Lock him up indictment FL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad to see the Republicans are pushing back against this travesty.

Not "the Republicans," just the attention whore nutty ones.

Seriously, who are the non-nutty Republicans? I would love for our country to have two functional political parties, but I do not see a single Congressional Republican cheering on the rule of law.

Murkowski and Romney are pretty much it.

[Anonymous]

I know this is a dumb question, but I just don’t understand all the boxes and paper documents. How is that sort of record keeping not from the 70s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know this is a dumb question, but I just don’t understand all the boxes and paper documents. How is that sort of record keeping not from the 70s?

Remember who we are dealing with: Donald Trump. Record keeping style from the 1970s would make the most sense. He can barely form a coherent sentence. How would he be able to keep anything organized properly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad to see the Republicans are pushing back against this travesty.

Not "the Republicans," just the attention whore nutty ones.

Seriously, who are the non-nutty Republicans? I would love for our country to have two functional political parties, but I do not see a single Congressional Republican cheering on the rule of law.

Murkowski and Romney are pretty much it.

There are a few others tiptoeing around suggesting that maybe Trump might have done something wrong. Likely testing the waters to see if this is the point where they can finally break with him. But in the end they won't. We've seen this movie many times before.

[Anonymous]

[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.

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.

Untrue

[Anonymous]

“Mr. Corcoran was misled by his client (Trump), who left the lawyer with a ‘blinkered’ view about where remaining boxes of documents were stored.

The government has sufficiently demonstrated all three elements of one of the obstruction statutes by providing evidence that the former president intentionally concealed the existence of additional documents bearing classification markings from Corcoran, knowing that such deception would result in Corcoran providing an unknowingly false representation to the government, the judge wrote in the 86-page memorandum, according to a person briefed on its contents.

At one point, according to the notes, Mr. Trump expressed concern about Mr. Corcoran sorting through the materials in the boxes he had taken from the White House, even though he had brought Mr. Corcoran on specifically to handle the Justice Department’s efforts to recover all material Mr. Trump may still have had.

‘I don’t want anybody looking through my boxes, I really don’t,’ the notes quote Mr. Trump as saying. ‘I don’t want you looking through my boxes.’

In one of the most damning passages of the notes, Mr. Corcoran describes how Mr. Trump made a ‘plucking motion’ after he had placed about 40 secret documents in a folder in preparation for handing them over to federal prosecutors in compliance with a subpoena that had demanded the return of all classified documents in Mr. Trump’s possession.

In his notes, Mr. Corcoran said the gesture made him think that Mr. Trump was suggesting that he should take the folder to his ‘hotel room and if there’s anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.’

In another revealing exchange about what Mr. Trump hoped to communicate to his lawyer about what the former president expected from him, Mr. Trump spoke admiringly about an unnamed lawyer for Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state. Mr. Trump claimed that the lawyer had taken responsibility for deleting emails from her private server for her, an issue that prompted an F.B.I. investigation into her handling of government material:”

‘He was great, he did a great job,’ Mr. Trump said, according to Mr. Corcoran’s retelling in the indictment. ‘He said that it — that it was him. That he was the one who deleted all of her emails, the 30,000 emails, because they basically dealt with her scheduling and her going to the gym and her having beauty appointments. And he was great. And he, so she didn’t get in any trouble because he said that he was the one who deleted them.’
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/11/us/politics/trump-indictment-m-evan-corcoran.html

[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 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.

Fact - the commander in chief is THEIR BOSS. You are incorrect

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Player to be named later identified

Chris Kise, registered agent for Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. Have fun getting a security clearance with that one on your resume.

So when he doesn't get a clearance, then Trump has to find a new lawyer and we're a few months down the road. He's trying to delay and hiring a reputable, but unclearable attorney is a great start

[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:

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.

Obstruction.

Overturning it, ANY ruling in Trump's favor would set a very very dangerous precedent and would deeply undermine national security. It would be irresponsible and foolish and any judge making such a ruling has no business being a judge.

SCOTUS won't touch this. The 11th Circuit showed the conservative legal movement is not invested in protecting Trump personally, particularly when it interferes with the national security state. Cannon, however, is iikely to do a lot of damage.

Dear LORD. You are describing the weaponization of the legal system for political reasons

[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:

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.

Fact - the commander in chief is THEIR BOSS. You are incorrect

A former President is NOT their boss. See the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OMG, the markings on those boxes literally says “secret classified documents”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad to see the Republicans are pushing back against this travesty.

Not "the Republicans," just the attention whore nutty ones.

You think he’s the only one? LOL

[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 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.

Untrue

"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." 44 USC 2203(g)(1).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Player to be named later identified

Chris Kise, registered agent for Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. Have fun getting a security clearance with that one on your resume.

So when he doesn't get a clearance, then Trump has to find a new lawyer and we're a few months down the road. He's trying to delay and hiring a reputable, but unclearable attorney is a great start

Trump is the one with the legal right to a speedy trial. You should ask yourself why prosecution is in such a hurry.