Lock him up indictment FL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Reminder - the indictment came from a federal grand jury. 23 randomly selected citizens. Not from "Biden."

[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:

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.

Let’s try to put this in a perspective that Republicans can appreciate. Trump is Rose Montoya, a person I had never heard of until this morning. The secret government documents that Trump stole (yes, stole! You don’t just get to fill the hold on your last ride on Air Force One with whatever you want) are Rose Montoya’s breasts. And just like Rose Montoya’s irresponsible ta tas being shown, so too did Donald Trump show his ta tas to far, far too many people who didn’t have clearance to see them. Only seeing breasts won’t actually harm or damage anyone.

There. Now maybe you right wing Froot Loops can be appropriately angry about Trump endangering all of us since I put it in your favorite transphobic language.

[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/

The Nixon administration dropped the ball?

The Nixon Administration did not want America to find out they kept the war going as a campaign stunt?

[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"

No other president is both this bad and this stupid. Unprecedented.

[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/

The Nixon administration dropped the ball?

The Nixon Administration did not want America to find out they kept the war going as a campaign stunt?

It was to hide them period. Because they had evidence of Nixon's efforts to undermine peace talks and keep the war going so he could claim to stop it. The documents were kept secret because Johnson's administration feared the impact on the country if Nixon won and then we all found out what Nixon had been doing--this was at a time when every week the counts of US soldiers and NV soldiers killed were published in the newspapers, and on TV we could see war close up in a way that has never happened since--we could see the faces of dying soldiers. Nixon certainly would not have disclosed this information and denied it forever.

Maybe we should have had a serious constitutional crisis right then and avoided Watergate and everything that has come since.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"

No other president is both this bad and this stupid. Unprecedented.

The pp's reasoning (well, reasoning is not the right word for it) completely baffles me.
With Watergate and after, there were plenty of people who grumbled that "everybody does this stuff" and didn't think Nixon should be blamed. Apparently we're supposed to accept that bumbling around with military defense plans, waving them in front of whatever audience you want to impress, and--we have no idea--possibly providing that information to foreign governments that are not really our best friends--and even laughing about it--is what we should expoect from our leaders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad someone read the article and summarized it (most like by AI... wink). What the article failed to mentjon was that the Presidential Records Act wasn't passed until 1978, ten years after this crime. However, the espionage act (passed in 1917) did exist in 1968.

In Trumps case, Smith used the PRA to raid Mar-A-Lago, yet prosecuted under the espionage act. Confusing, but still illegal according to Jack Smith but crickets...

Well, but evidence of a political candidate undermining peace talks wouldn't exactly be the same as military defense/offensive plans? Not sure exactly how the evidence of what Nixon was doing would fall under 793 although I suppose the right kind of prosecutor could work out that argument. What's also interesting is that the papers were produce by an administration belong to a party OPPOSING the crook's party. Hard to see any self-serving going on there.

That earlier summary mentioned that they expected Nixon to win. It was a very close election, it would have been more a concern about IF Nixon won.

Brought back an odd memory. I was in confirmation classes back then and one day somehow a guy in the class and I started arguing candidates via notes. I did these doodles like "NIX on NIXON" and "HUMP h REY=King of the Hill"--lame, but I was 14. Pastor caught us and first we were in trouble about the notes and then the pastor went on a long tirade about politics and Vietnam and everything, may have brought up godless communism, not sure on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the day we will read about in history books as the day we became a banana republic.

I do remember when France became a banana republic when it prosecuted Sarkozy for corruption and bribery, and when Israel became a banana republic when it prosecuted Ehud Olmert for corruption, and when Italy became a banana republic when it prosecuted Silvio Berlusconi for corruption, bribery and prostitution, and when South Korea became a banana republican when it prosecuted Park Geun-hye for corruption, and Taiwan became a banana republican when it prosecuted Chen Shui-bian for bribery.

How many of them were running for office?

The investigation started before Trump announced his candidacy. Or in your world, anyone can announce a run for an office to stave off an investigation?

Well DOJ would need to run a poll to see if they were a "leading candidate." Just look up the "leading candidate immunity" clause in the constitution.

I think Aileen Cannon knows where that clause is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.”

Can someone explain how this is markedly different than Bill Clinton and the court's ruling under the Presidential Records Act?
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the
PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in
office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained
authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must
notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the
authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.” Id., citing H.R. Rep. No. 95-1487, at 13
(1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5744. Since the President is completely entrusted
with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it
would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less
authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records.

****

Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government’s possession, defendant
submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to
assume custody and control over them. Def.’s Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss at 1, 15–18.
Defendant considers this to be an “extraordinary request” that is “unfounded, contrary to the
PRA’s express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law.” Id. at 1. The
Court agrees.

Doesn't seem hard. The tapes were made between Clinton and the historian for the purpose of a book the historian was writing. Nothing made those tapes official actions, they were basically memoirs. Clinton never designated them Presidential records and the NARA said it's not their job to do so.

Besides which, national defense information created by the Pentagon is NOT Presidential records anyway. You don't get to keep them as a souvenir, to chuckle over with MBS, or to impress the diners at Mar-a-Lago.

[Anonymous]

Why are Republicans struggling with this so hard? Like you all keep bringing up this or that random thing that has clearly been provided to you by some right wing source. Just give up. You’re supporting a crook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are Republicans struggling with this so hard? Like you all keep bringing up this or that random thing that has clearly been provided to you by some right wing source. Just give up. You’re supporting a crook.

Because our politics, thanks to Newt Gingrich, has devolved to rote tribalism, and either your team is winning or it isn't. Add to it, many of the elected republicans ae fully complicit in the coup attempt, and as a result, have a vested stake into Trump's success in 2024. If he wins, they are all exonerated. If he doesn't, many of them may end up in jail too.

Why this is taking so long from the DOJ side is baffling, but I suppose it is better to get it right then to do it fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad someone read the article and summarized it (most like by AI... wink). What the article failed to mentjon was that the Presidential Records Act wasn't passed until 1978, ten years after this crime. However, the espionage act (passed in 1917) did exist in 1968.

In Trumps case, Smith used the PRA to raid Mar-A-Lago, yet prosecuted under the espionage act. Confusing, but still illegal according to Jack Smith but crickets...

The PRA was not used to search Mar-a-Lago. It could not have been because it is not a criminal statute and search warrants are only available when searching for evidence of a crime. The warrant specifically cites the statutes, which are 18 USC 793, 2071, and 1519. 793 is the Espionage Act. None of those are the PRA.

[Anonymous]

Is the trial likely to occur before or after the 2024 election?

[Anonymous]

Somebody jaywalked one time and wasn’t prosecuted so it’s totally unfair to prosecute Donald Trump for stealing top secret documents and lying about having them and conspiring to hide them and disclosing their top secret contents. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the trial likely to occur before or after the 2024 election?

If Cannon lets Trump delay this trial, the Georgia election fraud conspiracy trial and/or the federal January 6 election fraud insurrection conspiracy trial could happen first.