Lock him up! CNN reports Trump to be indicted

I’m not sure where he thinks that “defense” gets him though - it gets to my earlier point that the “explanation” makes him look like an idiot.

It essentially becomes “I knew the DOJ was out to lynch me, so I installed a bunch of lamp posts around my house and bought them a huge pile of rope.”

 

There’s a real world cost to taking out the leading opposition party candidate in an upcoming general election. Authoritarian regimes will be able to use that as fodder for decades. “They tell you it’s freedom and democracy, but they do this.” That’s just one example.

But they did have a choice and chose southern Florida and they were well aware this would fall in Cannon’s lap.

 

That's true, but I find it hard to believe that this judge is the only judge available in southern Florida.

 

You said:

I read your post as saying that you've been told that if Trump returned the documents he wouldn't be suffering any legal documents.

I replied:

I intended to write in agreement with what you said you have been told, that if Trump had returned the documents, he would be suffering any legal consequences. As evidence I provided information about the lack of legal consequences he was facing over the documents he returned.

After reviewing what I wrote, and what I was responding to, I still feel that what I wrote is directly connected to what you wrote. In what ways do you see what I wrote as moving the goalposts?

 

Not if he thinks he can win. His ego is off the charts. No different than the Clintons. You haven’t addressed his motive. I don’t think “Trump is an idiot” is going to fly. In this case, I would think motive is just as important as any of the other details. So, what was it? Was it just a pissing match with the DOJ? If so, meh. Let the judge order him to turn over the documents and be done with it. If the judge throws the case out, it’s a political disaster for the administration. If he’s acquitted, ditto. Both are very real possibilities given the venue and the judge in this case.

 

All part of the plan.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the un-self-controllable Trump, while he's ranting and spewing insults at Garland and Smith, says, "At least I've got my judge in the case." And the truly remarkable thing would be Donald Trump telling the truth.

 

I'm more personally concerned about our democratic allies than authoritarian regimes.

 

For purposes of those criminal charges, his motive doesn’t really matter at all beyond the simple intent to obstruct or cause false statements to be made.

Politically (or, perhaps more likely, for purposes of getting a bunch of fools to give him money), sure, I guess it’s kind of relevant. But betting your freedom on which random judge you happen draw (and the assumption that, even if you beat those odds on assignment, your favorable judge draw will ignore the law to help you) seems like an absolutely moronic bet.

At some point in the string of idiotic decisions, the “68D chess” theory has to yield to Occam’s Razor - no rational person is trying to get themselves charged with a federal crime, so the most likely explanation becomes he’s too dumb to realize his actions might have actual consequences.

 

I don’t agree with everyone on every topic. As you are intimately aware, not everyone agrees with me. So what? I’m not sure what the point is, other than pkaib01 and I see this point differently.

Also, to be clear, the failure to return the documents, coupled with his lying about not having any of the documents, is in my mind part and parcel with the lying and obstructionism. So I’m not sure pka and I may not be in material disagreement.

 

Still wrong. It was Hillary's attorney that gave the instructions to Platte River Networks. None other than twice indicted, twice impeached Donald Trump praised Hillary's attorney for taking that action.

Trump PRAISED the attorney who deleted 30,000 Hillary emails | Daily Mail Online

 

I don’t think it’s a good idea to get himself charged with a federal crime either. I think it’s his pride/ego more than any 68D chess wisdom. He probably has a chip on his shoulder given that he opted not to go after the Clintons, but they were still coming after him and did so with a phony made up narrative. And let’s not kid ourselves. While there are a lot of fine men and women who work at DOJ and FBI, some of their tactics recently are certainly troublesome.

This is all part of a larger struggle and he wants to be the man at the front.

 

She gave the order to the attorney, and the attorney gave the order to somebody else.

 

I will say, I am sorry to 715, if only because I’d like to make his day a better day.

Substantively, come on!!! We’re playing semantics. Had he taken the documents, AND THEN RETURNED THEM, there would be and should be no case brought. But that’s not what happened. Instead, he embarked upon a campaign of obfuscation, lying, concealment, and blatant obstructionism, for well over a year. That’s the lying that I am referring (and have been pretty clear over and over). That’s the conduct that separates his case from pence, Biden, and even with Trump’s own case to the extent of the documents he returned.

 

I didn’t think so. I thought your argument was had he just handed back the documents, should there be a case. And the answer is, in my view,no.

 

Now here's an idea. If Judge Cannon somehow lets Trump off the hook, the special counsel might still charge him with crimes at Bedminster. Piling on? If that's what it takes.

Jack Smith could 'sidestep' Aileen Cannon by charging Trump elsewhere: legal experts

 

Prove it.

This is my last Hillary comment as it is off topic in this thread. Research the actual subpoenas that were issued to Hillary prior to the emails' deletion. None directed her to retain emails not related to the subject matter of the subpoenas. Similarly, no entity with authority issued her a preservation letter directing her to retain them. At that point she was free to delete any personal emails she desired.

 

Mic drop. Dan has seen the form. It’s nothing. Why is there no investigation by pubs? It’s nothing.

 

Better to serve justice equally for all than to ignore the law for a "opposition party candidate in an upcoming general election." No one is above the law is the concept you need to accept.

 

I’d say there’s a real world cost to turning a blind eye to those who intentionally disregard the law, particularly the powerful. Because what is the rule of law of it is not enforced?