I'm continually amazed that people still engage, much less acknowledge, eric76. It's one of life's greatest mysteries.
Trump indicted over classified documents
266,624 Views |
3603 Replies |
Last: 4 days ago by HTownAg98
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
Joined:
Apr 13, 2004
Posts:
44,859
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There is a reason Congress created and passed an entire act defining how courts should conduct trials regarding classified information. This is hardly a novel nor infrequent issue.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
So the DOJ is seeking a criminal conviction based on secreted evidence?
Is the DOJ using the same criminal procedure used to prosecute al queda terrorists to prosecute a former president of the United States on the basis of a dispute regarding sorting and handling of presidential records?
Is the protection of TS/SCIF defense information so important to the national security of the United States that it is reasonable for the DOJ to prosecute under this criminal statute when the prosecution of this crime involves the disclosure of the SCIF information to all of the judges, magistrates, attorneys and jurors involved in this case?
They can still invoke CIPA procedures, if they wish. (Meaning DOJ can.)Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Is the protection of TS/SCIF defense information so important to the national security of the United States that it is reasonable for the DOJ to prosecute under this criminal statute when the prosecution of this crime involves the disclosure of the SCIF information to all of the judges, magistrates, attorneys and jurors involved in this case?
Ahh, I assume you're speaking of that 1917 act? And you're asserting that a 105 year old law applied for the first time ever to target a FPOTUS and current presidential candidate is NOT novel????TXAggie2011 said:There is a reason Congress created and passed an entire act defining how courts should conduct trials regarding classified information. This is hardly a novel nor infrequent issue.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
So the DOJ is seeking a criminal conviction based on secreted evidence?
The trolls are definitely out today.
I'll wager that's EXACTLY what they wish to do. I have this nagging feeling that the contents of the documents themselves are dated or benign, and would undermine DOJ's case against Trump.aggiehawg said:They can still invoke CIPA procedures, if they wish. (Meaning DOJ can.)Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Is the protection of TS/SCIF defense information so important to the national security of the United States that it is reasonable for the DOJ to prosecute under this criminal statute when the prosecution of this crime involves the disclosure of the SCIF information to all of the judges, magistrates, attorneys and jurors involved in this case?
We've heard of RINO's. Now, I bet we have CINO's and NDINO's. They've now muzzled Trump from talking about the documents once his team sees them in the discovery process. My guess is that they're worried that he would make political hay out of how irrelevant the contents of the documents are.
That's the risk DOJ was running when they built a house of cards prosecution on what should have remained an administrative dispute.
Are we talking about the same DOJ that wire tapped Trump Tower in 2015 on the basis of a defective FISA warrant?
Mary, Mark, Luke and John
All these prophets are dead and gone
Keep your hand on that plow, hold on
Oh Lord, oh Lord, keep your hand on that plow, hold on
All these prophets are dead and gone
Keep your hand on that plow, hold on
Oh Lord, oh Lord, keep your hand on that plow, hold on
I'm speaking of CIPAjrdaustin said:Ahh, I assume you're speaking of that 1917 act? And you're asserting that a 105 year old law applied for the first time ever to target a FPOTUS and current presidential candidate is NOT novel????TXAggie2011 said:There is a reason Congress created and passed an entire act defining how courts should conduct trials regarding classified information. This is hardly a novel nor infrequent issue.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
So the DOJ is seeking a criminal conviction based on secreted evidence?
The trolls are definitely out today.
Just a note about the CIPA procedures. Not all federal judges are trained in them. Cannon has not been a federal judge for very long and may have zero experience in them. That issue alone may end up forcing her to recuse herself.jrdaustin said:I'll wager that's EXACTLY what they wish to do. I have this nagging feeling that the contents of the documents themselves are dated or benign, and would undermine DOJ's case against Trump.aggiehawg said:They can still invoke CIPA procedures, if they wish. (Meaning DOJ can.)Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Is the protection of TS/SCIF defense information so important to the national security of the United States that it is reasonable for the DOJ to prosecute under this criminal statute when the prosecution of this crime involves the disclosure of the SCIF information to all of the judges, magistrates, attorneys and jurors involved in this case?
We've heard of RINO's. Now, I bet we have CINO's and NDINO's. They've now muzzled Trump from talking about the documents once his team sees them in the discovery process. My guess is that they're worried that he would make political hay out of how irrelevant the contents of the documents are.
That's the risk DOJ was running when they built a house of cards prosecution on what should have remained an administrative dispute.
If the DOJ indicts a criminal defendant on the basis of a general statute that is interpreted in such a way that the statute can be applied to one of six living persons;
Is that statute considered a de facto bill of attainder which would fall within the meaning of the express prohibition on bills of attainder contained in Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution?
Is that statute considered a de facto bill of attainder which would fall within the meaning of the express prohibition on bills of attainder contained in Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution?
Wonderful. The point stands. CIPA procedures used in the prosecution of a former POTUS for how he handled documents from his own presidency post-office is still most certainly novel, much less infrequent, is it not?TXAggie2011 said:I'm speaking of CIPAjrdaustin said:Ahh, I assume you're speaking of that 1917 act? And you're asserting that a 105 year old law applied for the first time ever to target a FPOTUS and current presidential candidate is NOT novel????TXAggie2011 said:There is a reason Congress created and passed an entire act defining how courts should conduct trials regarding classified information. This is hardly a novel nor infrequent issue.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
So the DOJ is seeking a criminal conviction based on secreted evidence?
The trolls are definitely out today.
Do you believe that Congress had this exact scenario in mind when they passed CIPA?
I love this overall concept...
POTUS had every right to declassify documents in his possession prior to leaving office, but he didn't. So, we now have the loophole we always wanted in order to jail him and keep him from running again.
So asinine. But keep on trying to win arguments here. We'll ALL lose the war.
Questions will get exponentially more difficult.
But I can hear that gospel choir warming up. So y'all keep yo hand on that plow, hold on.
But I can hear that gospel choir warming up. So y'all keep yo hand on that plow, hold on.
No.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
If the DOJ indicts a criminal defendant on the basis of a general statute that is interpreted in such a way that the statute can be applied to one of six living persons;
Is that statute considered a de facto bill of attainder which would fall within the meaning of the express prohibition on bills of attainder contained in Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution?
Running list of constitutional issues in US v. Trump:
1st
4th
5th
6th
14th (substantive and procedural);
and;
Article 1 Section 9
I'm posting while driving. Did I miss anything?
1st
4th
5th
6th
14th (substantive and procedural);
and;
Article 1 Section 9
I'm posting while driving. Did I miss anything?
I hear what you saying hawgaggiehawg said:No.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
If the DOJ indicts a criminal defendant on the basis of a general statute that is interpreted in such a way that the statute can be applied to one of six living persons;
Is that statute considered a de facto bill of attainder which would fall within the meaning of the express prohibition on bills of attainder contained in Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution?
but,
I'd like to hear the Supreme Court say what you just said.
Been thinking about Trump's "cavalier" attitude in his interview with Baier and how folks are thinking he stepped into more of a mess "acknowledging" his crimes, including obstruction.
At this point, Trump knows he is not getting fair trial. I would put money on him ignoring the gag order. No reason not to. Are they really going to jail FPOTUS for violating a gag order? And if they want to go for it, it only makes him that much more of a martyr.
Pushing Trump into a "nothing to lose" corner is not going to turn out well for anyone. But with the bs plea deal for Hunter and the continued stonewalling by FBI/DOJ on even pretending to look into the Biden Crime family, the stakes are getting way too high for this to be resolved by a court in South Florida.
To be honest, at this point, burn it all the **** down. Hug your wife and kids, make sure your rainy day fund is stacked to the top, and prep like a Mormon for hard times.
If the Dems want to play for keeps, then its time for Civil War 2.0.
At this point, Trump knows he is not getting fair trial. I would put money on him ignoring the gag order. No reason not to. Are they really going to jail FPOTUS for violating a gag order? And if they want to go for it, it only makes him that much more of a martyr.
Pushing Trump into a "nothing to lose" corner is not going to turn out well for anyone. But with the bs plea deal for Hunter and the continued stonewalling by FBI/DOJ on even pretending to look into the Biden Crime family, the stakes are getting way too high for this to be resolved by a court in South Florida.
To be honest, at this point, burn it all the **** down. Hug your wife and kids, make sure your rainy day fund is stacked to the top, and prep like a Mormon for hard times.
If the Dems want to play for keeps, then its time for Civil War 2.0.
Is the DOJ's indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate considered 'meddling' in the electoral process?
and;
What was the outcome of the DOJ's investigation into allegations of 'meddling' in the 2020 election?
and;
What was the outcome of the DOJ's investigation into allegations of 'meddling' in the 2020 election?
Is the incarceration of a former president and current presidential candidate for violating a gag order prohibiting the public discussion of secreted evidence in a federal criminal trial constitutional when the criminal trial occurs during a presidential campaign?
They also should have addressed Hunter's plea deal prior to Biden announcing his campaign.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Is the DOJ's indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate considered 'meddling' in the electoral process?
and;
What was the outcome of the DOJ's investigation into allegations of 'meddling' in the 2020 election?
It is legitimate to argue that the plea deal involving not just the sitting POTUS but one that has formally announced his campaign for re-election is election interfering and a blatant Hatch Act violation.
Question I have is who could you ever trust to investigate and adjudicate? For the Executive, its self-policing and cannot be trusted. Congress is impotent in investigating ANYTHING.
Can we self report our Country to The Hague or the UN? (I am kidding of course)
Seriously though, can SCOTUS act as an independent arbiter of this mess?
We are about to break the sound barrier in how fast this is all progressing to a real deal constitutional crisis. People should not be cheering on either side at this point.
Great question. Especially when DOJ went into attack dog mode and completely bypassed administrative actions to rectify the issue. Even bypassed civil litigation and went straight for criminal. Why?Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Is the DOJ's indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate considered 'meddling' in the electoral process?
and;
What was the outcome of the DOJ's investigation into allegations of 'meddling' in the 2020 election?
I've stated before that virtually everyone knows Trump well enough to know that you'll get what you want from him using honey long before you will using a stick. Use a stick, and he's guaranteed to dig in. But the DOJ went straight for the stick. Why? Because they knew what his reaction would be.
Of course it is. What right does a court have to limit the free speech of a candidate for the highest office in the land?Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Is the incarceration of a former president and current presidential candidate for violating a gag order prohibiting the public discussion of secreted evidence in a federal criminal trial constitutional when the criminal trial occurs during a presidential campaign?
I'm posting with one hand while operating a Cat 308 mini-excavator so please excuse any tiypos or gramatical errors. I'll go back and fix later.
[update]
Spilled half my tall boy in the cupholder, good thing they have drain holes and this excivator is a rental/
[update]
Spilled half my tall boy in the cupholder, good thing they have drain holes and this excivator is a rental/
Quote:
Appellant's argument relies almost entirely upon United States v. Brown, supra, the Court's most recent decision addressing the scope of the Bill of Attainder Clause. It is instructive, therefore, to sketch the broad outline of that case. Brown invalidated 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U. S. C. 504, that made it a crime for a Communist Party member to serve as an officer of a labor union. After detailing the infamous history of bills of attainder, the Court found that the Bill of Attainder Clause was an important ingredient of the doctrine of "separation of powers," one of the organizing principles of our system of government. 381 U. S., at 442-443.
Quote:
We, of course, do not suggest that such a formal legislative announcement of moral blameworthiness or punishment is necessary to an unlawful bill of attainder. United States
And that Act did target Nixon.Quote:
. But the decided absence from the legislative history of any congressional sentiments expressive of this purpose is probative of nonpunitive intentions and largely undercuts a major concern that prompted the bill of attainder prohibition:
Nixon v. GSA
Agreed. Trump's behavior is so predictable that it works to his detriment.jrdaustin said:Great question. Especially when DOJ went into attack dog mode and completely bypassed administrative actions to rectify the issue. Even bypassed civil litigation and went straight for criminal. Why?Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Is the DOJ's indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate considered 'meddling' in the electoral process?
and;
What was the outcome of the DOJ's investigation into allegations of 'meddling' in the 2020 election?
I've stated before that virtually everyone knows Trump well enough to know that you'll get what you want from him using honey long before you will using a stick. Use a stick, and he's guaranteed to dig in. But the DOJ went straight for the stick. Why? Because they knew what his reaction would be.
Trump's book Art of the Deal was on the reading list of almost every MBA program ... up until 2015.
Trump is too predictable here and like I said earlier the DOJ is on easy street with this case.
The most difficult part of this case is gonna be to the detriment of the adderalled up ****birds thats got to brief all these constitutional issues for $48 an hour.
You are making my argument that the SC should find a way to exercise original jurisdiction.fka ftc said:They also should have addressed Hunter's plea deal prior to Biden announcing his campaign.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Is the DOJ's indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate considered 'meddling' in the electoral process?
and;
What was the outcome of the DOJ's investigation into allegations of 'meddling' in the 2020 election?
It is legitimate to argue that the plea deal involving not just the sitting POTUS but one that has formally announced his campaign for re-election is election interfering and a blatant Hatch Act violation.
Question I have is who could you ever trust to investigate and adjudicate? For the Executive, its self-policing and cannot be trusted. Congress is impotent in investigating ANYTHING.
Can we self report our Country to The Hague or the UN? (I am kidding of course)
Seriously though, can SCOTUS act as an independent arbiter of this mess?
We are about to break the sound barrier in how fast this is all progressing to a real deal constitutional crisis. People should not be cheering on either side at this point.
And you might be doing a better job of it than me.
I'm not sure what the point about CIPA is. Not trying to be a smartass. I really don't know what point you're trying to make.jrdaustin said:Wonderful. The point stands. CIPA procedures used in the prosecution of a former POTUS for how he handled documents from his own presidency post-office is still most certainly novel, much less infrequent, is it not?TXAggie2011 said:I'm speaking of CIPAjrdaustin said:Ahh, I assume you're speaking of that 1917 act? And you're asserting that a 105 year old law applied for the first time ever to target a FPOTUS and current presidential candidate is NOT novel????TXAggie2011 said:There is a reason Congress created and passed an entire act defining how courts should conduct trials regarding classified information. This is hardly a novel nor infrequent issue.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
So the DOJ is seeking a criminal conviction based on secreted evidence?
The trolls are definitely out today.
Do you believe that Congress had this exact scenario in mind when they passed CIPA?
To answer the question, CIPA states it applies to "any defendant in any criminal case in a district court of the United States." I'm sure they did not think exactly about a former President being criminally prosecuted, unless Nixon or something came up. But I don't understand the point. CIPA's an evidentiary procedural rule. Under that standard, does any rule of criminal procedure or evidence apply to this case?
If people are being really honest with themselves, particular the legal beagles on here, this case is so far outside the normal course of business for the courts, judges and lawyers that citing cases, particular laws, codes and acts is largely irrelevant.
Both Stat Monitor Repairman and I (and maybe some others) argue that SCOTUS may have to decide.
We are not talking about Trump poisoning his neighbors dog because it barked all night long. We are not talking about Snowden stealing classified documents and providing them to an internet sleuth to publish to the world exposing our secrets and resulting in deaths of Americans abroad.
This is nothing short of denying the US citizens the right to choose their elected representative, which is the foundation of our system of government cherished and respected for nearly 250 years.
If you cannot see that, your are denser than dense.
Both Stat Monitor Repairman and I (and maybe some others) argue that SCOTUS may have to decide.
We are not talking about Trump poisoning his neighbors dog because it barked all night long. We are not talking about Snowden stealing classified documents and providing them to an internet sleuth to publish to the world exposing our secrets and resulting in deaths of Americans abroad.
This is nothing short of denying the US citizens the right to choose their elected representative, which is the foundation of our system of government cherished and respected for nearly 250 years.
If you cannot see that, your are denser than dense.
They're not interpreting the Espionage Act in a way it would only apply to 6 persons. Indeed, they're applying it in a way it would apply to anyone and it seems a primary "defense" is that it shouldn't apply to those 6 persons. Interpreting an existing statute in a way it narrowly applies is not a bill of attainder, anyways.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
If the DOJ indicts a criminal defendant on the basis of a general statute that is interpreted in such a way that the statute can be applied to one of six living persons;
Is that statute considered a de facto bill of attainder which would fall within the meaning of the express prohibition on bills of attainder contained in Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution?
If anything relates to "bills of attainder", its the general theme of the defense. All of this "but he's the former President, so don't apply that" is almost like a reverse bill of attainder (figuratively speaking, of course.)
This is exactly the point I'm making.Quote:
is almost like a reverse bill of attainder (figuratively speaking, of course.)
The statute itself is general but the manner in which the statute is being applied to this criminal defendant is a de facto bill of attainder because it is being applied in such a manner that the only criminal defendant that could conceivably be indicted under the this statute in relation to a dispute involving presidential records is named Donald Trump.
So I hear what you are saying. And I hear what hawg is saying. I do.
But the point I'm trying to make here is that there is enough meat on the bone in what I've described in a single paragraph above that the issue should be decided by the US Supreme Court.
And that should happen now, and not later.
In other words, forthwith if you wanna get technical about it.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
Joined:
Oct 10, 2006
Posts:
49,095
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
that's the point I've been making in all of this. This creates such a massive crisis for so many reasons. The DOJ lawyers that went along with this are certifiable and need to have their heads examined.fka ftc said:
If people are being really honest with themselves, particular the legal beagles on here, this case is so far outside the normal course of business for the courts, judges and lawyers that citing cases, particular laws, codes and acts is largely irrelevant.
Both Stat Monitor Repairman and I (and maybe some others) argue that SCOTUS may have to decide.
We are not talking about Trump poisoning his neighbors dog because it barked all night long. We are not talking about Snowden stealing classified documents and providing them to an internet sleuth to publish to the world exposing our secrets and resulting in deaths of Americans abroad.
This is nothing short of denying the US citizens the right to choose their elected representative, which is the foundation of our system of government cherished and respected for nearly 250 years.
If you cannot see that, your are denser than dense.
And the real risk isn't Trump just ignoring the gag order. It's him functionally defecting. With 4 years of knowledge of this country's deepest and most closely held secrets residing between his ears.
We get what we deserve if he does this.ThunderCougarFalconBird said:that's the point I've been making in all of this. This creates such a massive crisis for so many reasons. The DOJ lawyers that went along with this are certifiable and need to have their heads examined.fka ftc said:
If people are being really honest with themselves, particular the legal beagles on here, this case is so far outside the normal course of business for the courts, judges and lawyers that citing cases, particular laws, codes and acts is largely irrelevant.
Both Stat Monitor Repairman and I (and maybe some others) argue that SCOTUS may have to decide.
We are not talking about Trump poisoning his neighbors dog because it barked all night long. We are not talking about Snowden stealing classified documents and providing them to an internet sleuth to publish to the world exposing our secrets and resulting in deaths of Americans abroad.
This is nothing short of denying the US citizens the right to choose their elected representative, which is the foundation of our system of government cherished and respected for nearly 250 years.
If you cannot see that, your are denser than dense.
And the real risk isn't Trump just ignoring the gag order. It's him functionally defecting. With 4 years of knowledge of this country's deepest and most closely held secrets residing between his ears.
Lots of those suffering from TDS and those who voted for Biden should be sacrificed first.
Also, more and more continues to come out on Wuhan flu. And Blinken is over there fallating Xi and friends like he was Kamala Harris looking for a promotion.
Sickening.
Which act are you talking about that was passed in 1917?jrdaustin said:Ahh, I assume you're speaking of that 1917 act? And you're asserting that a 105 year old law applied for the first time ever to target a FPOTUS and current presidential candidate is NOT novel????TXAggie2011 said:There is a reason Congress created and passed an entire act defining how courts should conduct trials regarding classified information. This is hardly a novel nor infrequent issue.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
So the DOJ is seeking a criminal conviction based on secreted evidence?
The trolls are definitely out today.
What loophole is that? Is it a loophole that he is not above the law? Or what?jrdaustin said:Wonderful. The point stands. CIPA procedures used in the prosecution of a former POTUS for how he handled documents from his own presidency post-office is still most certainly novel, much less infrequent, is it not?TXAggie2011 said:I'm speaking of CIPAjrdaustin said:Ahh, I assume you're speaking of that 1917 act? And you're asserting that a 105 year old law applied for the first time ever to target a FPOTUS and current presidential candidate is NOT novel????TXAggie2011 said:There is a reason Congress created and passed an entire act defining how courts should conduct trials regarding classified information. This is hardly a novel nor infrequent issue.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
So the DOJ is seeking a criminal conviction based on secreted evidence?
The trolls are definitely out today.
Do you believe that Congress had this exact scenario in mind when they passed CIPA?
I love this overall concept...
POTUS had every right to declassify documents in his possession prior to leaving office, but he didn't. So, we now have the loophole we always wanted in order to jail him and keep him from running again.
So asinine. But keep on trying to win arguments here. We'll ALL lose the war.
Featured Stories
See All
The TexAgs Tailgate: No. 20 Texas A&M vs. No. 3 Texas
by Richard Zane
Lone Star Showdown revival pits Aggies vs. Longhorns as SEC rivals
by Olin Buchanan
2025 Cocoa (FL) quarterback Brady Hart commits to Texas A&M
by Ryan Brauninger
Aggies sweep Gamecocks, will carry four-game heater into tourney
by Neil Jhurani
12:07
1h ago
555