiple people a classified military document regarding a potential attack plan against (likely) Iran. In his own words he told them to "read it."
If that is so bad, why wasn't Trump charged with that?

I'm Gipper
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jrdaustin said:

Not a Bot said:

All other things aside, there is an audio recorded conversation from July 21, 2021 in which Trump was bragging to people about his classified documents. He told them he knew they were classified and then showed them to people who were not cleared to view them.

He knew he was being recorded, too. He just couldn't help himself.

If that alone is proven (and there are multiple witnesses and an audio recording) there's a felony conviction right there even absent all the other things.

I voted for Trump. I wish Hillary and Hunter were right there with him on the indictment list, but I think he's toast. His bravado and ego got the best of him.
Is it? What was the document? DOJ/FBI purportedly don't have the document in their possession.

What it the applicable definition of "show"? Did he allow them to read it? Do we know? If he's sitting at his desk and they're sitting across the room while he waves a paper to make a point, is national security compromised? There's nothing illegal about him showing a piece of paper, saying this is a classified document, but not sharing the contents of the document.
None of the charges are for showing the documents to anyone.

That is in the indictment to help show Trump's actual knowledge of the documents' classification status and, I would imagine, also head off defense claims that they were all previously declassified.
Not a Bot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's in the indictment because he knew the documents were classified and intentionally kept them without clearance. In the context of that conversation he was using them to get the info into the press.
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank you, but you did not answer the question.

If that was so bad, why wasn't Trump charged with it?

I'm Gipper
jrdaustin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not a Bot said:

He showed multiple people a classified military document regarding a potential attack plan against (likely) Iran. In his own words he told them to "read it." He also says "this is secret" then went on to say it was classified. He wanted the conversation off the record. He knew what he was doing.
I don't read that as Iran. I read it as China. As in it was an attack plan drafted by Milley, who subsequently called the Chinese to tell them that Trump was unhinged and that he (Milley) would "protect" them.

And "multiple people included the writer of his memoir, the publisher, and two staffers. I believe Trump was making a point to the group showing the hypocricy of Milley in public vs. his actions in private. He wasn't saying "Here are the attack plans on a foreign country. Go share this with the world or those countries."

There was a deranged poster that we all know that earlier in the thread that was calling the group "randos". They were not random people.

Granted, I could be wrong on the China thing, but that's what I read into the snippet shared in the indictment. What I do know is that the man was not committing espionage.
jrdaustin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TXAggie2011 said:

jrdaustin said:

Not a Bot said:

All other things aside, there is an audio recorded conversation from July 21, 2021 in which Trump was bragging to people about his classified documents. He told them he knew they were classified and then showed them to people who were not cleared to view them.

He knew he was being recorded, too. He just couldn't help himself.

If that alone is proven (and there are multiple witnesses and an audio recording) there's a felony conviction right there even absent all the other things.

I voted for Trump. I wish Hillary and Hunter were right there with him on the indictment list, but I think he's toast. His bravado and ego got the best of him.
Is it? What was the document? DOJ/FBI purportedly don't have the document in their possession.

What it the applicable definition of "show"? Did he allow them to read it? Do we know? If he's sitting at his desk and they're sitting across the room while he waves a paper to make a point, is national security compromised? There's nothing illegal about him showing a piece of paper, saying this is a classified document, but not sharing the contents of the document.
None of the charges are for showing the documents to anyone.

That is in the indictment to help show Trump's actual knowledge of the documents' classification status and, I would imagine, also head off defense claims that they were all previously declassified.
Exactly! Which is why your earlier argument completely discounting the PRA is circular reasoning that ultimately collapes on itself. Remember, prior to 1978, it didn't matter whether the documents were classified or not. They belonged to the former POTUS.

You're making the argument that Trump should have known what was in every box prior to them arriving at MAL. That in 14 days he get 100% right what was personal and what was Presidential. A standard that was not held to any prior President, VP, or Secretary of State before the MAL raid.

Again, I'm not arguing what Trump did might not have been stupid. I'm arguing it wasn't criminal.
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

Treatment would have been equal if DT had just returned the docs when requested or even when subpoenaed, IMO.

Two wrongs don't make a right seems to be pertinent as well.
Not a chance in hell. And here's why.

The August 2022 search of MAL was very very broad and not confined to classified documents. No detailed return of what was seized was done. Trump's lawyers were not allowed to observe the search. The FBI took a ton of stuff that was not related to his time as President. Then when Trump sued to have a Special Master appointed to separate out his personal information, his attorney client communications, etc, DOJ fought that.

Why? If all they were after were properly deemed Presidential Records, whether classified or not, why object to a procedure to specifically do that?
For one, the DOJ fought it (Trump's lawsuit) because Judge Cannon should have dismissed it out of hand when her law clerk first set the pleading on her desk. Trump voluntarily sued the DOJ. There is no reason, when the DOJ has been sued, that the DOJ should be expected to sit back as a judge butchers the law multiple times.
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is Iran.

Here is news story:

https://www.businessinsider.com/milley-warned-trump-on-iran-strikes-youre-gonna-have-a-f-ing-war-2021-7

I'm Gipper
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

There is no reason, when the DOJ has been sued, that the DOJ should be expected to sit back as a judge butchers the law multiple times.
So appointing a Special Master never happens when the FBI seizes attorney client communications?

That is what you are saying?
jrdaustin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TXAggie2011 said:

aggiehawg said:

Quote:

Treatment would have been equal if DT had just returned the docs when requested or even when subpoenaed, IMO.

Two wrongs don't make a right seems to be pertinent as well.
Not a chance in hell. And here's why.

The August 2022 search of MAL was very very broad and not confined to classified documents. No detailed return of what was seized was done. Trump's lawyers were not allowed to observe the search. The FBI took a ton of stuff that was not related to his time as President. Then when Trump sued to have a Special Master appointed to separate out his personal information, his attorney client communications, etc, DOJ fought that.

Why? If all they were after were properly deemed Presidential Records, whether classified or not, why object to a procedure to specifically do that?
For one, the DOJ fought it (Trump's lawsuit) because Judge Cannon should have dismissed it out of hand when her law clerk first set the pleading on her desk. Trump voluntarily sued the DOJ. There is no reason, when the DOJ has been sued, that the DOJ should be expected to sit back as a judge butchers the law multiple times.
Ahh, and here's why you assert that the PRA wouldn't apply. Then you couldn't selectively pick what law is being "butchered".

Quite revealing. Thanks.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So I just found out that Judge Cannon was randomly picked off of the wheel. Hilarious.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
the_batman26
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wheel of Fortune Justice
jrdaustin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

There is no reason, when the DOJ has been sued, that the DOJ should be expected to sit back as a judge butchers the law multiple times.
So appointing a Special Master never happens when the FBI seizes attorney client communications?

That is what you are saying?
Not only that, but tax returns, passports, personal documents and items, private records containing personal notations, etc.

Apparently all of that is fair game against a former POTUS dare they question the actions of the almighty F. B. I.

Not to mention it's information that can be quite useful in a future election campaign.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

So I just found out that Judge Cannon was randomly picked off of the wheel. Hilarious.
There are apparently 7 federal district court judges in the Southern District. But as a practical matter, only two of those 7 get assigned criminal cases. So it was basically a 50/50 chance she would get the case.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
will25u said:


They are going to "upload" a previous picture. I suspect they will also "upload" his fingerprints.

No need to finger print him. He is a known figure and with SS protection is most certainly not a flight risk.

Remember back when FBI/DOJ "inadvertently" seized their passports during the armed raid of MAL? Bet those same slimeballs try to revoke his passport.

Has Trump traveled abroad since Jan 2021? I wander if Biden would weaponize DHS to prevent him from returning to US if he ever left.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
the_batman26 said:

Wheel of Fortune Justice
Pat Sajaks final wheelspin evidently.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Donald Trump becomes the first U.S. president to be impeached(x2), indicted(x2, maybe x4 coming up), and arrested(x2).
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.