I’m going to go out on a limb to speculate that you still haven’t read the indictment, which lays out HOW he moved the documents, how he lied to rent he government about the documents, and how he misled even his own lawyers reporting to the government. Once you read the indictment , you’ll understand the points being made here.
Because the underlying acts all took place by the penultimate politician, who rather than confesses error, tropes that it is part of “the greatest witch hunt.”
For the worst of the worst stuff, you'll never see it or know what it's in it. They can only charge for the docs they are willing to show to the jury. If there really is stuff in there that jeopardizes national security, they won't show it court, and you'll never hear about in the news. I'm sure some Trumpers will ignore this, though, and claim whatever was made public wasn't that bad.
That's assuming that he even bothers to read the indictment. I suspect that he could be like the Trump supporters that I saw interviewed by a CNN reporter a few days ago. They were essentially so convinced by the right-wing media and pro-Trump politicians that they believed that the allegations in the indictment were fabrications by a Biden DOJ out to get their Dear Leader.
The only logical explanation for that is he felt he had a legal right to have the documents and wasn’t going to budge an inch for the DOJ, after what he’d been through with them in the past. So I suppose we will see if he’s right or if he was wrong. But clearly, he thinks he had a right to keep the documents. Unless he was purposefully baiting the DOJ into an indictment to use it to enhance his candidacy as a martyr, but that’s a stretch, even for Trump.
Why didn’t he in the first place? Once the prosecution makes its case, she can table it with rule 29 and he’s off the hook due to double jeopardy law.
Believing he had a right to the documents would only be a defense to him initially taking the documents. After that, it was explained very clearly that they do not belong to him which he chose to ignore at his own legal peril. Common sense also makes clear that they don't belong to him. The documents belong to the United States and he only had access to them to the extent that they enabled him to do his job as President. Once he's no longer President, there's just no argument that classified US documents (even if he declassied with his mind) belong personally to him in any way, shape, or form.
A person who represents himself has a fool for a client. A person who completely ignores the advice of his/her lawyer isn't much better. Read the indictment. Trump's lawyers told him he needed to return the docs. Trump's response? Maybe we should tell the DOJ the docs don't exist! And the ability to Trump return the docs without some sort of punishment has to go away. Otherwise, the DOJ will never have any teeth for future cases. Eventually, you lie and obstruct, the DOJ will be forced to act.
Totally agree here. To be honest, it feels like Garland/Smith want to make their point without him going to prison. Why else would they send it to south Florida when it could have been tried in Washington DC? She may not rule 29 it, but she’s going to make sure he has every possible out there is via jury selection, objections, rulings. The real key for Trump is his legal team. Are they competent? When I think of trials in Florida, the George Zimmerman trial comes to mind. He had the perfect lawyer for that trial, Mark O’Mara. I’ve not been impressed with some of Trump’s choices for representation.
I see your point more clearly now. If the court rules he needs to hand them over, his punishment should essentially be “hand over said documents within 30 days.” And then if he bucks Judge Cannon’s ruling in that scenario, he’s out of excuses. That may ultimately end up being what happens here.
Not really. You have to remember this is the same DOJ who fomented a completely baseless investigation on him on the faux Russian collusion. So he could easily say “look how wrong they’ve been before. As President, I made the executive decision to take the documents.” Presidential authority is quite broad. The DOJ doesn’t get to decide when a president has overstepped it. It has to be tried first. You just had Sandy Berger plead guilty for stealing documents from the National Archives and cutting them up. No jail time, $10,000 fine. Sandy Berger was not POTUS.
I'm more along the lines of the DOJ making a deal with the Trump team. If this whole process plays out, Trump will see prison time (unless the election happens first and he's pardoned).
Completely baseless Russian collusions investigation? Last I looked, the Mueller Report ended up with over 35 indictments and 8 convictions/guilty pleas already. Trump himself was spared because he kept himself far enough away from having any evidence directly against him. There were also Russians involved that Mueller couldn't speak to and they weren't willing to talk anyway, which also kept Trump insulated. I'm fine if Trump pleads guilty and avoids jail time and just pays a fine, as long as part of the plea is he never holds any office, elected or appointed, that has any security clearance. I believe this was part of Berger's plea, that he could never have clearance in the future, thus ending his government career.
Quoted above from Trickster: “That's pure hyperbole. Bias is unavoidable in the affairs of mankind, but to accuse the widely admired and respected DOJ as "highly partisan" is just ridiculous.” You are 100% correct, Signed, J. Edgar Hoover & James Comey
This is why you hire lawyers to explain what the law is to you. He can try to argue this point in court but from everything I've read it's going to be a loser.
The Grand Jury all passed top secret security clearances and saw all the evidence? Or, more likely, the Grand Jury saw all the claims the DOJ is making. Which one is it? “Have you stopped beating your wife, Mr. Trump?” HAH! There it is - evidence within the indictment question. Lock him up!!!! I merely pointed out that the DOJ may not be “widely admired” and “respected” (no link or confirmation to Trickster’s claim) and it is NOT dangerous to question their motives. I guess protest and “speaking truth to power” is only fashionable when the Pubs control things. Now, I have a handful of different posters arguing about Trump’s innocence or guilt - none of which I addressed in my initial remark. SQUIRREL!!!
Because that's like robbing a bank, returning the money after you get caught and thinking that should settle things.
