Was wrong about the speed at which they'd go after Trump on this gag order. So far nothing, but the DOJ is not reactionary and moves at a calculated speed. We may see it at some point but they may be content to enjoy the show.
Trump indicted over classified documents
266,429 Views |
3603 Replies |
Last: 3 days ago by HTownAg98
Was wrong about the speed at which they'd go after Trump on this gag order. So far nothing, but the DOJ is not reactionary and moves at a calculated speed. We may see it at some point but they may be content to enjoy the show.
will25u said:Jack Smith's proposed protective order for classified docs is LOL--a SCIF, really?--in so many ways but this stood out.
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) July 19, 2023
How the government can spy on the defense: pic.twitter.com/P3IBTImz6G
Jebus, "you can only reveal information to your client if the DOJ says so" how can you as a defendant help prepare your defense if your lawyer isn't allowed to share the full picture with you? The gall of our learned colleague
Add this to the running list of constitutional issues in this case.
Has there ever been a case with more fundamental constitutional issues baked right in?
Has there ever been a case with more fundamental constitutional issues baked right in?
Considering how few "constitutional issues" this case actually implicates, I imagine the answer to your question is a resounding yes.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Add this to the running list of constitutional issues in this case.
Has there ever been a case with more fundamental constitutional issues baked right in?
I'm going to guess "calling people names" was not part of the gag order.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Was wrong about the speed at which they'd go after Trump on this gag order. So far nothing, but the DOJ is not reactionary and moves at a calculated speed. We may see it at some point but they may be content to enjoy the show.
Quote:
Was wrong about the speed at which they'd go after Trump on this gag order
You were also wrong about the existence of a "gag order." There isn't one.
I'm Gipper
Interesting nugget from last week's trial transcript: if Bratt is correct that Trump "never had a clearance", then it explains their hail-Mary attempt with the Espionage Act claims -- he wouldn't have ever signed an SF312 which would make a more traditional "Unauthorized removal… pic.twitter.com/T9UW8PxJEz
— Matt Beebe (@TheMattBeebe) July 24, 2023
Isn't it a well known fact that the President would not have clearance unless he happened to already have it from previous activities?
Georgia prosecutors bout to indict Trump for
- criminal solicitation to commit election fraud
- conspiracy to commit election fraud
- solicitation of a public or political officer to fail to perform their duties
- solicitation to destroy, deface or remove ballots,
They bout to put this bad boy under the jail.
Hit 'em with that 1, 2 punch.
Former president and current presidential candidate gots concurrent criminal litigation in state court and federal court. Pow Pow!
What a time to be alive!
"Judge questions the constitutionality of Hunter Biden plea deal"
Sounds like the constitution is back from the dead baby!
Schrodinger's constitution baby! Both alive and dead at the same time!
What a time to be alive!
Sounds like the constitution is back from the dead baby!
Schrodinger's constitution baby! Both alive and dead at the same time!
What a time to be alive!
If he is indicted, and it sounds like its imminent, I predict a conviction in Georgia. Will that help Governor DeSantis ?
DeSantis 2024
DeSantis 2024
READ THE FULL SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT: https://t.co/uPY2TONSYI
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) July 27, 2023
NEW: Jack Smith has brought to 32 the number of charges Trump is facing in Florida, including explosive new allegations that he sought to destroy security camera footage before federal investigators could get it. https://t.co/MHRw72hIJ9
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) July 27, 2023
I'm Gipper
It's just too easy. Gonna be some ball dunking with the modern technology evidence.
Funny that the indictment only says that there was an "attempted deletion" and point to a change in travel plans as... evidence. Strong case, would convict.
He's made Nixon look like a choir boy.
Biden?agz win said:
He's made Nixon look like a choir boy.
Was were the exact charges?fka ftc said:
Funny that the indictment only says that there was an "attempted deletion" and point to a change in travel plans as... evidence. Strong case, would convict.
If Tampering with Evidence, wouldn't that include the attempt regardless of success?
Not when there is no underlying crime. And I do not subscribe to the nonsense of obstruction of justice involving something that is not a crime to begin with, that is purely unconstitutional.eric76 said:Was were the exact charges?fka ftc said:
Funny that the indictment only says that there was an "attempted deletion" and point to a change in travel plans as... evidence. Strong case, would convict.
If Tampering with Evidence, wouldn't that include the attempt regardless of success?
Regardless, there is no evidence to date that there was an attempt. Only vague allegations regardless.
I imagine at WORST Trump may have asked about what cctv footage there was, how is it stored, and what, if any of it, needed to be turned over. Believe he even asked one of his lawyers this.
And Head Witch Hunter Smith takes that and issues an "indictment" making up more stories about what he claims Trump did regarding personal records stored at M-A-L that are under the purview of the Presidential Records Act.
This is all widely known. There was no crime by Trump. Its time people moved on nearly a year later.
Here is the thing MAGA needs to realize.
While the prosecutions are totally political, Trump has made it way too easy for them to do it because of his endless narcissism and dumbassary.
When you know your enemy is looking for the slightest infraction to go after you with, become a choir boy and give them zero ammo.
While the prosecutions are totally political, Trump has made it way too easy for them to do it because of his endless narcissism and dumbassary.
When you know your enemy is looking for the slightest infraction to go after you with, become a choir boy and give them zero ammo.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Where in the Constitution does it say that former Presidents are entitled to possess defense related documents?fka ftc said:Not when there is no underlying crime. And I do not subscribe to the nonsense of obstruction of justice involving something that is not a crime to begin with, that is purely unconstitutional.eric76 said:Was were the exact charges?fka ftc said:
Funny that the indictment only says that there was an "attempted deletion" and point to a change in travel plans as... evidence. Strong case, would convict.
If Tampering with Evidence, wouldn't that include the attempt regardless of success?
Regardless, there is no evidence to date that there was an attempt. Only vague allegations regardless.
I imagine at WORST Trump may have asked about what cctv footage there was, how is it stored, and what, if any of it, needed to be turned over. Believe he even asked one of his lawyers this.
And Head Witch Hunter Smith takes that and issues an "indictment" making up more stories about what he claims Trump did regarding personal records stored at M-A-L that are under the purview of the Presidential Records Act.
This is all widely known. There was no crime by Trump. Its time people moved on nearly a year later.
That is, I think, the bailiwick of the Executive Order which gives former Presidents limited access and for laws passed by Congress and signed by the President at the time regarding the treatment of such information.
As for allegations, of course they are allegations. It will be up to the judge and jury to determine whether or not he is guilty.
The allegation (no proof presented at this point) is that Trump asked others to destroy video tapes that were subpoenaed by the grand jury. If true, that's a crime. Plain and simple.
But given the mountains for false allegations we've heard made against Trump, I will assume Trump innocent of this also until proven otherwise.
I'm Gipper
But given the mountains for false allegations we've heard made against Trump, I will assume Trump innocent of this also until proven otherwise.
I'm Gipper
Innocent until proven guilty, of course.Im Gipper said:
The allegation (no proof presented at this point) is that Trump asked others to destroy video tapes that were subpoenaed by the grand jury. If true, that's a crime. Plain and simple.
But given the mountains for false allegations we've heard made against Trump, I will assume Trump innocent of this also until proven otherwise.
Not just in the court of law, but in the court of public opinion. Given the mountains of fake allegations against him, no reason to give the Feds any benefit of the doubt here when it comes to Trump.
I'm Gipper
I'm Gipper
Rapier108 said:
Here is the thing MAGA needs to realize.
While the prosecutions are totally political, Trump has made it way too easy for them to do it because of his endless narcissism and dumbassary.
When you know your enemy is looking for the slightest infraction to do after you with, become a choir boy and give them zero ammo.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
The superseding indictment adds a document to the list of documents that were allegedly improperly retained.
"Presentation concerning military activity in a foreign country." Presumably this is the Iran document that the indictment says Trump was waiving around with the book writer.
Did they just find this document? Why not include earlier? Guess the press berating them on this point left a mark.
I'm Gipper
"Presentation concerning military activity in a foreign country." Presumably this is the Iran document that the indictment says Trump was waiving around with the book writer.
Did they just find this document? Why not include earlier? Guess the press berating them on this point left a mark.
I'm Gipper
Rapier108 said:
Here is the thing MAGA needs to realize.
While the prosecutions are totally political, Trump has made it way too easy for them to do it because of his endless narcissism and dumbassary.
When you know your enemy is looking for the slightest infraction to go after you with, become a choir boy and give them zero ammo.
How many former US presidents could survive unscathed the blistering 6 year search for crimes that Trump has been subjected to? My answer: none! "Show me the person and . . .
Something many fail to see. Trump is actually very clean, very smart, very resilient. But folks cannot fathom such so they just resort to "Trump makes it easy for them…".
Trump has baited the left and MSM for years now and they are salivating. His crime? Beating Hillary and flipping SCOTUS.
Trump has baited the left and MSM for years now and they are salivating. His crime? Beating Hillary and flipping SCOTUS.
It's tactical moves. They're not going in blindly. Why present all evidence at first instead of waiting to drop bombs while allowing donald to talk too much and tighten his own noose.
fka ftc
Joined:
Jun 25, 2020
Posts:
14,788
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And of course you completely missed where I said it was all political.Bryanisbest said:Rapier108 said:
Here is the thing MAGA needs to realize.
While the prosecutions are totally political, Trump has made it way too easy for them to do it because of his endless narcissism and dumbassary.
When you know your enemy is looking for the slightest infraction to go after you with, become a choir boy and give them zero ammo.
How many former US presidents could survive unscathed the blistering 6 year search for crimes that Trump has been subjected to? My answer: none! "Show me the person and . . .
No surprise though since MAGA only focuses on any criticism of dear leader.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Hillary wiped her servers that were under subpoena and smashed her cell phones with a hammer. I don't recall any charges. In fact, Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would seek indictmentIm Gipper said:
The allegation (no proof presented at this point) is that Trump asked others to destroy video tapes that were subpoenaed by the grand jury. If true, that's a crime. Plain and simple.
This is now multiple threads where you're obfuscating what's in the actual indictment and trying to play it off as "their only evidence is that Nauta changed his travel plans" or, later down this very thread where you are wishcasting "I think at worst Trump was just asking his lawyers how much video footage he needed to turn over."fka ftc said:
Funny that the indictment only says that there was an "attempted deletion" and point to a change in travel plans as... evidence. Strong case, would convict.
Either:
1. You haven't read the indictment; or
2. You have, but hope no one else has.
For anyone that doesn't want to rely on FTC's attempts to "hey look over there" this away, the actual narrative in support of the new charges comes in paragraphs 74-84 on pages 27-29 of the indictment, found here:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.85.0_4.pdf
If you don't feel like reading the whole thing:
1. Morning after Trump's attorneys are notified that DOJ will be requesting a subpoena for security camera footage from MAL, Trump calls De Oliveira (head maintenance guy) at MAL for 24 minutes.
2. The following day, the actual subpoena is delivered. Trump's co-indicted gopher, Walt Nauta, is informed that Trump needs to speak with him. He cancels plans to travel to Illinois and heads to MAL instead and meets with De Oliveira. In texts with "Trump Employee #3" he says he's not going to Illinois b/c a "family emergency" has come up, adding a shush emoji.
3. Before arriving, De Oliveira tells another "Trump Employee #5" that Nauta is coming down, but it needs to remain a secret, per Trump, and that he's coming down to speak with the IT guy ("Trump Employee #4") at MAL about the security cameras. After arriving, De Oliveira and Nauta head to the security room at MAL that shows all the camera feeds and then proceed to walk the grounds of MAL, making note of where all cameras are located.
4. The next day, De Oliveira meets with IT guy, insisting that the conversation remain private. He asks about how long security footage stays on the server and tells IT guy that "the boss" needs the footage deleted. IT Guy says he wouldn't know how to do so and doesn't think he could legally do so even if he did know how.
Seems highly likely to me that all this is on video and/or recorded in text messages and phone records Moreover, I'd be surprised if Items 2-4 above didn't come directly from sworn testimony by Trump Employees 3-5, smartly doing their best to avoid getting swept up in an indictment.
Can't wait for the following chain of events, because you know it's coming:
1. Trump Defenders claim there's no way Trump asked for security camera footage to be deleted. Deep State FBI fabricating BS b/c they're desperate and have no case.
2. Trump saws the limb out right from under them, bizarrely claims that Presidential Records Act and Clinton Socks Case gave him the absolute right to ask for footage to be deleted.
1. Trump Defenders claim there's no way Trump asked for security camera footage to be deleted. Deep State FBI fabricating BS b/c they're desperate and have no case.
2. Trump saws the limb out right from under them, bizarrely claims that Presidential Records Act and Clinton Socks Case gave him the absolute right to ask for footage to be deleted.
I'm quite sure that there is a political side to it, but I don't believe it is entirely political. With most former Presidents, if they found such documents, they would likely have returned them if ask and quite possibly without being asked. That Trump didn't return them when asked is entirely on him.Rapier108 said:And of course you completely missed where I said it was all political.Bryanisbest said:Rapier108 said:
Here is the thing MAGA needs to realize.
While the prosecutions are totally political, Trump has made it way too easy for them to do it because of his endless narcissism and dumbassary.
When you know your enemy is looking for the slightest infraction to go after you with, become a choir boy and give them zero ammo.
How many former US presidents could survive unscathed the blistering 6 year search for crimes that Trump has been subjected to? My answer: none! "Show me the person and . . .
No surprise though since MAGA only focuses on any criticism of dear leader.
I think that there is supposed to be something of a gap between the President and the DOJ. That is, the President does not pick and choose targets for the DOJ to go after. I have no idea how much they actually stick to that, though. And with Democrats at the top of the DOJ, they would likely be less hesitant bout going after a Republican like Trump. So, yeah, there is some politics somewhere.
But note that the administration made efforts for some time to quietly retrieve the documents without going after Trump. If just about anyone else possessed such documents and refused to return them, the DOJ would have likely gone after them without wasting time. To a large degree, Trump pushed them getting and executing the search warrant by rebuffing attempts to retrieve the documents though more normal channels.
If Trump had returned the documents when asked, would any of this be happening?
Featured Stories
See All
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
6:42
20h ago
2.2k
44:52
23h ago
3.7k
7:40
1d ago
2.7k