Federal Indictment of Donald Trump

[Septic]

That requires everyone to be naive and assume that Biden had documents by accident. Didn’t he have documents from his time as a Senator, which would be incredibly illegal?

It doesn't require any assumption at all.

If Biden had them, lied about them and actively schemed to conceal them then he can rot with trump - if he didn't he shouldn't.

My guess is what will cook trump is not having them but lying about it and/or knowingly disclosing them to people without clearance.

It cracks me up that on one hand some of ya'll try to draw comparisons to Biden and "lock her up" Hilldawg but then try and suggest he can do whatever he likes by just thinking about it. The mental gymnastics are breathtaking.

 

[Septic]

Nope he should go straight to jail based off the indictment. Ohhh wait there’s another part that comes after the indictment. Maybe you should replace the evil with reallybad.

So we shouldn't shout "lock him up" or assume guilt prior to a trial?

Such a refreshing change of heart.

 

[evillawyer]

But. Her. Emails!

 

[C-south]

It doesn't require any assumption at all.

If Biden had them, lied about them and actively schemed to conceal them then he can rot with trump - if he didn't he shouldn't.

My guess is what will cook trump is not having them but lying about it and/or disclosing them to people without clearance.

It cracks me up that on one hand some of ya'll try to draw comparisons to Biden and "lock her up" Hilldawg but then try and suggest he can do whatever he likes by just thinking about it. The mental gymnastics are breathtaking.

It cracks me up even more they knew what he had when they went to visit him in Florida and left the s*** there. How important could it have been?

 

[hog88]

Trump Admits He Didn’t Declassify Secret Docs: Transcript – Rolling Stone

Yes, he admits that he didn't follow protocol. The question SCOTUS will answer is does a POTUS have to follow protocol.

 

[evillawyer]

Man, I can't wait to see the mashups of the Fox personalities blasting Hillary side by side with them defending Trump on this sh*t.

 

[sonofUT62]

So we shouldn't shout "lock him up" or assume guilt prior to a trial?

Such a refreshing change of heart.

What change of heart? I never once shouted a word about locking anyone up. If you assume that just because I completely distrust the DOJ and Biden that I’ve ever voted for Trump then I can’t help you.

 

[RockyTop85]

If (and it's pure speculation) SCOTUS holds that a president has ultimate authority over classification then there was no criminal intent because no crime (possessing the documents) was committed.

I don’t know enough about this area of law or the charges to say what is likely to happen, but just logically, this is way too much of an oversimplification to be correct. The president having the ultimate authority over classified material and criminal intent aren’t even mutually exclusive.

 

[hog88]

It doesn't require any assumption at all.

If Biden had them, lied about them and actively schemed to conceal them then he can rot with trump - if he didn't he shouldn't.

My guess is what will cook trump is not having them but lying about it and/or knowingly disclosing them to people without clearance.

It cracks me up that on one hand some of ya'll try to draw comparisons to Biden and "lock her up" Hilldawg but then try and suggest he can do whatever he likes by just thinking about it. The mental gymnastics are breathtaking.

If Biden had them he committed a crime, why all the qualifiers?

 

[Septic]

Yes, he admits that he didn't follow protocol. The question SCOTUS will answer is does a POTUS have to follow protocol.

Maybe.

Is there a law or precedent that protects a former president from obstructing justice after he's no longer a president?

Good luck.

 

[Septic]

If Biden had them he committed a crime, why all the qualifiers?

Because I don't believe simply having them is what cooks his goose.

He lied about the BBQ.

 

[Septic]

What change of heart? I never once shouted a word about locking anyone up. If you assume that just because I completely distrust the DOJ and Biden that I’ve ever voted for Trump then I can’t help you.

I was speaking in generalities about the shouts from Trump sycophants that loved to shout lock her up. If it doesn't apply to you, great - please disregard. Those folks know who they are.

 

[RockyTop85]

I think you might be getting ahead of your skis here. I know as a progressive this has you licking your chops but Trump, as POTUS, can declassify as he wishes.

I know you are looking through blue tinted glasses but you can tell this is weak because much of this is basically accusing him of moving documents, etc. All of this is a set-up to make it hard for this man to run and win again by keeping him tied up in court. Even the announcement months ago about Biden lawyers turning in classified documents, Biden had said documents for since before 2017 that he had no right to possess and they didn't know he had them. You see how air headed you have to believe they didn't know or actually cared? It was a pretext to move to this phase.

“You can tell the drug charge is weak because law enforcement details the steps the defendant went to conceal the drugs.”

 

[hog88]

I don’t know enough about this area of law or the charges to say what is likely to happen, but just logically, this is way too much of an oversimplification to be correct. The president having the ultimate authority over classified material and criminal intent aren’t even mutually exclusive.

I'm by no means have a clue other than layman's logic and that is if a president can "wave a magic wand" and declassify then there was no crime in him having the documents so how can there be criminal intent.

 

[Matt2496]

Maybe.

Is there a law or precedent that protects a former president from obstructing justice after he's no longer a president?

Good luck.

Do you feel the same towards Hillary considering she actively obstructed justice as well?

 

[Septic]

I'm by no means have a clue other than layman's logic and that is if a president can "wave a magic wand" and declassify then there was no crime in him having the documents so how can there be criminal intent.

Have you read the indictment? If not, you should.

It lays it out. Not only did he know he had stuff he wasn't supposed to, but he also actively concealed and schemed to hide it from the FBI and DOJ. Going so far as to instruct his attorneys to legally certify it.

 

[hog88]

Maybe.

Is there a law or precedent that protects a former president from obstructing justice after he's no longer a president?

Good luck.

I doubt it unless the President is a Democrat. But that's neither here nor there. If (again speculation and laymen's logic) it was legal for Trump to have the documents this would mean the government was wrong in pursing them so it boils down to a dispute on legal possession. If it was legal for him to have them how could he have obstructed justice when justice was in the wrong?

 

[Septic]

Do you feel the same towards Hillary considering she actively obstructed justice as well?

Hell yeah. I'm an equal opportunity h8r.

I don't recall the details of her schemes to obstruct but I'm sure proof existed. She can fry too.

 

[VolStrom]

Because I don't believe simply having them is what cooks his goose.

He lied about the BBQ.

Ohhh ahhhh, so that is what you indict a former President for? What if it comes out that the subjects of the documents seized were dinner menus and golf schedules? I bet the subject of these "highly super duper top secret" documents is a big nothing burger, but since they're classified, we'll never know. Perfect Catch 22.

 

[hog88]

Have you read the indictment? If not, you should.

It lays it out. Not only did he know he had stuff he wasn't supposed to, but he also actively concealed and schemed to hid it from the FBI and DOJ. Going so far as to instruct his attorneys to legally certify it.

No, why would I read it? It's not like it presents anything other than the accusations of the government. It will all get washed out in the courts and one side will end up in the wrong.

 

[Septic]

I doubt it unless the President is a Democrat. But that's neither here nor there. If (again speculation and laymen's logic) it was legal for Trump to have the documents this would mean the government was wrong in pursing them so it boils down to a dispute on legal possession. If it was legal for him to have them how could he have obstructed justice when justice was in the wrong?

Clearly no one is moving you past your presupposition that he could have whatever he wants since he WAS president. Until you move on from that false premise, there isn't much reason to debate.

 

[Hunerwadel]

None of the 2016 Rs candidates other than Trump were beating Hillary. None of them would have excited enough people to turnout and vote for them.

I don't know. It's very possible I would have voted for Romney or Kasich over Clinton. Especially Kasich. I and other liberals that I know despised her. You're probably right though that the turnout for Romney or Kasich would have been low. (I would vote for Romney today over Biden)

 

[hog88]

Because I don't believe simply having them is what cooks his goose.

He lied about the BBQ.

A crime is a crime isn't it?

 

[Septic]

Ohhh ahhhh, so that is what you indict a former President for? What if it comes out that the subjects of the documents seized were dinner menus and golf schedules? I bet the subject of these "highly super duper top secret" documents is a big nothing burger, but since they're classified, we'll never know. Perfect Catch 22.

Yes.



Source: That's why he was indicted

 

[Septic]

No, why would I read it? It's not like it presents anything other than the accusations of the government. It will all get washed out in the courts and one side will end up in the wrong.

To inform yourself on the details instead of continuing to trot out bad arguments?