Lock him up indictment FL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Smith was told to indict. He was just given latitude about the specifics.

It's the grand jury that indicts. Why are you overlooking the fact that a group of citizens looked at the evidence presented to them and determined that there was probable cause to find that Trump had committed a crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 106 years of the espionage act, not one President has been brought up on this charge. I will use the words so eloquently said by Director Comey in 2016 about classified information on a private server; "no reasonable prosecutor would file charges"

What other president has taken national defense documents with him after leaving the White House and then hid them when asked for them back? What other president has been so reckless and careless with documents relating to national security, keeping them in unsecure places where foreigners from some potentially hostile nations might access them, waving them around to people without clearance, potentially endangering our country?

It's like as if Trump had shot and killed someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and was charged and you all started complaining that no other president had ever been charged with murder before. Yeah, well no other president had done that before. Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This is an amazing gift to Biden. He can now just appoint acting DOJ officials without the need to get Senate confirmation. Thank you Vance!

Hahahaha they are all such grandstanding morons. Vance knows (or should know) this, but his mouth-breathing constituents don't so he can just say whatever stupid thing he wants because he doesn't actually care about governing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 106 years of the espionage act, not one President has been brought up on this charge. I will use the words so eloquently said by Director Comey in 2016 about classified information on a private server; "no reasonable prosecutor would file charges"

Everything about Trump is unprecedented.

The closet comparison is to Nixon, but the powers-that-be decided to spare Americans this kind of spectacle by forcing Nixon’s resignation and then pardoning him. Nixon had already served two terms and couldn’t run again. His own party was willing to hold him accountable. The threat he presented was not ongoing.

[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.

They are non-nutty but they are cowards. I do not care for Liz Cheney's politics but at least she had guts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 106 years of the espionage act, not one President has been brought up on this charge. I will use the words so eloquently said by Director Comey in 2016 about classified information on a private server; "no reasonable prosecutor would file charges"

There are no similarities to the Trump case. You know that.

[Anonymous]

A better explanation of the espionage act

https://www.thedailybeast.com/doj-went-overboard-with-espionage-act-charges-against-trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Smith was told to indict. He was just given latitude about the specifics.

By who?

Send in the clowns with their conspiracy theories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1968 Lyndon Johnson gave an aide classified documents to hide from the incoming Nixon Administration. Why wasn't he Indicted like Trump?

https://theintercept.com/2022/08/11/trump-fbi-mar-a-lago-classified-documents-lbj/

For those who don’t want to read the article, I’ll summarize.

LBJ found out via an informant that the Nixon campaign was allegedly circumventing US foreign policy and actively discouraging peace accords in Vietnam because they didn’t want LBJ to get credit for ending the war. LBJ had some of the alleged conspirators (US citizens) surveilled, which proved the allegations were true. However, it was obvious Nixon was going to win the election, so LBJ and his advisors decided that if the American public learned what they’d been up to, it would shake public confidence in the Nixon administration so badly that Americans were better off not knowing.

LBJ asked an aide to hold all of the documentation of the surveillance instead of giving it to the incoming Nixon administration. The aide kept it all until LBJ’s death, when he donated it to LBJ’s presidential library in a sealed envelope with instructions not to open until 50 years later, 2023. The library actually opened the envelope in the 1990s.

The article states, “What the Johnson administration had done was, in a sense, ‘legal,’ given that there were essentially no laws governing the U.S. surveillance state before reforms in the 1970s. Nevertheless, everyone involved was aware that what they’d done could be seen as scandalous.”

So no one was prosecuted because there was no specific law broken and there were no allegations of wrongdoing.

I love that no one is paying any attention in this story to Nixon actively frustrating the peace process. Shades of Reagan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1968 Lyndon Johnson gave an aide classified documents to hide from the incoming Nixon Administration. Why wasn't he Indicted like Trump?

https://theintercept.com/2022/08/11/trump-fbi-mar-a-lago-classified-documents-lbj/

For those who don’t want to read the article, I’ll summarize.

LBJ found out via an informant that the Nixon campaign was allegedly circumventing US foreign policy and actively discouraging peace accords in Vietnam because they didn’t want LBJ to get credit for ending the war. LBJ had some of the alleged conspirators (US citizens) surveilled, which proved the allegations were true. However, it was obvious Nixon was going to win the election, so LBJ and his advisors decided that if the American public learned what they’d been up to, it would shake public confidence in the Nixon administration so badly that Americans were better off not knowing.

LBJ asked an aide to hold all of the documentation of the surveillance instead of giving it to the incoming Nixon administration. The aide kept it all until LBJ’s death, when he donated it to LBJ’s presidential library in a sealed envelope with instructions not to open until 50 years later, 2023. The library actually opened the envelope in the 1990s.

The article states, “What the Johnson administration had done was, in a sense, ‘legal,’ given that there were essentially no laws governing the U.S. surveillance state before reforms in the 1970s. Nevertheless, everyone involved was aware that what they’d done could be seen as scandalous.”

So no one was prosecuted because there was no specific law broken and there were no allegations of wrongdoing.

I love that no one is paying any attention in this story to Nixon actively frustrating the peace process. Shades of Reagan.

There was a big thread when the news first came out. It’s been known for some time now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A better explanation of the espionage act

https://www.thedailybeast.com/doj-went-overboard-with-espionage-act-charges-against-trump

Some consequences for violating the espionage act

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1968 Lyndon Johnson gave an aide classified documents to hide from the incoming Nixon Administration. Why wasn't he Indicted like Trump?

https://theintercept.com/2022/08/11/trump-fbi-mar-a-lago-classified-documents-lbj/

For those who don’t want to read the article, I’ll summarize.

LBJ found out via an informant that the Nixon campaign was allegedly circumventing US foreign policy and actively discouraging peace accords in Vietnam because they didn’t want LBJ to get credit for ending the war. LBJ had some of the alleged conspirators (US citizens) surveilled, which proved the allegations were true. However, it was obvious Nixon was going to win the election, so LBJ and his advisors decided that if the American public learned what they’d been up to, it would shake public confidence in the Nixon administration so badly that Americans were better off not knowing.

LBJ asked an aide to hold all of the documentation of the surveillance instead of giving it to the incoming Nixon administration. The aide kept it all until LBJ’s death, when he donated it to LBJ’s presidential library in a sealed envelope with instructions not to open until 50 years later, 2023. The library actually opened the envelope in the 1990s.

The article states, “What the Johnson administration had done was, in a sense, ‘legal,’ given that there were essentially no laws governing the U.S. surveillance state before reforms in the 1970s. Nevertheless, everyone involved was aware that what they’d done could be seen as scandalous.”

So no one was prosecuted because there was no specific law broken and there were no allegations of wrongdoing.

I love that no one is paying any attention in this story to Nixon actively frustrating the peace process. Shades of Reagan.

Right?? This was one of the worst things Nixon did. Total traitor. People died because of what he did. Really disgusting.

[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

WRONG. President, Commander In Chief - is a TEMPORARY position. And, Trump is no longer Commander in Chief, he isn't the boss of anyone in Federal government. The government is a permanent institution. Records that legally belong to the government must stay with the government.

[Anonymous]