Trump to be indicted - again.
-
@George-K said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
The National Archives weighs in on the Presidential Records Act:
The Swamp speaks...
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
The Dersh weighs in. His take: for this to stand it needs to be a very, very strong case. But it looks weak, especially in light of other potential violations that have gone unindicted.
-
Paul Sperry:
Sources say Special Counsel Smith does not actually have the supposed "smoking gun" doc Trump is heard on an audio talking about, which means he cannot prove it is classified and thus prove Trump knew it was classified. Prosecutors have no real evidence to show jurors.
Special Counsel Smith's indictment alleges Trump showed off a military paper that he boasted was classified "highly confidential" and "secret," but the transcript reveals Trump actually said: "like, highly confidential" and "a secret." Smith omitted the words "like" and "a."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If true, it makes the legal case more difficult for the DOJ.
-
They don't want to convict him. They just want to keep him out of the White House.
Fear.
FEAR.
FEAR!
As I've written, to give this debacle a smidgen of fig leaf, Hunter will be indicted soon. It only took how many years?
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
They don't want to convict him. They just want to keep him out of the White House.
Fear.
FEAR.
FEAR!
As I've written, to give this debacle a smidgen of fig leaf, Hunter will be indicted soon. It only took how many years?
I disagree. They want him to win the nomination.
-
@Jolly said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
@George-K said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
The National Archives weighs in on the Presidential Records Act:
The Swamp speaks...
??? Are you saying that the National Archive is part of this so-called "swamp"?
-
@Jon said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
That’s a lot of sleight of hand on McCarthys part
Today he addresses what I think @Jon was talking about:
Is the former president being unfairly singled out for prosecution by special counsel Jack Smith’s 37-count indictment? I think so . . . but not for the reasons Trump and his devotees posit.
The problem is not that Democrats, who are leveraging the government’s law-enforcement power for partisan advantage, are going after him, even though Democrats and Beltway big shots — Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger, David Petraeus, and (soon) Joe Biden — get a pass. The problem is that Clinton, Berger, Petraeus, and (soon) Biden get a pass.
It’s not that Trump is owed a pass. It’s that every official who is entrusted with access to the nation’s secrets, and who then betrays that trust by willful law violations and cover-ups, should be prosecuted. Every . . . single . . . one.
And none of them has any business near power.
The lesson of the Hillary Clinton precedent is that Joe Biden should be investigated and prosecuted. That’s how the scales of justice are evened out. The fix for a two-tiered justice system is not equal injustice under the law.
As for Trump, say what you want about Democrats being out to destroy him. I know all about that — wrote a book about it, in fact. But if Trump ends up being destroyed in this case, it will be based on the accounts of people who had his best interests at heart.
I don’t believe that Trump’s lawyers, who were trying to help him, would testify — as they have very reluctantly testified — that he tried to get them to destroy evidence and obstruct justice, unless he really did try to get them to destroy evidence and obstruct justice.
If you tell me I need to look the other way on that because Hillary Clinton got a pass, I respectfully suggest that you’ve lost your way.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
@Jolly said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
They don't want to convict him. They just want to keep him out of the White House.
...
I disagree. They want him to win the nomination.
You're both wrong. They are mere dutiful public servants doing their jobs enforcing the law.
-
There are two Trump loyalists that I personally know that have had it with Trump over this indictment. Both are retired military pilots (one AF, the other a Marine) and both worked for years at the Pentagon. Both had extremely high security clearances and feel this was a drastic failure on Trump’s part. They would both strongly agree with McCarthy. One is now starting to look into DeSantis…
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
"My pronouns are FA/FO." - Mik, 2024
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
@Mik said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
@George-K he does have a remarkable resilience.
How did you get @Jon's password?
1dh!tth@t ? Pretty simple, really…
-
The indictment lists these counts:
- 31 counts of willful retention of classified documents
- 1 count of conspiracy to obstruct justice
- 1 count of withholding a document or record
- 1 count of corruptly concealing a document or record
- 1 count of concealing a document in a federal investigation
- 1 count of scheme to conceal
- and one count of making false statements and representations.
We know for a fact that Pence and Biden have exposure on the basis of retention of classified documents. Pence's home, Biden's office, Biden's lawyers' office, and Biden's garage have all found to have classified documents.
Why are they not being investigated by a grand jury?
Granted the obstruction charges are a whole 'nother thing, but they are separate charges, 6 of them. Had Trump not (allegedly) obstructed, would have been charged with the first 31?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
- 31 counts of willful retention of classified documents
...
We know for a fact that Pence and Biden have exposure on the basis of retention of classified documents. ...
Why are they not being investigated by a grand jury?You missed the word "willful."
-
@Axtremus said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
@George-K said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
- 31 counts of willful retention of classified documents
...
We know for a fact that Pence and Biden have exposure on the basis of retention of classified documents. ...
Why are they not being investigated by a grand jury?You missed the word "willful."
That argument might hold water for Pence, but not with Biden, based on the reactions of many of his Congressional peers…
Beyond that, I fully support Trump serving time for breaking these laws if proven beyond a read doubt in a fair and impartial court.
I’m just also for the same for Pence, Biden, and Hilary. The problem goes back to Comey…
-
Like or dislike Trump, if you nail his hide to the wall, while letting half of Washington walk, then what many (and I mean a significant portion of the country) think about the DOJ and The Swamp which works in the Beltway, is inarguably and irrevocably true.
-
WaPo published a piece on why Trump was charged while HRC, Biden, and Pence were not:
There is a lot in that article.
There is also this bit on what Trump has not been charged:
Notably, however, the indictment does not charge Trump with the illegal retention of any of the 197 documents he returned to the archives. That shows that if Trump had simply returned all the classified documents he had, he probably never would have been charged with any crimes, said Robert Mintz, a former federal prosecutor.
“This is not a case about what documents were taken, it’s about what former president Trump did after the government sought to retrieve those documents,” said Mintz, who noted that willful-retention cases often hinge on how much evidence prosecutors can find that a person deliberately hid material or refused to give it back.
