Lock him up indictment FL

[Anonymous]

His entire strategy is to delay past the election. Currently he has no lawyers with top secret clearance. He has no reason to hire one in a hurry. He'll push this past the election with delay tactics and then either pardon himself or be on a plane to the middle east.

[Anonymous]

Trump is now asserting that the FBI planted the documents...this after he is on tape admitting he had them and others claiming to have seen them.

But somehow, we will see 100 posts extending this thread, claiming the lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good question...

That looks like a cinderblock half wall to me.

If it were a copy machine, it would have been in the indictment. I swear, Twitter folks are so clueless.

It probably is a copy machine. Trump's generation has to print a copy of a document whenever they discuss it with someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:His entire strategy is to delay past the election. Currently he has no lawyers with top secret clearance. He has no reason to hire one in a hurry. He'll push this past the election with delay tactics and then either pardon himself or be on a plane to the middle east.

That's half his strategy, and Cannon will be happy to help him out. The other half will be getting favorable rulings from Cannon that are not immediately appealable. Smith has got to get moving with the J6 case and the GA prosecutor with hers. No way this one gets to trial before next November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump supporters - is there ANYTHING he could do to lose your support ? Really ask yourself.

Nope. This guy’s literally like “any other defendant with these facts should do a quick plea bargain but because he was president..

How is it an "institutional norm?" How many former Presidents ran for office under such a massive and ongoing legal cloud?

Yoo is full of crap.

The institutional norms were that presidents were not by and large habitual criminals.
Nixon resigned, spending his last night in office praying with Billy Graham I believe. He kept quiet for a very long time afterward.
Clinton was impeached just once
Harding died before he could be implicated in the scandals within his administration
Johnson (Andrew) was impeached just once
U.S. Grant was never directly implicated in corruption involving his administration
Reagan was a potential target with Iran-Contra, but Ollie got all the attention and Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimers (and likely already affected by it while President) not long after

Trump has always been about "getting away with it" because he's a "star"

And none of them - Nixon, Clinton, Harding, etc came back to run again saying "hey you can't prosecute because I used to be President!" Not a one.

Sorry, Yoo. It is not an institutional norm. The right needs to stop fabricating utter bullshit to defend Trump.

“If you drop out of the race, Mr.Trump, things will go much better for you”

Nobody has said that. In fact, most pundits agree that the best way out for Trump is to become president and make these charges go away.

Rachel Maddow did

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't find a lawyer for this.

According to the paper, the team is split on whether their defense is to declare this a political witch hunt, or to focus on getting one MAGA juror.

He can always use the federal public defender's office.

There aren't too many public defenders who can be read in on the classified information, so no, not really.

Federal public defenders are fed employees and most likely have someone cleared to defend terrorism suspects. Now if Trump fires the public defender and has to rely on the court appointed private bar, well.....

A number of the incompetent lawyers on his team are barred in SDFL, including the insurance lawyer Lindsey Halligan. Not sure how this story even got going.

Even the most incompetent lawyer is aware that incompetence does not fly in the federal court room. It's one thing to post crap legal arguments on social media but quite another when you're in front of a federal judge on a motion to show cause for contempt or sanctions. Even Rudy was careful not to go that far.

Rudy did go that far.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/nyregion/giuliani-law-license-suspended-trump.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/15/d-c-bar-giuliani-attorney-overturn-2020-election-00074117
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3776899-attorney-disciplinary-committee-recommends-sanctions-for-giuliani-over-election-claims/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump still has the criminal charges coming in Georgia too. At least he has something to do in his retirement. Be a criminal defendant.

“We’ll get him on something, somewhere!”

“Because he flouted laws and rules at every turn.”

So did Hillary per Comey. She just didn't mean to

Yes, Comey knows you have to prove intent to convict at a trial. Why don’t you?

Know what else you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That the person who Trump showed the document to actually saw its contents. The fact that it’s nowhere in the indictment speaks volumes. Remember they are trying to prove espionage act and that he deliberately meant to compromise national security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAWFARE: Major law firms are requiring lawyers to give up their partnerships if they want to represent the former president fearing backlash from Democrats. Trump is scrambling to find a FL lawyer willing to join his defense team.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/12/trump-documents-lawyer/

Nothing to see here...

JFC, can you imagine if this was Biden or Hillary?

It’s bullshit. He can’t get a good lawyer because he is a terrible client who won’t STFU or stop committing crimes

If lawyers are required to give up partnerships to represent Trump due to Democratic backlash, that’s political interference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump supporters - is there ANYTHING he could do to lose your support ? Really ask yourself.

Nope. This guy’s literally like “any other defendant with these facts should do a quick plea bargain but because he was president..

How is it an "institutional norm?" How many former Presidents ran for office under such a massive and ongoing legal cloud?

Yoo is full of crap.

The institutional norms were that presidents were not by and large habitual criminals.
Nixon resigned, spending his last night in office praying with Billy Graham I believe. He kept quiet for a very long time afterward.
Clinton was impeached just once
Harding died before he could be implicated in the scandals within his administration
Johnson (Andrew) was impeached just once
U.S. Grant was never directly implicated in corruption involving his administration
Reagan was a potential target with Iran-Contra, but Ollie got all the attention and Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimers (and likely already affected by it while President) not long after

Trump has always been about "getting away with it" because he's a "star"

And none of them - Nixon, Clinton, Harding, etc came back to run again saying "hey you can't prosecute because I used to be President!" Not a one.

Sorry, Yoo. It is not an institutional norm. The right needs to stop fabricating utter bullshit to defend Trump.

“If you drop out of the race, Mr.Trump, things will go much better for you”

Nobody has said that. In fact, most pundits agree that the best way out for Trump is to become president and make these charges go away.

Rachel Maddow did

She’s not a lawyer, and multiple lawyers have said that strategy would make the prosecution political and prove the RWNJs point. However, she is an expert on Spiro Agnew who was in a similar situation and I think the plea Agnew agreed to included an agreement like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAWFARE: Major law firms are requiring lawyers to give up their partnerships if they want to represent the former president fearing backlash from Democrats. Trump is scrambling to find a FL lawyer willing to join his defense team.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/12/trump-documents-lawyer/

Nothing to see here...

JFC, can you imagine if this was Biden or Hillary?

It’s bullshit. He can’t get a good lawyer because he is a terrible client who won’t STFU or stop committing crimes

If lawyers are required to give up partnerships to represent Trump due to Democratic backlash, that’s political interference

Lol sure. No one wants to rep him because he does not paid. Also he tried to overthrow the government but that will not matter to republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAWFARE: Major law firms are requiring lawyers to give up their partnerships if they want to represent the former president fearing backlash from Democrats. Trump is scrambling to find a FL lawyer willing to join his defense team.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/12/trump-documents-lawyer/

Nothing to see here...

JFC, can you imagine if this was Biden or Hillary?

It’s bullshit. He can’t get a good lawyer because he is a terrible client who won’t STFU or stop committing crimes

If lawyers are required to give up partnerships to represent Trump due to Democratic backlash, that’s political interference

Good lord you still don’t get it. Trump is a lying cheapskate who implicates his lawyers in additional crimes. That has nothing to do with Democratic backlash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good question...

That’s clearly a storage room JFC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump still has the criminal charges coming in Georgia too. At least he has something to do in his retirement. Be a criminal defendant.

“We’ll get him on something, somewhere!”

“Because he flouted laws and rules at every turn.”

So did Hillary per Comey. She just didn't mean to

Yes, Comey knows you have to prove intent to convict at a trial. Why don’t you?

Know what else you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That the person who Trump showed the document to actually saw its contents. The fact that it’s nowhere in the indictment speaks volumes. Remember they are trying to prove espionage act and that he deliberately meant to compromise national security.

Showing one document to someone else is not the only crime alleged in the indictment. You should read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LAWFARE: Major law firms are requiring lawyers to give up their partnerships if they want to represent the former president fearing backlash from Democrats. Trump is scrambling to find a FL lawyer willing to join his defense team.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/12/trump-documents-lawyer/

Nothing to see here...

JFC, can you imagine if this was Biden or Hillary?

It’s bullshit. He can’t get a good lawyer because he is a terrible client who won’t STFU or stop committing crimes

If lawyers are required to give up partnerships to represent Trump due to Democratic backlash, that’s political interference

Good lord you still don’t get it. Trump is a lying cheapskate who implicates his lawyers in additional crimes. That has nothing to do with Democratic backlash.

The article specifically states that the law firms fear backlash from Democrats

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump still has the criminal charges coming in Georgia too. At least he has something to do in his retirement. Be a criminal defendant.

“We’ll get him on something, somewhere!”

“Because he flouted laws and rules at every turn.”

So did Hillary per Comey. She just didn't mean to

Yes, Comey knows you have to prove intent to convict at a trial. Why don’t you?

Know what else you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That the person who Trump showed the document to actually saw its contents. The fact that it’s nowhere in the indictment speaks volumes. Remember they are trying to prove espionage act and that he deliberately meant to compromise national security.

You are wrong. He is on tape telling them what the document is, what it says, and who wrote it. It doesn’t matter that they didn’t read it. He revealed top secret information. It would be a crime even if he wasn’t holding the document but he admitted on tape that he had a document he knew he should not have and he showed it off to impress them.