Federal Indictment of Donald Trump

#9,078
#9,078
CobbVol said:
Is ignorance of the law a solid defense?
Click to expand...
No ... but I'm not against giving a former President some extra leeway. It's not a great thing for the country to have a former President under indictment, even when it's Trump. Why didn't he just comply with NARA's records request? What was the big deal?
 
#9,080
#9,080
BowlBrother85 said:
No ... but I'm not against giving a former President some extra leeway. It's not a great thing for the country to have a former President under indictment, even when it's Trump. Why didn't he just comply with NARA's records request? What was the big deal?
Click to expand...

Usually, the coverup is worse than the crime which might occur here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#9,081
#9,081
CobbVol said:
Usually, the coverup is worse than the crime which might occur here.
Click to expand...
There’s a pattern here. Mueller found he wasn’t involved with Russia, but he obstructed the investigation and was “charged” with that. Carroll wrote in a book in 2019 that he raped her. He called her bluff. He’s charged with defamation. Now he has documents that he should or shouldn’t have had, but he’s charged with obstruction.

I’m not comfortable with the pattern of accusation, followed by charging with obstruction, only to find the accusation was false.

Not defending him. Just noticing a pattern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#9,082
#9,082
Seems clear cut to me.

“Amy Berman Jackson, the judge presiding on that case, said a couple of very important things,” said Farrell. “That the president had an absolute, unreviewable right to take any records or documents that he wants when he leaves office. “
“No one can come back and second guess or double think or ask questions about what the president elects to take with him,” Farrell continued.
In her ruling, Jackson wrote that “the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: ‘[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.’”
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Gandalf, W.TN.Orange Blood and 1 other person
#9,083
#9,083
Just a guess, but if the law is applied evenly wrt classified documents as it should be, then it would stand to reason Biden should be indicted the same as Trump, or neither should. I’m not a lawyer as some on here are and I don’t know the laws related to what a President or VP can take wrt classified docs, but it sure sounds like they did the exact same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeTrain and AM64
#9,084
#9,084
Just think..a liberal judge appointed by Obama let politics get in the way in her case to save Bill, and will exonerate Trump. The irony is unreal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and AirVol
#9,086
#9,086
Orangeburst said:
Seems clear cut to me.

“Amy Berman Jackson, the judge presiding on that case, said a couple of very important things,” said Farrell. “That the president had an absolute, unreviewable right to take any records or documents that he wants when he leaves office. “
“No one can come back and second guess or double think or ask questions about what the president elects to take with him,” Farrell continued.
In her ruling, Jackson wrote that “the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: ‘[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.’”
Click to expand...
Where did Judge Amy Berman Jackson say that in her opinion? Don't paraphrase. What page is it on?

Trump Argues New Theory Of Declassification By Theft - Above the Law
 
#9,087
#9,087
Orangeburst said:
Just think..a liberal judge appointed by Obama let politics get in the way in her case to save Bill, and will exonerate Trump. The irony is unreal.
Click to expand...
You don't know what you are talking about... That Judicial Watch case was misrepresented in that post.

... and the judge currently presiding over the case is Aileen Cannon, who is a Trump-appointee that granted a special master to review documents last year. Her ruling was later laughed out of court on appeal. She has been a member of the conservative Federalist Society for 17 years and is as Republican as it gets.
 
#9,088
#9,088
lawgator1 said:
Nope. Not even close.

But I get it. It's grasping at straws time for you fellers.
Click to expand...
Please explain the difference. China Joe took those documents as a Senator and VP. If you are going to hang Trump then you have to hang them all. The fact that China Joe and Pence had the documents was in itself a violation of the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#9,090
#9,090
newyorkvol said:
There’s a pattern here. Mueller found he wasn’t involved with Russia, but he obstructed the investigation and was “charged” with that. Carroll wrote in a book in 2019 that he raped her. He called her bluff. He’s charged with defamation. Now he has documents that he should or shouldn’t have had, but he’s charged with obstruction.

I’m not comfortable with the pattern of accusation, followed by charging with obstruction, only to find the accusation was false.

Not defending him. Just noticing a pattern.
Click to expand...

He isn’t charged with only obstruction here, he’s charged with unlawful retention of the documents. 32 of 37 counts are under 18 USC 938(e) which is retention do the documents.

And the Carrol trial wasn’t just about defamation. The jury found him liable for sexually assaulting her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#9,091
#9,091
LibertyVol said:
Please explain the difference. China Joe took those documents as a Senator and VP. If you are going to hang Trump then you have to hang them all. The fact that China Joe and Pence had the documents was in itself a violation of the law.
Click to expand...
You are right that both Biden and Pence were breaking the law by possessing those documents. I'm not condoning that either ... but surely you can see the difference in their cooperation with the FBI and with NARA once those documents were discovered.
 
#9,093
#9,093
BowlBrother85 said:
You don't know what you are talking about... That Judicial Watch case was misrepresented in that post.

... and the judge currently presiding over the case is Aileen Cannon, who is a Trump-appointee that granted a special master to review documents last year. Her ruling was later laughed out of court on appeal. She has been a member of the conservative Federalist Society for 17 years and is as Republican as it gets.
Click to expand...

In the Court's view, plaintiff reads too much into this statement. Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion, see44 U.S.C. § 2203(b), so the Deputy Archivist could not and did not make a classification decision that can be challenged here.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288 | Casetext Search + Citator

As stated in her ruling, “the PRA gives neither the Archivist [of the United States] nor the Congress the authority to veto the President’s decision” to destroy records – or in this instance, fail to create the records in the first place. Jackson also makes clear that Congress must step in to address this outdated loophole, noting “it is Congress that has the power to revisit its decision to accord the executive such unfettered control or to clarify its intentions”.

Court Rejects Archive Lawsuit over Trump’s Abuse of Records Law | National Security Archive

Too bad Amy took a lawsuit and made it political to protect Billy. She stepped in dogshit.

The ruling:

PRA Ruling | National Security Archive
 
#9,096
#9,096
RockyTop85 said:
He isn’t charged with only obstruction here, he’s charged with unlawful retention of the documents. 32 of 37 counts are under 18 USC 938(e) which is retention do the documents.

And the Carrol trial wasn’t just about defamation. The jury found him liable for sexually assaulting her.
Click to expand...
He was found liable for battery. In a civil case. So, they found it more likely than not that he have her an unwanted peck on the cheek 30 years ago.

I just have a hard time seeing how he defamed someone who wrote in a book that he raped her and he called her out on it. The same jury found it was more likely he didn’t rape her, but he defamed her?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and OrangeBoro
#9,097
#9,097
Orangeburst said:
In the Court's view, plaintiff reads too much into this statement. Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion, see44 U.S.C. § 2203(b), so the Deputy Archivist could not and did not make a classification decision that can be challenged here.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288 | Casetext Search + Citator

As stated in her ruling, “the PRA gives neither the Archivist [of the United States] nor the Congress the authority to veto the President’s decision” to destroy records – or in this instance, fail to create the records in the first place. Jackson also makes clear that Congress must step in to address this outdated loophole, noting “it is Congress that has the power to revisit its decision to accord the executive such unfettered control or to clarify its intentions”.

Court Rejects Archive Lawsuit over Trump’s Abuse of Records Law | National Security Archive

Too bad Amy took a lawsuit and made it political to protect Billy. She stepped in dogshit.

The ruling:

PRA Ruling | National Security Archive
Click to expand...
Here is where the disconnect is ....

That ruling was in 2012. However, the Presidential Records Act was amended in 2014.
 
#9,098
#9,098
Orangeburst said:
In the Court's view, plaintiff reads too much into this statement. Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion, see44 U.S.C. § 2203(b), so the Deputy Archivist could not and did not make a classification decision that can be challenged here.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288 | Casetext Search + Citator

As stated in her ruling, “the PRA gives neither the Archivist [of the United States] nor the Congress the authority to veto the President’s decision” to destroy records – or in this instance, fail to create the records in the first place. Jackson also makes clear that Congress must step in to address this outdated loophole, noting “it is Congress that has the power to revisit its decision to accord the executive such unfettered control or to clarify its intentions”.

Court Rejects Archive Lawsuit over Trump’s Abuse of Records Law | National Security Archive

Too bad Amy took a lawsuit and made it political to protect Billy. She stepped in dogshit.

The ruling:

PRA Ruling | National Security Archive
Click to expand...
So Trump designated all of this as personal records during his term and this experienced prosecutor and his entire team just missed or overlooked it and brought the first ever indictment of a former president with this obvious fatal flaw that Trump could have raised but didn’t (or maybe he did and lost) when he was in front of this court last time and when he was in front of the 11th circuit.

How likely does that seem?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact
#9,099
#9,099
newyorkvol said:
He was found liable for battery. In a civil case. So, they found it more likely than not that he have her an unwanted peck on the cheek 30 years ago.

I just have a hard time seeing how he defamed someone who wrote in a book that he raped her and he called her out on it. The same jury found it was more likely he didn’t rape her, but he defamed her?
Click to expand...

It was sexual abuse, which is still not “just defamation” and it means they found it more likely than not that he did something between an “unwanted peck on the cheek” and penetrating her with his penis, which was the definition of rape that they rejected.

And they didn’t find that it was “more likely” that he didn’t rape her. They found that she hadn’t proven that it was likely he raped her because, as I recall, her testimony was that she was unsure what he penetrated her with.

Yeah, you’re definitely not defending him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact
#9,100
#9,100
BowlBrother85 said:
You are right that both Biden and Pence were breaking the law by possessing those documents. I'm not condoning that either ... but surely you can see the difference in their cooperation with the FBI and with NARA once those documents were discovered.
Click to expand...
Trump was doing what his lawyer’s told him to do.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top