Lock him up! CNN reports Trump to be indicted

It’s not what you believe, it’s what you can prove.

I believe alot of bad shit with Trump. This is by far, the easiest thing to prove. The case is laid out on a silver platter. There is no comparison between this and any prior “political” classified documents case.

Maybe General Petraeus in terms of the obvious willful intent to both possess and illegally disseminate. But Trump dug his hole deeper with the lies. I also assume the Trump documents in question are both worse and more voluminous than whatever Petraeus had. Though giving them to a writer he was having an affair with was pretty damned bad. Petraeus got off very light. Trump probably could get a sweetheart deal too (govt would have an interest in a full accounting of people Trump shared classified docs with), but being a sociopath he probably can’t bring himself to utter the necessary words “I plead guilty, your honor!”.

 

Weaponization of justice cuts both ways. So don't be mad when Trump's judge sentences him to a dismissal of charges.

 

That would only be “weaponizing” one way.

Charging a crime where there is blatant and willful disregard for the law is not weaponizing anything. To suggest it is, is the insanity cult talking. Rather unfortunate people who should know better (and presumably are of sound mind) would push that narrative.

 

Also remember that not all documents were yet recovered

 

The Republican politicians like McCarthy still defending him at this point are pathetic human beings. The Trump cult members ("the 30%") at large at least have an excuse of sorts. They're stupid or deluded or both. That's how any cult thrives, no matter how despicable the leader. There are some, of course, who just want a fascist regime, and Trump is their man.

 

The defense has to combine insanity. But even then, he admitted knowing right from wrong. Much of his defense will be legal and he has the perfect judge. Judge Cannon has already tried to undercut the case at the investigative stage with her strange rulings. Suggestions here of an ideologue interested in advancement. You move to suppress the results of the warrant and press fruits of the poisonous tree and perhaps interference with his attorney client privileges. Problem if Mar a Lago is corporate owned. Even then, the tapes are independent of the search. But a suppression would make it harder to introduce the documents. And then there is the hope of a jury of Trump supporters. The House will do what it can to thwart this too. The problem is that anyone who reads the indictment and bothers to understand this is going to be alienated. Especially s lot of the ex military who supported him Thru 1-6 and understand that soldiers are at risk because of what he did.

 

He could not, however, vote for himself.

 

Elected officials are just channeling their base voters. The GOP base is just fine with this.

 

. You declined to play the game. @okeechobee on law needs to be fact specific in his treatise. Cite law and precedent. For example, how many of the emails with a “c” constitute national defense secrets. And many “c’s”were added after the emails were exchanged. Real problem when the document isn’t marked. Of course, markings aren’t necessary. Because the element isn’t classification. A confidential document does not necessarily meet the definition of national defense secrets. And how do you prove specific intent. Supreme Court says you need to prove that. For example, When she sends an email to Huma Aberdeen, who had a clearance, where is the specific intent. So simplistic statements like “weaponization” don’t cut it. Facts and law please. And erasing personal emails is not obstruction. She was under no compulsion to produce those. Her personal emails were not subpoenaed. Nor was her server or computer. You need facts and law. The facts between her and Trump are not comparable.

 

Lol. "Precedent," not "precedence."

 

I don’t think he thought the “off the record” was legal protection. I think he felt free to admit he was knowingly breaking the law because his whole life, but especially the last eight years, had reinforced to him that no law applied to him, and that he had the zealous support of tens of millions in openly breaking laws they would support if applied to those they disagree with. Everything about his reaction as he realized he was actually going to be indicted confirms this was his mindset.

And it’s not a crazy conclusion. As I type, many individuals who share your previously expressed view of the real meaning of the Second Amendment are contemplating plans to exercise these “rights” to ensure that seemingly neutral laws are not applied to those who share their worldview.

We’ll see if he ever truly faces accountability.

 

I had never thought the “selling secrets to the Saudis”, etc theories sounded plausible, but I was honestly a bit at a loss to come up with any reasonable alternative. It never entered my mind, but impressing people with the documents actually sounds way more like Trump. He is somehow still surprising me.

 

Trump Names Hunter Biden As His Running Mate So DOJ Will Stop Investigating Him
PALM BEACH, FL — Former President Donald Trump seemed to have outsmarted federal prosecutors once again, as reports out of Mar-A-Lago indicated the 45th President and current 2024 candidate had chosen Joe Biden's son, Hunter, as his running mate, leading the Department of Justice to halt all investigations against Trump.

"It really is a brilliant, ‘4D chess' type of move," said disheveled political analyst Steve Bannon after Trump made his announcement. "There's no way the DOJ or the FBI will do any investigating when Hunter Biden is attached to the campaign. Checkmate, losers!"

 

I'm not sure I understand why anyone would give Trump the benefit of the doubt on his intent.

 

The filing I linked in post #301 (Doc 3 at page 45) indicates it was filed in WPB Division. I also notice under paragraph 8 of the Certificate that the answer was “no” regarding whether “the case relates to a previously filed matter in this District Court.”

 

Perhaps he thought "off the record" meant not recorded?

 

The numbers were so high that the rare step of issuing a memo on these losses occurred

https://thehill.com/policy/national...ng-dozens-of-informants-around-the-world-nyt/

Leading counterintelligence officials issued a memo to all of the CIA’s global stations saying that a concerning number of U.S. informants were being captured and executed.

The CIA’s counterintelligence mission center investigated dozens of incidents in the last few years that involved killings, arrests or compromises of foreign informants. In an unusual move, the message sent via a top secret cable included the specific number of agents killed by other intelligence agencies, according to The New York Times.

Officials said that level of detail is a sign of the significance of the cable. Announcing the specific number of killings is rare as that figure is typically held under wraps from the public and even from some CIA employees, the Times noted.

 

How is he getting recorded so much and are the people who recorded him having to get immunity if he didn’t consent to be recorded? Were they working with Feds at time of recording. An aspect of this stuff I have wondered about but haven’t dug into. I remember wondering about it with Linda Tripp too.

 

It’s a private club, but it’s a “public space” within that club. Don’t think consent is required any more than if you were recording a person acting crazy on the sidewalk. There is no expectation of privacy.

The single party vs. two party consent applies where there is such expectation. Like a phone conversation or in a private office. Two party consent would mean you have to be notified and consent to the conversation being recorded.

 

I imagine he wants to be recorded just so he can listen to himself later. It would almost like hearing from God.