Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Open Club  ·  46 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

Donald Trump thread v2.0


Muda69

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, swordfish said:

You would think that eventually the left would learn to stop giving the former POTUS the air time he relishes so much.  It's pretty bad when even the Grand Jury in this case it is "skeptical"...... 

Assuming he avoids indictment, I hope for the good of the country he just declares “victory,” and goes away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donald Trump indicted; expected to surrender early next week

https://apnews.com/article/trump-hush-money-new-york-indictment-election-027d0e5ac1881a4c55c6379deae75faa?utm_source=apnews&utm_medium=featuredcard&utm_campaign=leadstory

Quote

 Donald Trump has been indicted by a Manhattan grand jury, a historic reckoning after years of investigations into his personal, political and business dealings and an abrupt jolt to his bid to retake the White House.

The exact nature of the charges was unclear Friday because the indictment remained under seal, but they stem from payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to silence claims of an extramarital sexual encounter. Prosecutors said they were working to coordinate Trump’s surrender, which could happen early next week. They did not say whether they intended to seek prison time in the event of a conviction, a development that wouldn’t prevent Trump from seeking and assuming the presidency.

The indictment, the first against a former U.S. president, injects a local district attorney’s office into the heart of a national presidential race and ushers in criminal proceedings in a city that the ex-president for decades called home. Arriving at a time of deep political divisions, the charges are likely to reinforce rather than reshape dueling perspectives of those who see accountability as long overdue and those who, like Trump, feel the Republican is being targeted for political purposes by a Democratic prosecutor.

....

I fear yet another pandora's box has been opened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trump Indictment Exposes Fault Lines in the American Criminal Justice System: https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-indictment-exposes

Quote

The indictment of former President Donald Trump may end up being an indictment of America’s criminal justice system as well. The Founders were acutely aware of the many ways in which criminal law can be abused by those in positions of power, from being wielded as a tool of political payback and oppression — as many see the various criminal investigations against former President Trump — to our wildly overcriminalized society in which most adults have committed crimes for which they could, in theory, be prosecuted.

Unlike Donald Trump, however, most Americans lack the resources to vigorously defend themselves in court. They thus end up being induced—and in some cases nakedly coerced—by prosecutors into waving their right to trial. Instead, as is the case with more than 90 percent of criminal defendants in our system today, they end up pleading guilty.

It is difficult to imagine a more shocking affront to the Constitution’s plan for limited government and the rule of law, and if America’s criminal justice system goes on trial along with Donald Trump, then perhaps there may be a silver lining to what many see as an inherently politicized prosecution by the Manhattan District Attorney.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tweet from Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene.   A sign of what is to come now that the former POTUS has been indicted? 

If President Trump can be charged for “falsifying business records” and hiding relevant information from voters in the 2016 election, then 51 people from the Intel community, who signed a letter stating the Hunter Biden laptop is fake, CAN BE CHARGED for hiding relevant information from voters in the 2020 election!

Or hey how about EVERYONE ELSE who suppressed and lied about the Hunter laptop story which withheld information from voters in the 2020 election!

Or what about charging Hillary Clinton, who paid for the FAKE Steele Dossier with her campaign funds, that the Deep State and MSM used to create Witch Hunt #1 with!

Once Lawfare starts it can be aimed back the other direction..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Anyone Victimized by Trump's 34 Alleged Felonies?: https://reason.com/2023/04/12/was-anyone-victimized-by-trumps-34-alleged-felonies/

Quote

Since the New York indictment of Donald Trump was unsealed last week, critics across the political spectrum have noted the legal problems with transforming one hush payment into 34 felonies. But in assessing the seriousness of this case, it is also relevant to ask who was injured by the former president's actions, a question that poses more of a puzzle than Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg suggests.

Bragg says Trump "violate[d] state and federal election laws" when he instructed attorney Michael Cohen to pay porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 shortly before the 2016 presidential election. In exchange, Daniels agreed to refrain from talking to the press about her alleged 2006 affair with Trump.

Federal prosecutors viewed that payment as an illegal campaign contribution, and Cohen accepted that characterization in a 2018 guilty plea. But that plea hardly proves that the Justice Department's interpretation of the law was correct, since Cohen, who ultimately received a three-year sentence, was facing charges that could have sent him to prison for decades.

"The best interpretation of the law," former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith wrote after Cohen's guilty plea, "is that it simply is not a campaign expense to pay blackmail for things that happened years before one's candidacy—and thus nothing Cohen (or, in this case, Trump, too) did is a campaign finance crime." At the very least, Smith said, "it is unclear whether paying blackmail to a mistress is 'for the purpose of influencing an election,' and so must be paid with campaign funds, or a 'personal use,' and so prohibited from being paid with campaign funds."

Even UCLA law professor Richard L. Hasen, who is skeptical of Bragg's case but thought there was enough evidence to federally prosecute Trump for accepting an illegal campaign contribution, concedes that proving he "knowingly and willfully" violated the law "would not have been a slam dunk." In any event, federal prosecutors conspicuously declined to try, even after Trump left office and Merrick Garland replaced William Barr as attorney general.

Assuming the Justice Department could have made that case but for some reason decided it was not worth the effort, the question remains: Who was victimized by the hush payment? Bragg thinks voters suffered, because they were deprived of "damaging information" that might have influenced their choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Yet Trump had a long, widely familiar history of extramarital affairs. It seems unlikely that yet another one would have swayed voters who were otherwise inclined to support him.

Suppose Trump had used campaign money to directly pay off Daniels, as the Justice Department's theory in its case against Cohen suggests he should have, rather than using personal funds to reimburse Cohen. The result would have been the same: Daniels would have kept quiet for the time being, and any scandal would have been postponed until after the election.

To convert Trump's uncharged and unproven violation of federal law into a state crime, Bragg is relying on a New York statute that makes it a misdemeanor to falsify business records "with intent to defraud." Trump did that, Bragg says, by misrepresenting his reimbursement of Cohen as payment for legal services.

Trump allegedly committed that offense 34 times—once for each invoice, check, and ledger entry recording the payments. And because those records were aimed at concealing "another crime," prosecutors say, each qualifies as a distinct felony.

In common parlance, "intent to defraud" implies that Trump was trying to rip someone off. But according to New York appeals courts, it is enough to show that a defendant acted "for the purpose of frustrating the state's power" to "faithfully carry out its own law."

The victim, in other words, was the government, which had an interest in prosecuting debatable violations of state election law that hinge on debatable interpretations of federal law. It is hard to muster much indignation at that injury, let alone enough to support 34 felony charges.

Agreed.  These charges are dubious at best, and it's becoming more clear they are primarily a political stunt by Mr. Bragg.

It sounds like Mr. Trump's real legal troubles could come from Georgia. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a $788 Million Defamation Settlement, Fox News Admits That It Spread False Claims About Election Fraud: https://reason.com/2023/04/18/in-a-788-million-defamation-settlement-fox-news-admits-that-it-spread-false-claims-about-election-fraud/?itm_source=parsely-api

Quote

Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis today announced a last-minute settlement of the defamation case pitting Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News, which repeatedly aired statements that falsely implicated the company in a criminal conspiracy that supposedly denied Donald Trump a second term. Dominion sued Fox in 2021, seeking $1.6 billion in damages, and the trial had been scheduled to begin this week. Justin Nelson, a lawyer for Dominion, said the settlement includes a $787.5 million payment from Fox.

"The truth matters," Nelson said outside the courthouse. "Lies have consequences. Over two years ago, a torrent of lies swept Dominion and election officials across America into an alternative universe of conspiracy theories, causing grievous harm to Dominion and the country."

Fox more or less agreed. "We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute with Dominion Voting Systems," it said in a press release. "We acknowledge the Court's rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects FOX's continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues."

Even as Fox acknowledges a judge's determination that it repeatedly aired "false" allegations about Dominion, it claims to be upholding "the highest journalistic standards." Surely that means it will set the record straight. Not according to The Hill's Dominick Mastrangelo, who reports that a "source with knowledge of the Fox/Dominion settlement says the network will not be required to issue any on-air retractions or apologies as part of the deal."

This settlement is nevertheless a humiliating outcome for Fox. Although $788 million is less than half the damages Dominion initially sought (an amount Fox described as "wildly inflated"), it is pretty close to the sum the company seems to have had in mind more recently. "The original Dominion complaint," Fox noted in a press release yesterday, "states that the 'lost profits' figure is 'not less than $600,000,000,'" but Dominion "is no longer pursuing it, knocking more than a half a billion dollars off their damages claim." If so, Fox has agreed to pay nearly four-fifths of the revised figure.

Worse, Fox for months had insisted it would continue fighting the case as a matter of principle, notwithstanding a string of embarrassing revelations and adverse rulings. "Dominion's lawsuit is a political crusade in search of a financial windfall, but the real cost would be cherished First Amendment rights," Fox said in an emailed statement on Friday. "While Dominion has pushed irrelevant and misleading information to generate headlines, FOX News remains steadfast in protecting the rights of a free press, given a verdict for Dominion and its private equity owners would have grave consequences for the entire journalism profession."

Dominion argued that Fox repeatedly gave a forum to election conspiracy theorists such as Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani even though it knew their claims were false. The company also noted that some hosts implicitly or explicitly endorsed the allegations against Dominion, as Fox Corporation Chairman Rupert Murdoch acknowledged in a deposition.

As Davis noted when he rejected Fox's motion for summary judgment on March 31, Fox guests and hosts claimed that "Dominion committed election fraud"; that it "manipulated vote counts through its software and algorithms"; that it was "founded in Venezuela to rig elections for dictator Hugo Chavez"; and that it "paid kickbacks to government officials who used [its] machines in the Election." Davis said it was "CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true." He added that the statements were "defamatory per se," because they "strike at the basic integrity of [Dominion's] business" and "seem to charge Dominion with the serious crime of election fraud."

Fox argued that it was merely reporting newsworthy allegations by the president and his representatives. But Davis rejected that "neutral report privilege," saying it was not available under applicable case law.

Fox also argued that its presentation of Powell and Giuliani's allegations qualified as a "fair report" about judicial proceedings. That privilege, Davis ruled, "fails to shield Fox from liability" because only one of the challenged statements referred to a pending lawsuit, and that broadcast went beyond reporting on the case by asserting its "underlying facts."

Davis likewise was unimpressed by Fox's argument that statements by hosts like Lou Dobbs, who repeatedly lent credence to Powell's claims, were constitutionally protected expressions of opinion. Not so, said Davis. In an appendix, he went through all the relevant broadcasts, showing that statements Fox described as opinions included assertions of fact or were based on supposed evidence that neither Powell nor Giuliani ever produced.

Davis' ruling left Fox with one last line of defense: that it did not air the false and inherently defamatory statements about Dominion with "actual malice," meaning it did not know the statements were false or recklessly disregard that likelihood. But as Davis noted, Dominion had uncovered evidence that many people at Fox either were skeptical of the claims about the company or dismissed them outright.

Ten days after the election, Fox's fact-checking "Brainroom" said there was "no evidence of widespread fraud" and "no credible reports or evidence of any software issues." It added that "claims about Dominion switching or deleting votes are 100% false" and called assertions about supposedly deleted Trump votes "mathematically impossible."

Six days later, Murdoch privately called the story "really crazy stuff." That same day in a text conversation with fellow Fox News host Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson flatly stated that "Sidney Powell is lying." Ingraham agreed that Powell could not be trusted: "Sidney is a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy." In a deposition, Fox News host Sean Hannity said he "did not believe" Powell's claims "for a second."

In response to a post-election tweet about "vote dumping" from Maria Bartiromo, fellow Fox News host Bret Baier* told Jay Wallace, president and executive editor at Fox News and Fox Business, "none of [it] is true as far as we can tell." In a December 1 email, Baier said Powell's claims "can't be remotely true." Lucas Tomlinson, another Fox reporter, responded that the allegations were "100% not true" and "complete bullshit."

Gary Schreier, second in command at Fox Business, "believed the allegations were false at the time of airing," Davis noted. John Fawcett, an associate producer for Lou Dobbs Tonight, told colleagues that Powell seemed to be "doing lsd and cocaine and heroin and shrooms." In a text to Dobbs, Fawcett suggested that Powell "could be losing her mind." He noted that her story "doesn't make sense" and added, "I just don't think she is verifying anything she is saying." Tiffany Fazio, executive producer of Hannity's show, called Giuliani's account of systematic election fraud "comic book stuff."

Notwithstanding those behind-the-scenes doubts, Fox argued that it was reasonable to keep giving Powell and Giuliani a forum until it was clear that they had no evidence to support their claims. In Fox's telling, that happened by mid-December, when presidential electors cast their ballots. But in light of the internal communications highlighted by Dominion, a jury might reasonably have concluded that the reckoning could and should have come sooner.

Meh,  Fox probably made that  $ from MyPillow advertisements.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Just another chapter in the "Republicans and Orange man Bad" fictional work exposed as a fraud (that everyone just needs to ignore).

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12090847/DAVID-MARCUS-FBI-Keystone-Cops-CIA-stooges-Pulitzer-lapdogs-Theyre-Dems-pockets.html

DAVID MARCUS: The FBI's anti-Trump Keystone Cops… the CIA's 51 laptop-trashing stooges… the NYT's biased Pulitzer lapdogs: now we KNOW they're all in the Dems' pockets and - terrifyingly – it's derailing democracy

 

The deranged partisan hacks running America's once-respected institutions are completely, utterly, maybe irredeemably, shameless.

What other verdict can one reach after reading Special Counsel John Durham's report on the FBI investigation of President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign?

It should never – never in a thousand years – have been launched.

And the news media – the supposed independent servants of democracy, who demand that every Republican swear on their children that the 2020 vote was free, fair, and won by Biden – were more than happy to go along with it.

But now we know, the real election meddling was state sponsored.

The FBI 'failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law,' wrote Durham.

He found that the agency kicked off a full-fledged probe, at the height of an election, into a presidential campaign based on 'raw,' 'unevaluated,' and ultimately, dud information.

They ignored exculpatory evidence and were blinded by preconceived notions.

At best, they're the Keystone Cops. At worst, they're direct descendants of J. Edgar Hoover. It's damning.

America was told Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulous had secret connections to the Kremlin. He didn't.

The public was fed the ridiculous Steele dossier, a document about as authentic as a Rolex purchased from a briefcase, as if it was the Ten Commandments. It wasn't.

What other verdict can one reach after reading Special Counsel John Durham's (above) report on the FBI investigation of President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign? It should never – never in a thousand years – have been launched.

At best, they're the Keystone Cops. At worst, they're direct descendants of J. Edgar Hoover. It's damning. (Above) Former FBI Director James Comey'A

The FBI should be humiliated. The media that promoted this garbage should be begging the public for forgiveness. But they're not.

The FBI released a statement suggesting this is all in the past.

'Leadership already implemented dozens of corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time,' the statement reads.

Translation – there's nothing to see, move along.

And here's what the New York Times had to say about Durham's comprehensive four-year probe into the multi-million-dollar, Russian collusion hoax that paralyzed the nation, on which they eagerly reported.

'The special counsel's final report… did not produce blockbuster revelations of politically motivated misconduct, as Donald J. Trump and his allies had suggested it would,' their sub-headline blared.

They must be joking!

This is not 'blockbuster' enough for the Gray Lady?

I challenge them to ignore clear evidence that former FBI Director James Comey is either totally incompetent or rotten to the core.

In 2018, while hawking his unashamedly titled book, 'A Higher Loyalty,' Comey pushed the disgusting lie that Trump engaged in golden showers with Russian prostitutes in the presidential suite of a Russian hotel, on the very bed which President Obama and the First Lady slept.

'I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don't know whether the current President of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013, It's possible, but I don't know,' he somberly told ABC News.

How grave, salacious, disturbing, and absolutely false. As Durham revealed, by 2017, the FBI already knew that the source of these so-called 'pee-tape' allegations.

He was a general manager at the Ritz Carlton Moscow, and he denied ever even hearing about these claims. Plus, he told the FBI that Trump never even stayed in the presidential suite. 

But a year later Comey is still struggling with the truth?

What a sanctimonious fake!

America was told Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulous (above) had secret connections to the Kremlin. He didn't.

In 2018, while hawking his unashamedly titled book, 'A Higher Loyalty,' Comey pushed the disgusting lie that Trump engaged in golden showers with Russian prostitutes in the presidential suite of a Russian hotel, on the very bed which President Obama and the First Lady slept.

Comey should never be permitted to speak another word in the media without the disclaimer: suspected liar.

That's not compelling enough to rouse the New York Times from its fog?

If the last seven years have shown America anything, it is that the Justice Department, the CIA, and their liberal media lackeys will do nearly anything to mislead the public, smear Donald Trump and protect his political opponents.

There are two standards in our nation, one for Democrats and one for Republicans.

Trump's Mar-A-Lago home was raided by the FBI, while Joe Biden's homes were searched by appointment.

Hillary Clinton was found to be hiding reams of public documents on a private server – that she then destroyed – and she was let off with a public scolding, while Trump makes a perfectly legal hush money payment to a porn star, and he's indicted.

It's a pattern and it continues unabated.

At the height of the 2020 election, 51 former intelligence agents, recruited by former deputy CIA director Michael Morell, wrote a public letter dismissing the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation.

Morell has since confessed that he spearheaded the effort to 'help' Biden 'win the election,' after some encouragement from Biden's then-campaign staffer and now-Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

This week we learned that none other than Obama-era CIA Director John Brennan – one of the men in the room at the birth of the Russia hoax – admitted to House investigators that the infamous dirty memo was 'political.'

And, there are reports that at least one active CIA employee was lending his hand in pulling together signatories.

For two years, the mainstream media condoned the laptop lie with their silence, even though they had the same access to its raw contents as nearly everyone else. Then, only long after the election, did they admit the laptop is very, very real.

So now that we know – beyond a doubt – that the entire Russian collusion investigation was nothing more than partisan smoke and mirrors will the New York Times and the Washington Post retract their hysterical coverage of it? Will the Pulitzer Prize committee strip these outlets of their farcical awards?

So now that we know – beyond a doubt – that the entire Russian collusion investigation was nothing more than partisan smoke and mirrors will the New York Times and the Washington Post retract their hysterical coverage of it? (Above) Staff members from The New York Times and The Washington Post accept the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting

At the height of the 2020 election, 51 former intelligence agents, recruited by former deputy CIA director Michael Morell (above), wrote a public letter dismissing the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation.

Don't count on it.

Former Acting Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, who is specifically scolded in the Durham Report, is amazingly a legal analyst at CNN.

This is a man, mind you, who the DOJ Inspector General referred to prosecutors for lying under oath in connection to this very investigation.

You want to know why 80 percent of Americans don't trust the news? It's because they aren't stupid. They won't be lied to over and over.

And above all else, will America's law enforcement and intelligence agencies change their ways?

Sadly, I wouldn't hold my breath.

The federal investigation into Hunter Biden for possible tax and gun violations has been underway for four years. That's nearly double the length of time of Robert Mueller's probe of Trump.

Drug-addled Hunter was the alleged conduit for millions of dollars from China and other foreign countries to flow into Biden family coffers, including while his father was vice president.

Will the DOJ ever wrap this up? Will they find wrongdoing? Will the media report on it accurately?

Who knows?

But I am certain of one thing – America's patience for these institutions has finally run out and for good reason.

It's a terrifying prospect for us all.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Trump indicted in classified documents case in a historic first for a former president: https://apnews.com/article/trump-justice-department-indictment-classified-documents-miami-8315a5b23c18f27083ed64eef21efff3

Quote

 Donald Trump has been indicted on felony charges of mishandling classified documents at his Florida estate, a remarkable development that makes him the first former president in U.S. history to face criminal charges by the federal government that he once oversaw.

 

The Justice Department was expected to make public an indictment ahead of a historic court appearance next week in the midst of a 2024 presidential campaign punctuated by criminal prosecutions in multiple states. Trump’s indictment carries unmistakably grave legal consequences, including the possibility of prison if he’s convicted.

But it also has enormous political implications, potentially upending a Republican presidential primary that Trump had been dominating and testing anew the willingness of GOP voters and party leaders to stick with a now twice-indicted candidate who could face still more charges. And it sets the stage for a sensational trial centered on claims that a man once entrusted to safeguard the nation’s most closely-guarded secrets willfully, and illegally, hoarded sensitive national security information after leaving office.

 

The Justice Department did not immediately confirm the indictment publicly. But two people familiar with the situation who were not authorized to discuss it publicly said that the indictment included seven criminal charges. One of those people said Trump’s lawyers were contacted by prosecutors shortly before he announced Thursday on his Truth Social platform that he had been indicted.

Within minutes of his announcement, Trump began fundraising off it for his presidential campaign. He declared his innocence in a video and repeated his familiar refrain that the investigation is a “witch hunt.” He said he was due in court Tuesday afternoon in Miami, where a federal grand jury had been hearing testimony as recently as this week.

The case adds to deepening legal jeopardy for Trump, who has already been indicted in New York and faces additional investigations in Washington and Atlanta that also could lead to criminal charges. But among the various investigations he has faced, legal experts — as well as Trump’s own aides — had long seen the Mar-a-Lago probe as the most perilous threat and the one most ripe for prosecution. Campaign aides had been bracing for the fallout since Trump’s attorneys were notified that he was the target of the investigation, assuming it was not a matter of if charges would be brought, but when.

Appearing Thursday night on CNN, Trump attorney James Trusty said the indictment includes charges of willful retention of national defense information — a crime under the Espionage Act, which regulates the handling of government secrets — obstruction, false statements and conspiracy.

The case is a milestone for a Justice Department that had investigated Trump for years — as president and private citizen — but had never before charged him with a crime. The most notable investigation was an earlier special counsel probe into ties between his 2016 campaign and Russia, but prosecutors in that probe cited Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president. Once he left office, though, he lost that protection.

The inquiry took a major step forward last November when Attorney General Merrick Garland, a soft-spoken former federal judge who has long stated that no one person should be regarded as above the law, appointed Jack Smith, a war crimes prosecutor with an aggressive, hard-charging reputation to lead both the documents probe as well as a separate investigation into efforts to subvert the 2020 election.

The indictment arises from a monthslong investigation into whether Trump broke the law by holding onto hundreds of documents marked classified at his Palm Beach property, Mar-a-Lago, and whether Trump took steps to obstruct the government’s efforts to recover the records.

Prosecutors have said that Trump took roughly 300 classified documents to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House, including some 100 that were seized by the FBI last August in a search of the home that underscored the gravity of the Justice Department’s investigation. Trump has repeatedly insisted that he was entitled to keep the classified documents when he left the White House, and has also claimed without evidence that he had declassified them.

Court records unsealed last year showed federal investigators believed they had probable cause that multiple crimes had been committed, including the retention of national defense information, destruction of government records and obstruction.

Since then, the Justice Department has amassed additional evidence and secured grand jury testimony from people close to Trump, including his own lawyers. The statutes governing the handling of classified records and obstruction are felonies that could carry years in prison in the event of a conviction.

Even so, it remains unclear how much it will damage Trump’s standing given that his first indictment generated millions of dollars in contributions from angry supporters and didn’t weaken him in the polls.

The former president has long sought to use his legal troubles to his political advantage, complaining on social media and at public events that the cases are being driven by Democratic prosecutors out to hurt his 2024 election campaign. He is likely to rely on that playbook again, reviving his longstanding claims that the Justice Department — which, during his presidency, investigated whether his 2016 campaign had colluded with Russia — is somehow weaponized against him.

Trump’s legal troubles extend beyond the New York indictment and classified documents case.

Smith is separately investigating efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. And the district attorney in Georgia’s Fulton County is investigating Trump over alleged efforts to subvert the 2020 election in that state.

Signs had mounted for weeks that an indictment was near, including a Monday meeting between Trump’s lawyers and Justice Department officials. His lawyers had also recently been notified that he was the target of the investigation, the clearest sign yet that an indictment was looming.

Though the bulk of the investigative work had been handled in Washington, with a grand jury meeting there for months, it recently emerged that prosecutors were presenting evidence before a separate panel in Florida, where many of the alleged acts of obstruction scrutinized by prosecutors took place.

The Justice Department has said Trump repeatedly resisted efforts by the National Archives and Records Administration to get the documents back. After months of back-and-forth, Trump representatives returned 15 boxes of records in January 2022, including about 184 documents that officials said had classified markings on them.

FBI and Justice Department investigators issued a subpoena in May 2022 for classified documents that remained in Trump’s possession. But after a Trump lawyer provided three dozen records and asserted that a diligent search of the property had been done, officials came to suspect even more documents remained.

The investigation had simmered for months before bursting into front-page news in remarkable fashion last August. That’s when FBI agents served a search warrant on Mar-a-Lago and removed 33 boxes containing classified records, including top-secret documents stashed in a storage room and desk drawer and commingled with personal belongings. Some records were so sensitive that investigators needed upgraded security clearances to review them, the Justice Department has said.

The investigation into Trump had appeared complicated — politically, if not legally — by the discovery of documents with classified markings in the Delaware home and former Washington office of President Joe Biden, as well as in the Indiana home of former Vice President Mike Pence. The Justice Department recently informed Pence that he would not face charges, while a second special counsel continues to investigate Biden’s handling of classified documents.

But compared with Trump, there are key differences in the facts and legal issues surrounding Biden’s and Pence’s handling of documents, including that representatives for both men say the documents were voluntarily turned over to investigators as soon as they were found. In contrast, investigators quickly zeroed on whether Trump, who for four years as president expressed disdain for the FBI and Justice Department, had sought to obstruct the inquiry by refusing to turn over all the requested documents.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump's Federal Indictment Presents New Evidence of Deliberate Deceit and Obstruction

https://reason.com/2023/06/12/trumps-federal-indictment-presents-new-evidence-of-deliberate-deceit-and-obstruction/

Quote

Donald Trump's federal indictment sheds light on two crucial questions about the presidential records he took with him when he left office in January 2021: How sensitive was this material, and what was Trump's intent in retaining it? Both points are relevant to the criminal charges that were announced last week.

Trump faces 31 counts of willfully retaining national defense information, each of which corresponds to a specific document described in the indictment. The relevant statute, 18 USC 793, covers "information relating to the national defense" that "the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."

According to the indictment, all of the listed documents fell into that category. All but one of them were marked as "secret" or "top secret," and many of them bore additional labels, such as "SI" (special intelligence), "SPECIAL HANDLING," and "NOFORN" (not releasable to foreign nationals). But classification markings are neither necessary nor sufficient to establish that a document qualifies as national defense information under 18 USC 793.

Notably, one of the 31 records mentioned in the indictment, described as an "undated document concerning military contingency planning of the United States," bore "no marking." The Justice Department nevertheless alleges that it "could be used to the injury of the United States" or the advantage of a foreign country. Conversely, given the widely recognized problem of overclassification, a document marked as "secret" or "top secret" might not be covered by 18 USC 793, either because it never should have been classified or because the justification for that decision no longer applies.

The soundness of classification decisions is hard to assess without details that we are not allowed to know. But the indictment's general descriptions at least make it plausible that some of the documents Trump retained were deemed secret for good reason. They included, for example, a "document dated June 2020 concerning nuclear capabilities of a foreign country"; a "document dated October 4, 2019, concerning military capabilities of a foreign country"; an "undated document concerning military attacks by a foreign country"; an "undated document concerning military capabilities of a foreign country and the United States"; a "document dated January 2020 concerning military options of a foreign country and potential effects on United States interests"; and a "document dated November 7, 2019, concerning military activity of foreign countries and the United States."

More generally, the indictment says the documents that Trump kept "included information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack." It adds that "the unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military [and] human sources, and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods."

On the face of it, it seems plausible that careless handling of such documents might expose information, including information about intelligence sources, that could undermine national security. And we know that Trump was, at the very least, careless. That much is reflected in the indictment's photographs of document boxes that were kept in unauthorized and unsecured locations at Mar-a-Lago, including a storage room, a bathroom, an office, a bedroom, and the stage of a ballroom where "events and gatherings took place."

But did Trump "willfully" retain national defense information? "We have seen absolutely no indication that President Trump knowingly possessed any of the marked documents or willfully broke any laws," Trump's lawyers said in an April 26 letter to the House Intelligence Committee. "Rather, all indications are that the presence of marked documents at Mar-a-Lago was the result of haphazard records keeping and packing by White House staff and [the General Services Administration]."

Such sloppiness could explain the presence of secret material in the boxes shipped to Mar-a-Lago. But the indictment presents substantial evidence that Trump knew he had classified documents and deliberately resisted the government's efforts to recover them.

In July 2021, Trump was interviewed at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, as part of the research for former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows' memoir. Trump was irked by press reports that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley had restrained him from taking military action against Iran toward the end of his presidency. To rebut that narrative, Trump presented what he described as Milley's "plan of attack" for Iran.

"He said that I wanted to attack Iran," Trump said, according to the indictment, which quotes an audio recording of the Bedminster interview. "Isn't it amazing? I
have a big pile of papers, [and] this thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this—this is off the record, but—they presented me this. This
was him. This was the Defense Department and him."

Trump described the document as "highly confidential" and "secret information." As president, he added, "I could have declassified it," but "now I can't," so "this is still a secret."

A month or two later, the indictment says, Trump met with a representative of his political action committee at the Bedminster club. Trump "commented that an ongoing military operation in Country B was not going well." Then he allegedly "showed the PAC Representative a classified map of Country B and told the PAC Representative that he should not be showing the map to the PAC Representative and to not get too close." The indictment notes that "the PAC Representative did not have a security clearance or any need-to-know classified information about the military operation."

The indictment contrasts Trump's sloppy handling and gratuitous use of classified records with his prior statements about the importance of guarding state secrets. During his 2016 campaign, for example, Trump repeatedly slammed Hillary Clinton for her careless handling of emails containing classified information when she was secretary of state. He promised that he would be much more careful.

"In my administration, I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information," Trump said in August 2016. "No one will be above the law." The next month, he warned that "we can't have someone in the Oval Office who doesn't understand the meaning of the word confidential or classified." He promised to "enforce all classification rules" and "enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information." He said he would provide "the best protection of classified information."

In February 2017, then-President Trump decried the "illegal process" by which reporters gain access to classified information. "The press should be ashamed of themselves," he said. "But more importantly, the people that gave out the information to the press should be ashamed of themselves. Really ashamed."

Although Trump was well aware of the restrictions on access to classified documents, in other words, he flouted the rules he said were essential to protecting national security. According to the indictment, Trump also impeded the Justice Department's attempts to recover those documents.

After the National Archives and Records Administration discovered classified material in 15 boxes that Trump surrendered a year after leaving office, the Justice Department launched an investigation. That led to a May 11, 2022, grand jury subpoena demanding the return of all documents with classification markings that remained at Mar-a-Lago.

Twelve days later, Trump met with two of his lawyers to discuss the subpoena. According to the indictment, notes taken by one of those lawyers, Evan Corcoran, indicate that Trump was inclined to defy the subpoena. In "sum and substance," the indictment says, he made comments like these:

"I don't want anybody looking through my  boxes. I really don't. I don't want you looking through my boxes."

"What happens if we just don't respond at all or don't play ball with them?"

"Wouldn't it be better if we just told them we don't have anything here?"

"Isn't it better if there are no documents?"

Trump nevertheless agreed to let Corcoran look through the boxes in the Mar-a-Lago storage room on June 2. In the meantime, according to the indictment, Trump aide Walt Nauta, under his boss's direction, moved "approximately 64 boxes" from the storage room to Trump's residence at Mar-a-Lago. As of June 2, Nauta (who also was charged in last week's indictment) had returned "only approximately 30 boxes" to the storage room.

Corcoran's search of those boxes turned up 38 classified records, which he placed in a Redweld folder that he sealed with clear duct tape. While discussing where to store the folder until it could be delivered to the Justice Department, according to Corcoran, Trump "made a funny motion as though [he were saying,] 'Well, OK, why don't you take them with you to your hotel room, and if there's anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.' And that was the motion that he made. He didn't say that."

The next day, Corcoran asked another Trump lawyer, Christina Bobb, to sign a sworn certification saying that "a diligent search was conducted of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Florida"; that the search was aimed at finding "any and all documents that are responsive to the subpoena"; and that "any and all responsive documents accompany this certification." Bobb said those statements were "based upon the information that has been provided to me." She signed the statement as the "custodian of records" for Trump's office even though she had not reviewed the subpoena, had not participated in the box search, and had not examined the contents of the folder.

Corcoran gave that statement to the Justice Department when he surrendered the folder on June 3, 2022. But the FBI suspected, based partly on surveillance video that showed Nauta moving boxes around, that Trump had not delivered all of the documents covered by the subpoena. The FBI's August 8 search of Mar-a-Lago confirmed that suspicion, discovering 102 additional classified documents in the storage room and in Trump's office.

When the Justice Department revealed what had happened after it served the subpoena, it looked like Corcoran and Bobb had misled the government. Based on the evidence described in the indictment, however, it looks like Corcoran made a good-faith effort to comply with the subpoena but was frustrated by the movement of boxes, which Trump and Nauta did without notifying Corcoran.

Trump's response to the subpoena not only supports the charges related to willful retention of national defense information. It also supports the charge that he and Nauta conspired to obstruct justice. More specifically, they are accused of conspiring to "corruptly conceal a record, document, or other object from an official proceeding." The alleged conspiracy also involved "engag[ing] in misleading conduct toward another person and corruptly persuad[ing] another person to withhold a record, document, or other object from an official proceeding." Other charges against Trump and Nauta involve specific acts related to the conspiracy, including false statements to the FBI and obstructing a federal investigation by concealing documents.

Although we know more about the classified records than we did before, it remains unclear exactly how sensitive they were. But all of the charges against Trump involve conduct that goes beyond carelessness or negligence. Even if Trump initially removed classified documents from the White House by accident (as his lawyers have suggested), it is clear he eventually realized that purported error. But far from trying to correct it, he seems to have intentionally impeded the Justice Department's attempts to recover the records, which by his own account he viewed as his personal property.

Look like Mr. Trump is toast with this indictment.   So the question is will he continue to run for POTUS even after he is a convicted felon and he is behind bars?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He won't be convicted.  If he is, then the former Vice President, who had classified documents as well (even though a Vice President had ZERO authority over documents) from the Obama administration will need to be prosecuted, but worse.  Not to mention the Hillary Clinton crap that was proven "illegal", but she didn't intend to do wrong.......

This is a long-term distraction since there is nearly zero coverage of the Biden Ukraine bribery tapes........

https://www.foxnews.com/media/abc-cbs-nbc-newscasts-ignore-alleged-biden-bribery-scheme-spend-hours-trump-report

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weaponization of DOJ. Does anyone think that if Trump had announced a year ago he wasn’t going to run again that this would be happening? Even after his term — in which he won the title of “Most Divisive President Ever” — is over, he continues to be an incredibly divisive force. He should just go away. The country would be better off.

Edited by Bobref
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2023 at 6:48 PM, Bobref said:

The weaponization of DOJ. Does anyone think that if Trump had announced a year ago he wasn’t going to run again that this would be happening? Even after his term — in which he won the title of “Most Divisive President Ever” — is over, he continues to be an incredibly divisive force. He should just go away. The country would be better off.

No, because they fear him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2023 at 6:48 PM, Bobref said:

The weaponization of DOJ. Does anyone think that if Trump had announced a year ago he wasn’t going to run again that this would be happening? Even after his term — in which he won the title of “Most Divisive President Ever” — is over, he continues to be an incredibly divisive force. He should just go away. The country would be better off.

BR - absolutely correct.  However, even with all his faults - The FACT that the Washington establishment DOESN'T want him there and has employed every weapon in it's arsenal to bring him down convinces me that he is needed more than ever.  The "checks and balances" concept is corrupt in today's politics - broken at the least and for the most part, (IMHO) the foxes are the ones guarding the henhouse.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, swordfish said:

The FACT that the Washington establishment DOESN'T want him there and has employed every weapon in it's arsenal to bring him down convinces me that he is needed more than ever.

In other words, there was no critical thinking involved in your support of Mr. Trump. It’s merely reactionary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bobref said:

In other words, there was no critical thinking involved in your support of Mr. Trump. It’s merely reactionary. 

BR finds a way yet again to call me an idiot utilizing his always eloquent prose.......Impressive as always my friend.

Actually prior to the 2016 election I had hoped there could be a candidate that had no political ties, was not corrupted and easily influenced by the lobbyists and easy money, but was principled in management terms focused on cleaning up.  After he was elected, every interaction I had with his administration and the personnel (Dr. Ben Carson at HUD) was at the utmost professional level and actually with people experienced in getting results.  Much, much more than the 2 previous administrations.  Again - the only President that personally lost money for being our President, and the establishment continues to fire volley after volley to keep him away from DC.  My level of skepticism that either party (for the most part) is able to accomplish anything meaningful other than occupying an office and tossing a few minor league bills around I think is very warranted.

You want to tackle a real issue like abortion, put some real legislation that could garner support from the middle of both parties and get it passed so you can move to the next issue.  Speakers Mcarthy, Mcconnell, Schumer or Pelosi have no interest in solving any real divisive issues, they just want to keep the wedge issues flowing so they can continue to divy up the votes and stay in Washington. 

So again, the fact that they don't want him there tells me he is the guy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, swordfish said:

Couldn't have said it better myself......

The problem with the philosophy of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” is that it doesn’t require any critical analysis of your new “friend.” All you need to know is that you have a common enemy. Nobody thinks about whether the “cure” is actually worse than the disease which, in this case, it actually may be, IMO.

Ponder this: If we had never had a Trump presidency, do you think we’d have to deal with the Biden-Kamala disaster now in progress? Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Bobref said:

The problem with the philosophy of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” is that it doesn’t require any critical analysis of your new “friend.” All you need to know is that you have a common enemy. Nobody thinks about whether the “cure” is actually worse than the disease which, in this case, it actually may be, IMO.

Ponder this: If we had never had a Trump presidency, do you think we’d have to deal with the Biden-Kamala disaster now in progress? Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.

True.  It took a Carter to bring us a Reagan.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...