Trump to be indicted - again.
-
@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. -
@Axtremus said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
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.Thanks for that. He should’ve taken a hammer to the boxes.
-
Bill Barr says if even half of the indictment is true, Trump is toast. Guy who lead Trump’s DoJ.
“ It’s a very detailed indictment. And it’s very, very damning, and this idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, a victim of a witch hunt is ridiculous.”
-
@xenon said in Trump to be indicted - again.:
Bill Barr says if even half of the indictment is true, Trump is toast. Guy who lead Trump’s DoJ.
“ It’s a very detailed indictment. And it’s very, very damning, and this idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, a victim of a witch hunt is ridiculous.”
I always got the feeling that Barr took the job out of his sense of justice and duty, not because of personal ambition. His book is interesting, because I think it gives a fair handed assessment of trumps behavior in the White House as well as Barry’s feeling toward the man himself.
That said, both he and McCarthy join in their feelings that the indictments are devastating.
-
-
Now, I know that Ambassador Bolton is not a Pres. Trump fan, but here is his analysis on the situation.
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/12/1181653609/trump-indictment-john-bolton
On Republicans' attacks on the Justice Department
Take it for granted Democrats don't prosecute Democrats, believe all that, that Hillary [Clinton] should have been prosecuted, that Joe Biden should be prosecuted and they weren't and that's an injustice. Accept that for the sake of argument and then ask these (Republican) candidates the question: Does that mean you give Donald Trump a free pass? Is your answer to the double standard problem to have no standard at all?
Republicans used to believe if you didn't prosecute criminals you'd have more crime, and I think that insight was right then and it's right now. The way you correct the double standard is to take the politics out of the decision-making, and if you do that, Donald Trump should be at trial as soon as possible.
-
What you cite as his points are valid.
The problem is that offenders of the law have skated in the past, making the (probably legitimate) of Trump seem political and one sided.
As (I think) NRO said, the fact that you excused this behavior in the past is not sufficient reason to excuse it again.
-
Just listened to Shapiro break it down. It’s frigging bad.
But yeah, this goes back to Comey deciding not to punish HRC. Sorry, but in the interest of just even the image of legitimacy, you have to prosecute these incidents. All of them.
-
It's horrible. But, as you suggest, is it more horrible than having your private server accessed by "foreign actors?" Is it more horrible than having classified documents found on the laptop of your aide's estranged husband's laptop?
I don't know.
The only thing more outrageous than Trump's behavior is the fact that Department of "Justice" didn't pursue the other transgressions. When Comey didn't, he, in one press conference, destroyed all the credibility of the DOJ. The lack of prosecution of others, McCabe, et al, completed the Jenga collapse.
-
John Yoo:
https://whatthehellisgoingon.substack.com/p/wth-the-trump-indictment
What about the case on the merits?
If it was anyone else other that a former President, I would be telling the defendant to go get a good plea bargain while you can. Usually, people who are prosecuted for this kind of crime, taking classified information, have a lot less evidence in the indictment. I mean, you’ve got pictures of the documents themselves in unsecured facilities. You’ve got apparently tape recordings of the defendant talking about how he’s got the documents and how he knows they’re still classified. This is the most damaging of evidence in a way because you don’t need to rely on witnesses’ valuable memory, you don’t have to worry about the witness changing stories on the stand. You’ve got physical photographic proof or recorded proof of Trump himself talking about how he shouldn’t have these documents, how he knows that they’re classified, and he’s violating the law.
How do you respond to Trump’s complaint that neither Hillary Clinton nor any others have been prosecuted for the same or similar crimes?
JY: Trump raises a good point. It just doesn't get you anywhere in the courtroom. You can't show up in the courtroom and say, "I'm innocent because you didn't charge that other person over there." The prosecution is about whether Donald Trump is guilty. So this claim of selective prosecution, it never works, but it's a good argument to make in the political sphere. I mean, you can say that all you want in the political sphere. Maybe it gets you charged or maybe it's why his support seems to go up every time he's gotten indicted, which is why he's looks like he's made sure he is going to get indicted two or three more times before their caucuses.
Much more at the link about comparing Biden, whether it's appropriate to indict Trump, and "can a felon be president?", etc.
-
If you give an inch you have to give a mile. Trump is clearly in criminal territory. While Hilary’s stuff was a grey area - it underscores the importance of enforcing a very strict line for politicians.
They should be held to the highest standard. Any whiff of impropriety and they should be sacked. We have no lack of politicians.
-
What does the timeline look like? Are they going to expedite the trial?
