Anonymous
06/13/2023 15:10
Subject: Lock him up indictment FL
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.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
06/13/2023 14:27
Subject: Lock him up indictment FL
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.
Anonymous
06/13/2023 14:24
Subject: Lock him up indictment FL
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.
Anonymous
06/13/2023 14:23
Subject: Lock him up indictment FL
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.
Anonymous
06/13/2023 13:32
Subject: Lock him up indictment FL
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.
Read the indictment, this has nothing to do with the Presidential Records Act. The documents in Trump's possession were not and are not subject to that act. Please stop either ignorantly or willfully mixing up the PRA with the Espionage Act, under which these indictments are filed.
The President is entitled to personal records. But what he is NOT entitled to are the GOVERNMENT's records. What Trump did would be akin to a CEO of KFC walking out the door with KFC's secret recipe of 11 herbs and spices. He does not own that information, the company does.
Anonymous
06/13/2023 13:30
Subject: Lock him up indictment FL
TRUMP: “[Biden is] going to use law enforcement to try and win an election that he can't win at the ballot box."
Anonymous
06/13/2023 13:26
Subject: Lock him up indictment FL
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
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
It isn't political. Political is that Trump won't be held without bond, as others recently charged with identical crimes were. Political is that we won't be perp-walked or have a mug shot. He is getting special treatment. Anyone else would have been charged last year at this time.
Exactly. It's not political, it's the LAW.
Anonymous
06/13/2023 13:22
Subject: Lock him up indictment FL
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.
Read the indictment, this has nothing to do with the Presidential Records Act. The documents in Trump's possession were not and are not subject to that act. Please stop either ignorantly or willfully mixing up the PRA with the Espionage Act, under which these indictments are filed.
Anonymous
06/13/2023 13:21
Subject: Lock him up indictment FL
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
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
It isn't political. Political is that Trump won't be held without bond, as others recently charged with identical crimes were. Political is that we won't be perp-walked or have a mug shot. He is getting special treatment. Anyone else would have been charged last year at this time.