fka ftc said:

---

eric76 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

eric76 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Jesus was not persecuted as hard as DJT and they still got a conviction on him. Ergo, Trump is cleaner than Jesus.

---

That is truly hilarious. Comedy of the year hilarious.

I take it you are an atheist?

---

Why would you say that? I am a Christian, love my lord and savior Jesus with all my heart.

The comparison is on the political persecution of both men. I am arguing Trump has received harsher persecution and still not been convicted and hung from a cross, tree, Epstein's prison cell etc.

I think its a bit bizarre to all someone an atheist over the comparison.

---

I can't imagine any Christian saying that Jesus was even a little crooked, much less on the order of Trump.

---

Try reading what I wrote. I did not say Jesus was crooked. I said he was persecuted. DJT is revered differently by different folks. I am not opining on his crookedness, I am comparing persecution. And the facts are they got a conviction on Jesus with less effort they have put into Trump.

---

Oh. I took the word "clean" to be in the sense of "not crooked".

When we say someone is dirty, we usually mean that they are crooked in some way, unless we are talking about being physically dirty. Similarly when we say that someone is clean, we usually mean that they haven't done anything crooked.

I cannot recollect ever hearing "clean" used in the sense of "not persecuted".

so this basically just ends up confirming that the New Yorker and Milley are liars. Love seeing that old New Yorker font. ...and that Trump prefers peace.
when was the last time any neocon or neoliberal quantified human life like this?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Who here is opposed to Trump seeking extraordinary judicial relief in this unprecedented case on the basis that procedural rules may be violated?

and;

Who here thinks that the application of procedural rules outweighs a criminal defendant's fundamental constitutional rights?
. . .

---

Not me.

I think he should file something directly with the Supreme Court, and give the document a nifty name while he's at it.

GeorgiAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

2040huck said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Trump changes defense again, now says he was lying on the audio tape when he was showing off stolen confidential documents.

“I would say it was bravado, if you want to know the truth, it was bravado,” Trump told Semafor and ABC News. “I was talking and just holding up papers… pic.twitter.com/VAS8g1AP4e

— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) June 28, 2023

---

Considering there are no charges related to the document waving, then its sort of wrong to call it a "defense".

Flagged for misinformation.

---

You, of all people, flagging someone for misinformation, is pretty dang funny

---

Flagged as well. If you want to point to misinformation I have posted, have at it.

Quit derailing this thread with your nonsense.

---

Flagged? I'm flagging you for flagging him for criticizing you for flagging me.

And if you flag me for flagging you for flagging him for criticizing you for flagging me, I will flag you yet again.

Just kidding, I didn't flag you.

---

Flagged for (not)flagging

Trump seeks exile in Belarus to escape lifetime imprisonment over dispute regarding handling of presidential records.

[maybe]

The indictment seems to say the box with the Iran document was sent from Florida to Bedminster. Hard to say at this point, but I think the way they try to get it in is it shows trump knew the documents in boxes were not declassified.

Reading the transcript, it's pretty clear Trump isn't taking about a magazine article or golf course plans. But as I said yesterday, proving the doc was classified isn't an easy task if Smith doesn't have it. That's something that will need to be done before that even gets to a jury.

Makes you wonder if there will be a raid on bedminster. Or if subpoena has already been sent.

BMX Bandit said:

---

The indictment seems to say the box with the Iran document was sent from Florida to Bedminster. Hard to say at this point, but I think the way they try to get it in is it shows trump knew the documents in boxes were not declassified.

Reading the transcript, it's pretty clear Trump isn't taking about a magazine article or golf course plans. But as I said yesterday, proving the doc was classified isn't an easy task if Smith doesn't have it. That's something that will need to be done before that even gets to a jury.

Makes you wonder if there will be a raid on bedminster. Or if subpoena has already been sent.

---

anything is possible

but I highly doubt that the DOJ put into their indictment audio and discussions of the Milley War Plan-

without the DOJ KNOWING that Trump had shown that specific document to unauthorized civilians.

Blind faith in the DOJ lol

Quote:

---

anything is possible

---

very fake news


while the DOJ may "know" it, that is not the same of proving it to a court.

Ag with kids said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

2040huck said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Trump changes defense again, now says he was lying on the audio tape when he was showing off stolen confidential documents.

“I would say it was bravado, if you want to know the truth, it was bravado,” Trump told Semafor and ABC News. “I was talking and just holding up papers… pic.twitter.com/VAS8g1AP4e

— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) June 28, 2023

---

Considering there are no charges related to the document waving, then its sort of wrong to call it a "defense".

Flagged for misinformation.

---

You, of all people, flagging someone for misinformation, is pretty dang funny

---

Flagged as well. If you want to point to misinformation I have posted, have at it.

Quit derailing this thread with your nonsense.

---

Flagged? I'm flagging you for flagging him for criticizing you for flagging me.

And if you flag me for flagging you for flagging him for criticizing you for flagging me, I will flag you yet again.

Just kidding, I didn't flag you.

---

Flagged for (not)flagging

---

I'm not a "flaggot."

LMCane said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

The indictment seems to say the box with the Iran document was sent from Florida to Bedminster. Hard to say at this point, but I think the way they try to get it in is it shows trump knew the documents in boxes were not declassified.

Reading the transcript, it's pretty clear Trump isn't taking about a magazine article or golf course plans. But as I said yesterday, proving the doc was classified isn't an easy task if Smith doesn't have it. That's something that will need to be done before that even gets to a jury.

Makes you wonder if there will be a raid on bedminster. Or if subpoena has already been sent.

---

anything is possible

but I highly doubt that the DOJ put into their indictment audio and discussions of the Milley War Plan-

without the DOJ KNOWING that Trump had shown that specific document to unauthorized civilians.

---

If that was the case it would have been in the indictment.

The absolute best information / evidence they have and best story they can come up is what is in the indictment. Said multiple times the strongest case the prosecution has is the original indictment. It only gets dismantled / challenged.

You may want to prepare yourself for 4 more years of Trump, potentially longer if he assumes office prior to January 2025.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I think Trump's best possibility for inadmissibility would be under 403, but any effort to claim it isn't probative enough evaporates the second anyone starts talking about any kind of standing and/or broad declassification orders.

---

I thought 404 applied more than 403 because of the requirement in 403 for the evidence to first to be relevant. Both 403 and 404 have some issues as to their potential applicability to the audio recording depending on how the state would try to use it, if they do try.

Not really character evidence nor propensity evidence in their truest forms because the actual document is not part of the case (as reported), conversation did not take place in Florida and there is currently no evidence the document (if it exists) was ever in Florida. If it wasn't in Florida, by definition it could not have been "willfully retained" in Florida as the indictment requires.

---

Evidence always has to be relevant. 403 just says it out loud to qualify Rule 402.

I can see why and I can see ways the DOJ would want to use the audiotape to prove up these charges. But I also still see it most clearly as a hedge and something of a shot across the bow saying "we're ready if you want to take this case in certain directions." Like, if they say in court everything was declassified, this obviously becomes super-relevant.

If 404 becomes a question, I see how it can go to show Trump's (really silly) motive of "these things are cool" or "clearing my name" (as he suggests in the video) or that it shows Trump's actual knowledge, i.e. he wasn't mistaken, that documents of the kind he claims he has in his hands are still "highly confidential", etc.

You can also of course bring in "character evidence" under 404 to impeach witnesses, show their untruthfulness, etc.

There's probably other creative avenues to work it in under 404 as well as the appropriate counter arguments, but trial attorney is not my day job.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

2040huck said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Trump changes defense again, now says he was lying on the audio tape when he was showing off stolen confidential documents.

“I would say it was bravado, if you want to know the truth, it was bravado,” Trump told Semafor and ABC News. “I was talking and just holding up papers… pic.twitter.com/VAS8g1AP4e

— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) June 28, 2023

---

Considering there are no charges related to the document waving, then its sort of wrong to call it a "defense".

Flagged for misinformation.

---

You, of all people, flagging someone for misinformation, is pretty dang funny

---

Flagged as well. If you want to point to misinformation I have posted, have at it.

Quit derailing this thread with your nonsense.

---

Flagged? I'm flagging you for flagging him for criticizing you for flagging me.

And if you flag me for flagging you for flagging him for criticizing you for flagging me, I will flag you yet again.

Just kidding, I didn't flag you.

---

Flagged for (not)flagging

---

I'm not a "flaggot."

---

You should be flaggelated...

Raised $70-million to sink a man under a 37-count federal criminal indictment?

Guess you can never be too sure when it comes to Trump,

Well...

"Prosecutors are prepared to hit Trump and his allies with new charges, sources say"

Quote:

---

[P]rosecutors' decision on whether to seek additional charges from a grand jury and where to seek them will depend in part on whether they feel the Trump-appointed district judge overseeing the case against him in the Southern District of Florida, Aileen Cannon, is giving undue deference to the twice-impeached, now twice-indicted former president.

---

So the DOJ plans a superseding indictment in a different venue because they think the judge shows deference to Trump?

Wow. Sounds ultra-constitutional.

Keep up the good work.

Quote:

---

Mr Smith's team is ready to bring charges against several of the attorneys who have worked for Mr Trump,

---

How many unconstitutional licks does it take to get to the center of this Tootsie pop?

Quote:

---

Giuliani's cooperation with prosecutors was undertaken as part of what is known as a "queen for a day" deal, under which the ex-mayor can avoid indictment for anything he tells prosecutors about during the interview.

---

DOJ giving criminal defendants former attorney queen for a day!

Wow! Out-standing!

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Well...

"Prosecutors are prepared to hit Trump and his allies with new charges, sources say"

---

How do they charge ANYTHING on Trump for actions prior to Jan 20, 2021?

He cannot be charged for actions as POTUS outside of impeachment. He has absolute immunity as the Executive and particularly immunity from subsequent DOJ trying to reclassify his actions whilst POTUS as somehow criminal.

Our Constitution does NOT allow for that. If it did, why not charge Trump for murder of the Iranian dude in Iraq. There is no difference between actions Trump took prior to Jan 20, 2021 related to Jan 06th and all the other actions he took as POTUS.

Dems really are pushing for complete banana republic mode.

Quote:

---

In either case, they would do so using evidence against the ex-president that has not yet been publicly acknowledged by the department, including other recordings prosecutors have obtained which reveal Mr Trump making incriminating statements.

---

Seems like they got Trump under surveillance 24/7.

Anytime Trump does anything there's always a recording of it.

Hell, there's recordings of the man talking with his lawyers and notes from lawyers being used as evidence.

I'm not quite sure how you people are arguing evidentiary rules with all this going on in the background.

Blows my mind. It really does.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Giuliani's cooperation with prosecutors was undertaken as part of what is known as a "queen for a day" deal, under which the ex-mayor can avoid indictment for anything he tells prosecutors about during the interview.

---

DOJ giving criminal defendants former attorney queen for a day!

Wow! Out-standing!

---

Well, Rudy G has a wanker so it would be king. And surprisingly the UK paper got it wrong as it is proper to change such comparisons to the current monarch, which is also a dude with wanker so a King.

Article was stupid to begin with. Nothing but sources say, allegedly, reportedly. etc. That article is very lacking in... facts.

So they are targeting investors in companies associated with Trump?

Nasdaq threatened to remove the company from its exchange in March.

Is that what we are seeing play out?

fka ftc said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Well...

"Prosecutors are prepared to hit Trump and his allies with new charges, sources say"

---

How do they charge ANYTHING on Trump for actions prior to Jan 20, 2021?

He cannot be charged for actions as POTUS outside of impeachment. He has absolute immunity as the Executive and particularly immunity from subsequent DOJ trying to reclassify his actions whilst POTUS as somehow criminal.

Our Constitution does NOT allow for that. If it did, why not charge Trump for murder of the Iranian dude in Iraq. There is no difference between actions Trump took prior to Jan 20, 2021 related to Jan 06th and all the other actions he took as POTUS.

Dems really are pushing for complete banana republic mode.

---

I don't believe that the President has absolute immunity for criminal actions that are not part of his Presidential duties.

The general theory behind those who believe in the President's immunity from criminal charges while in office is that criminally charging the sitting President would be too damaging or too large a hindrance to him fulfilling his Constitutional duties as President. Basically, the idea is the sitting President is too important within our Constitutional system to criminally charge.

I think most, although I suppose not all, believe a former President can be charged for crimes committed while as President. Because he no longer has the critical Constitutional duty of Chief Executive and Commander and Chief for the nation, the arguing for his immunity falls by the wayside.

Quote:

---

He cannot be charged for actions as POTUS outside of impeachment. He has absolute immunity as the Executive and particularly immunity from subsequent DOJ trying to reclassify his actions whilst POTUS as somehow criminal.

---

That is not true. Once out of office,either by removal subsequent to impeachment, resignation or the end of the term, there is no prohibition from bringing criminal charges. Nixon was in danger of being indicted after his resignation. Which is why Ford opted to pardon him four months later, instead.

Politically, it may not be wise to pursue a predecessor in office because it does set a precedent but nothing in the law prohibits it.

He needs a venue change to Texas. Case dismissed.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

He cannot be charged for actions as POTUS outside of impeachment. He has absolute immunity as the Executive and particularly immunity from subsequent DOJ trying to reclassify his actions whilst POTUS as somehow criminal.

---

That is not true. Once out of office,either by removal subsequent to impeachment, resignation or the end of the term, there is no prohibition from bringing criminal charges. Nixon was in danger of being indicted after his resignation. Which is why Ford opted to pardon him four months later, instead.

Politically, it may not be wise to pursue a predecessor in office because it does set a precedent but nothing in the law prohibits it.

---

He has executive immunity for actions taken carrying out his oath of office. One would have to prove otherwise, which is the process of impeachment.

Ford pardoned to avoid the debate over it. Else, as mentioned, you could charge a FPOTUS over anything he does during office that potentially violates a US law, like murder, kidnapping, extortion, theft.

It's most certainly not settled science.

Think we went through this earlier here or elsewhere.

SCOTUS has only ever opined that an acquittal in criminal court would not create double jeopardy by subsequently holding in impeachment.

Also, impeachment would not preclude criminal charges also being filed.

But, there is no provision to pierce executive immunity other than beginning with impeachment, which is the reason impeachment is in the Constitution.

For instance, POTUS shoots Jill when he finds her with Kamala's husband. You cannot simply arrest POTUS for murder. He is still the Executive and has authorities which includes killing people he thinks are a threat to the US.

The procedure would be to impeach, convict, remove from office then try him for murder. Executive immunity has been removed by the impeachment process, which is in place to address a POTUS who has not acted in accordance with their oath of office or the US Constitution.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The general theory behind those who believe in the President's immunity from criminal charges while in office is that criminally charging the sitting President would be too damaging or too large a hindrance to him fulfilling his Constitutional duties as President. Basically, the idea is the sitting President is too important within our Constitutional system to criminally charge.

I think most, although I suppose not all, believe a former President can be charged for crimes committed while as President. Because he no longer has the critical Constitutional duty of Chief Executive and Commander and Chief for the nation, the arguing for his immunity falls by the wayside.

---

That is the rationale for not subjecting him to criminal proceedings for crimes committed before office or outside his official duties, it he has executive immunity to say he is acting consistent with his oath of office. The constitutional process for addressing g the disagreement is impeachment.

Quote:

---

Also, impeachment would not preclude criminal charges also being filed.

---

Think that trhough further. Impeachment does not preclude criminal charges becuase there is no double jeopardy attached to impeachment and removal from office. That says specifically that charges can be brought once out of office.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Also, impeachment would not preclude criminal charges also being filed.

---

Think that trhough further. Impeachment does not preclude criminal charges becuase there is no double jeopardy attached to impeachment and removal from office. That says specifically that charges can be brought once out of office.

---

And he can claim executive immunity.

In other words, what authority would determine a POTUS is not allowed to claim executive immunity and has instead committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" against the US?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I think most, although I suppose not all, believe a former President can be charged for crimes committed while as President. Because he no longer has the critical Constitutional duty of Chief Executive and Commander and Chief for the nation, the arguing for his immunity falls by the wayside.

---

I see what you are saying as a matter of technical argument.

However, as someone pointed out above, it may not be the best idea to foster a political system based on the tit-for-tat imprisoning your political opponent.

Because that is what we are likely to see play out.

Who is responsible for this degenerative mess?

Everybody.

Who is in the best position to put a stop to it?

Nobody seems to want to answer that question.

It's been explained to him before.

Quote:

---

Which is why Ford opted to pardon him four months later, instead.

---

I think this is right and in accordance with what I just said above.

Ford (and others) had the foresight to recognize that fostering the criminal indictment of former presidents of the United States would devolve into the ****show that we see today.

But that's a bridge too far for most people on here.

TDS is a siren song drawing people into the unconstitutional abyss.

I've hired a team of developers in Mumbai to develop a Chat gpt plug-in that will auto-argue with the people on this thread.

It should be ready in a few weeks. I will monitor periodically but if my account goes off the rails saying stuff that I wouldn't normally say then it's chat gpt.

It might take a couple iterations but I trust Dinesh and his team to get it right.

fka ftc said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Also, impeachment would not preclude criminal charges also being filed.

---

Think that trhough further. Impeachment does not preclude criminal charges becuase there is no double jeopardy attached to impeachment and removal from office. That says specifically that charges can be brought once out of office.

---

And he can claim executive immunity.

In other words, what authority would determine a POTUS is not allowed to claim executive immunity and has instead committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" against the US?

---

Wouldn't any executive immunity have to be related to his carrying out his official duties?

The President can't just claim that he has executive immunity for every possible action. It's trivial to come up with theoretical examples in when executive immunity would clearly not apply.