Lock him up indictment FL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That makes it A-OK

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good question...

That’s clearly a storage room JFC

A storage room with classified national security documents and very convenient photocopier. Think a little harder before you JFC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Law firms are independent entities and can manage the risk of taking on particular clients however they see fit.

[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.

"If you don't have an attorney one will be provided." Get him a public defender with security clearance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That makes it A-OK

It makes it precedent, a precedent that is worth pointing out but would not be worth repeating in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have. It’s full of crap. Just because a document has classified markings, doesn’t mean the document is currently classified.

[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.

Yes special prosecutors are dumb like that. Luck we have the internet to reply on and not 200 + year old legal system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have. It’s full of crap. Just because a document has classified markings, doesn’t mean the document is currently classified.

I hear trump is looking for a good lawyer. I think you need to get down there asap!

[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 luck prosecuting that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have. It’s full of crap. Just because a document has classified markings, doesn’t mean the document is currently classified.

In this case, they were currently classified. In Hillary's case, they were classified after the fact. Either way, the classification is not the issue here, so it is a red herring.

[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.

He's not charged with dissemination so they do not have to prove that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have. It’s full of crap. Just because a document has classified markings, doesn’t mean the document is currently classified.

Expanding on this: The indictment comments on classified markings, not actually classifications. That’s because sometimes a document is classified, such as a motorcade route, but the day after the route is taken, the document is now not classified anymore. You don’t think the prosecution knows this? Or course they do. That’s why they focus on markings.

Regarding Trump’s statement, he’s going to have to explain that for sure. But again, the indictment doesn’t say the person actually was passed the document, read the document, etc. If I waved a classified document at you from across the room, you would not be able to read it. I have not handed you any classified information. Politically, it’s stupid, agreed, but unless that document was digested by the other unauthorized individual, no crime was committed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He's not charged with dissemination so they do not have to prove that.

EXACTLY what makes the case so weak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good question...

That’s clearly a storage room JFC

A storage room with classified national security documents and very convenient photocopier. Think a little harder before you JFC.

I don’t engage in conspiracy theory like you do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That makes it A-OK

It makes it precedent, a precedent that is worth pointing out but would not be worth repeating in this case.

That makes it political