Lock him up! CNN reports Trump to be indicted

I’ve obviously read the indictment, so downplaying what was said doesn’t work.

“Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?” and “well look isn’t it better if there are no documents?” is 100% asking an attorney for assistance in committing a crime, without getting into how Trump’s telling of the Hillary story (which you’ve sanitized greatly) should be interpreted.

And it’s pretty clear the attorneys recognized that Trump was asking them to commit a crime - that’s why an attorney memorializes conversations like that, to protect their own asses because they realize the client is doing something illegal and want a contemporaneous record that it’s the client doing so and not them.

 

Factually, DJT islikely nailed for what he's alleged to have done.

Legally...there's some serious gray area. A sampling (was on Laura Ingraham last night):

Mike Davis @mrddmia

Presidential Records Act v. Espionage Act: The Presidential Records Act of 1978 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 2201 through 2209, generally controls the handling of the President's records. Generally, records created or received by the President or this White House staff are presidential records. This includes classified records sent to advise the President or his White House staff. Before the Presidential Records Act, Presidents owned their presidential records. Congress changed the law after Nixon won a legal fight on this issue. After the Presidential Records Act, the U.S. government owns Presidents' presidential records. Per the 2012 Obama judge ruling in the Clinton sock-drawer case, where President Clinton stuffed 8 years of highly classified audio recordings of his presidency in his sock drawer (see picture 1 below), the President solely decides what are: - "personal" (belong to him)

v.

- "presidential records" (belong to government). And if the President doesn't designate them as presidential records and then takes them when he leaves office, they are deemed personal records. (Read news story and linked opinion here:

Old case over audio tapes in Bill Clinton's sock drawer could impact Mar-a-Lago search dispute)

But even if people think this 2012 Obama judge ruling protecting Clinton is incorrect or Trump (somehow) shouldn't have the benefit of this ruling (because they hate and fear Trump): "[T]he Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President's designated representative." 44 U.S.C. § 2205(3) (see picture 2 below). Former Presidents do not have the right to have any classified record they want. But they have the absolute statutory right to have (not own) their presidential records, classified or not. There is no criminal component to the Presidential Records Act. Disputes are settled with negotiations and civil lawsuits. Not unprecedented and unlawful raid and indictments. How can Trump violate the Espionage Act for retaining his presidential records he is allowed to have (not own) under the Presidential Records Act? Garland must allege and prove more than mere retention, in order to charge a former president for espionage for having his presidential records he's allowed to have (not own) under the Presidential Records Act. One way a court may attempt to harmonize the Presidential Records Act with the Espionage Act is requiring the government to allege and prove the former President intended to cause "injury to the United States or aid to a foreign nation result from the disclosures." United States v. Rosen, 520 F. Supp. 2d 786, 793 (E.D. Va. 2007). There is zero evidence--not even an allegation--Trump intended to harm America by retaining his presidential records. It is not a crime to be a jerk. It is not "espionage" to fight with librarians and other bureaucrats. We do not send former presidents, who happen to be your boss's chief political enemy, to die in prison over presidential-records disputes. This is one key reason Garland's indictment of Trump is fatally flawed as a matter of law.

6:14 PM · Jun 13, 2023

573.4K. Views
...

 

Using your Hillary logic, I don't see why we can't just interpret that as asking for legal advice? I mean, after all, you might be able to make that inference here, but he didn't specifically say "this is what you need to tell them." Hillz gets all the breaks because she's a brilliant con artist, but Trump not so much, because you think he's a dimwit?

They're both probably guilty, I'm not disputing that. The part I'm disputing is one gets off the hook and the other happens to be the lead candidate of the opposition party in the upcoming election. It's the only reason Republicans in Congress are hanging on with Trump, because they know if they let Trump take the fall, then the Democrats will just keep doing it and getting away with it and going after every GOP nominee from here until the GOP no longer exists. They don't care about Trump's base, as they know within a few days, Trump's base would line up behind DeSantis. They don't want getting steamrolled by the Dems to be the new precedent in Washington.

 

Tell us you didn't think this comment through w/o telling us you didn't think this comment through.

 

F.B.I. Director James Comey Recommends No Charges for Hillary Clinton on Email (Published 2016)

To warrant a criminal charge, Mr. Comey said, there had to be evidence that Mrs. Clinton intentionally transmitted or willfully mishandled classified information. The F.B.I. found neither, and as a result, he said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

With Trump there is ample evidence that that his mishandling was willfull and intentional.

Despite all that, Mr. Comey said the F.B.I. did not find that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct revealed “intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice.”

Trump quite explicitly tried to obstruct Justice several times and as documented by his own admission his actions were intentional.


■ Of 30,000 emails Mrs. Clinton handed over to the State Department, 110 contained information that was classified at the time she sent or received them. Of those, Mr. Comey said, “a very small number” bore markings that identified them as classified. This finding is at odds with Mrs. Clinton’s repeated assertions that none of the emails were classified at the time she sent or received them. The F.B.I. did not disclose the topics of the classified emails, but a number of the 110 are believed to have involved drone strikes.

■ The F.B.I. discovered “several thousand” work-related emails that were not in the original trove of 30,000 turned over by Mrs. Clinton to the State Department. Three of those contained information that agencies have concluded was classified, though Mr. Comey said he did not believe Mrs. Clinton deliberately deleted or withheld them from investigators.

The difference here is Hillary handed over all government documents when asked. Of the stuff that was deleted some of it was “work related” but they weren’t highly classified government documents. Trump withheld highly classified government documents, which he does not own. There is a difference in withholding emails you personally authored, even with classified information, and withholding government documents, such as specific military plans.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...ssified-documents-to-previous-presidents/amp/


“It’s facially ridiculous. That opinion had to do with the distinction between official records, which are records prepared by government agencies for the purpose of government action, and personal documents, as opposed to official documents, which are things prepared by the President, such as a diary or notes, which are not used in the government’s deliberations,” Barr said.

“The president has some discretion, but these are official documents. It’s inarguable the President’s daily brief provided by the intelligence community is not Donald J. Trump’s personal document, period,” Barr said.

 

LOL. The Clinton sock drawer opinion was issued by a district court whacko, now slightly more famous. It should have been appealed, it wasn't. As a district court opinion it is not binding on any court other the one it came from. You might as well find a case from Albania to argue, it will be just as controlling.

 

You mean the FBI and DOJ covered for Clinton..........wow. Thanks for sharing that with us. We didn't know.

 

Back to this? Hillary didn't delete the emails. Paul Combetta of Platte River Networks did so at the direction of Hillary's lawyer. Combetta was granted immunity. He admitted to deleting them, but doing so late.....months after he was directed to do so. There is zero credible evidence to prove otherwise.

 

I tried to explain the difference. If you think Comey was a big fan of Hillary and her actions you are living in a bubble. He was a Republican appointee. He really should have just released a statement that the FBI was not charging Hillary, but he was so upset by her carelessness and the negative optics it could put on the FBI he had that unprecedented press conference.

Are you saying that Bill Barr is in the tank for Hillary also?

What Hillary did was careless and probably irresponsible, but there was no evidence of criminal intent. Prosecutors don’t typically pursue cases if it lacks evidence and isn’t a winnable case.

With Trump the evidence of wrongdoing, obstructing and criminal intent is overwhelming.

For once try to look at these things objectively and not from a purely partisan perspective. For a guy like Bill Barr, a Republican who went out of his way to defend Trumps actions at multiple levels, to come out and say the things he is saying ought to at least get your attention.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ictment-florida-new-jersey-classified/674393/

Interesting article - basically speculates that Trump was not charged with the alleged crimes in NJ, and he could be charged separately on those charges if the FL judge works to undermine the current charges.

 

District court whacko, huh?

She was appointed by Barry. Let's go ahead and let that point stand...

The Tweet i posted addressed the scenario where it's disregarded. The espy act (the one he was actually charged under) requirs proof of intent to cause harm to the nation.

This is why I previously posted saying if I were handling the investigation, id have taken the docs disclosed, but left the undisclosed (after having obtained order permitting surveillance on MAL), and waited until he sought to martket them--assuming that was his game of course. Bc THAT is THE crime.

Seems your boy Jack may have conflated espy act with classified docs, and pulled out ahead of his skis.

(Hell, he might very well have saved Trump from himself, by removing the docs from him, and with it, the ability yo commit an actual, undisputable crime, BEFORE he could even take that fatal "first step" for conspiracy).

Its a serious vulnerability, and one that oughtn't even be anywhere near the realm of discussion, if you're going after a former POTUS--much more so--oh so much more so--when that same guy is leading candy for opposing party.

The more I read and hear, the more my preliminary take seems confirmed-- if this goes to jury, Trump is likely baked--but there's a serious vulnerabilty here--ie the possibility that the case gets kicked (and therefore never gets submitted to a jury)

...and that would be a nuclear disaster for the Dems, especially in light of so much well vocalized (and imo well grounded), belief that the criminal justice system has been weaponized by the Left.

Worse than Wile E. Coyote as far as optics go.

The stakes could scarcely be higher.

 

They'd have charge before the Fl case gets kicked. No way you escape political persecution/witch hunt, by attempting to use NJ as a backstop, in the event that your first choice prosecution fails.

They're already toying with dynamite.

 

Yeah, Comey publicly reopening the email case days before the election was a big boon for Hillary.

 

President Clinton stuffed 8 years of highly classified audio recordings of his presidency in his sock drawer


Highly classified? They were interviews with a journalist. I highly doubt he was discussing anything like military secrets with the press.

 

Permit me to bridge the gap there for ya.

Hillary was investigated under classified dox law, and exonerated (by Comey) against espionage law standard....

...while Trump has been indicted under the espionage act...against the classified dox standard.

Riiiiggghhttt....politics has nothing to do with the descrepancy in treatment....

 

The problem is that cults only appear to be such when observed from the outside.

 

I am just here to see the forever changing and contradictory logic of how Trump is either innocent or that what he did is no big deal