Lock him up indictment FL

[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.

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

He’s NOT dumb, that’s the point. Had classified documents been seen and digested, that would have been spelled out in the very detailed indictment

[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.

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

EXACTLY what makes the case so weak.

Why would that make the case weak? They charged retention, and they have overwhelming evidence of that. That makes a case strong, not weak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

EXACTLY what makes the case so weak.

Why would that make the case weak? They charged retention, and they have overwhelming evidence of that. That makes a case strong, not weak.

I think you will find the SC will again, overturn any verdict in that regard. A President can retain their own presidential records.

[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 luck prosecuting that.

Who said prosecuting? It’s just more information for the American public to see. That will make it that much harder to fix the election again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

EXACTLY what makes the case so weak.

Why would that make the case weak? They charged retention, and they have overwhelming evidence of that. That makes a case strong, not weak.

I think you will find the SC will again, overturn any verdict in that regard. A President can retain their own presidential records.

No, no they cannot. Those records have to go to NARA. The president has the right to "access" them, not retain them. And in any case these were not even presidential records.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Exactly, that’s why they shouldn’t do it.

[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.

If you had actually read the indictment you would know that the charges don’t depend on whether the documents are classified or not as long as they contain information related to national defense. Read it or read it again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

EXACTLY what makes the case so weak.

Why would that make the case weak? They charged retention, and they have overwhelming evidence of that. That makes a case strong, not weak.

I think you will find the SC will again, overturn any verdict in that regard. A President can retain their own presidential records.

You are conflating the concepts of personal records and government records. The presidential records act spells that out, but he’s been charged with willfully retaining defense documents, which is not part of PRA. Those defense docs definitely never belonged to him. They belong to the government. Being president comes with limited power. He certainly doesn’t get ownership of everything he touches.

[Anonymous]

The Presidential Records Act (which is not what Trump is being charged under) specifically states that Presidential Records belong to the United States, not the individual serving as President "The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Presidential Records Act (which is not what Trump is being charged under) specifically states that Presidential Records belong to the United States, not the individual serving as President "The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter."

Also: "Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

EXACTLY what makes the case so weak.

Why would that make the case weak? They charged retention, and they have overwhelming evidence of that. That makes a case strong, not weak.

I think you will find the SC will again, overturn any verdict in that regard. A President can retain their own presidential records.

Classified documents are not Presidential papers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

EXACTLY what makes the case so weak.

Why would that make the case weak? They charged retention, and they have overwhelming evidence of that. That makes a case strong, not weak.

I think you will find the SC will again, overturn any verdict in that regard. A President can retain their own presidential records.

Classified documents are not Presidential papers.

Uh, not really. They could be. But records that belong to agencies, like war plans or intel reports, are not presidential records.

[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.

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

He’s NOT dumb, that’s the point. Had classified documents been seen and digested, that would have been spelled out in the very detailed indictment

And maybe it will be, but the indictments presented are open and shut cases based on the documentation and first and eye-witness accounts, including Trump's staff and attorneys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Before commenting again, please read the pertinent sections of the Espionage Act and the indictment. Because the bolded is simply false/wrong/uninformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In this particular case, the crimes committed are the actual possession of the documents, the failure to return the documents when requested, and the obstruction of the case, in the form of removing and replacing documents.