Federal Indictment of Donald Trump

[newyorkvol]

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.

So, he’s really being charged with being uncooperative? And since they’ve got him there, might as well tack on the other charges that no one else was charged with.

 

[AirVol]

All this has to be true, just like the pee tape, Russian collusion etc etc. Dims will fabricate anything to get idiots to believe it.

 

[Orangeburst]

Here is where the disconnect is ....

That ruling was in 2012. However, the Presidential Records Act was amended in 2014.

Jackson said in 2020 that the "loophole" needed to be addressed by Congress.

 

[Orangeburst]

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?

I certainly don't know. It does seem to be a loophole as Jackson professed.

 

[BowlBrother85]

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 Jackson also makes clear that Congress must step in to address this outdated loophole, noting “it is Congress that has the power to revisit its decision to accord the executive such unfettered control or to clarify its intentions”.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

It's outdated.

The PRA was amended in 2014, which established several new provisions. Specifically, the PRA: Established public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records. Requires that Vice Presidential records be treated in the same way as Presidential records.

^^^^ From the archives. ^^^^

 

[newyorkvol]

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, which they rejected.

Yeah, you’re definitely not defending him.

I just want to see equal application. I’d assume you’d want that as well. We all seem to agree that most of these politicians are dirty, trump included. But it’s clear there’s significantly more interest in Trumps legal woes Vs any other politician.

 

[Orangeburst]

It's outdated.

The PRA was amended in 2014, which established several new provisions. Specifically, the PRA: Established public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records. Requires that Vice Presidential records be treated in the same way as Presidential records.

^^^^ From the archives. ^^^^

Post the amendment verbatim then. Jackson as of 2020 said it was a loophole. Read the article.

“it is Congress that has the power to revisit its decision to accord the executive such unfettered control or to clarify its intentions”.

Like I said this is post 2012 and a cop out from her poor initial judgment

 

[BowlBrother85]

Post the amendment verbatim then. Jackson as of 2020 said it was a loophole. Read the article.

Which case are you talking about the Judicial Watch or CREW ... You've been conflating them.

 

[Orangeburst]

Which case are you talking about the Judicial Watch or CREW ... You've been conflating them.

Well good then..two precedences that relate to PRA

I posted verbatim from the Judicial Watch suit and now this just reaffirms her previous case.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Post the amendment verbatim then. Jackson as of 2020 said it was a loophole. Read the article.

“it is Congress that has the power to revisit its decision to accord the executive such unfettered control or to clarify its intentions”.

Like I said this is post 2012 and a cop out from her poor initial judgment

It really doesn't matter what she said, the loophole was already close in 2014 ... Future courts are not bound by her ruling, which frankly doesn't make any sense.

 

[Orangeburst]

It really doesn't matter what she said, the loophole was already close in 2014 ... Future courts are not bound by her ruling, which frankly doesn't make any sense.

Post the 2014 loophole closure then.

 

[lawgator1]

I saw this FULL interview, did you? The guy is flat out a train wreck.

 

[RockyTop85]

I certainly don't know. It does seem to be a loophole as Jackson professed.

He’s not charged under the PRA. There’s no criminal penalty for that. I think it’s mostly a red herring.

The government will have to prove that he wasn’t authorized to possess the records. If he designated them as personal records, then the PRA could be relevant under those circumstances, he could try to use it as a defense.

But it has got the same flaw as the magical declassification wand: There has to be evidence that he actually declared them personal records for it to work

Also, Amy Berman Jackson is a district court judge from a different district than Cannon. Her ruling is not controlling over Cannon or the 11th circuit. There’s also a procedural difference in that this is the government saying “these are our records” and that was that dumbass twitter guy saying they were government records.

So, the 11th circuit could look at the statutory definition of presidential records and personal records and find that these don’t meet the definition of personal records. I don’t know what they would do that for the same reason Jackson didn’t, but they could and the definition of personal records definitely doesn’t apply to the stuff charged.

All that said, I think it’s unlikely to be a major issue given what was litigated before. I think all this stuff may have even been litigated but I can’t swear to it.

 

[Orangeburst]

2020:

Judge Makes Clear Ruling Does Not Exonerate White House, Calls on Congress to Revisit PRA

Why would she call on Congress to revisit if so clear?
Funny thing..around this same time Trump was being impeached..lol. They should of been doing their jobs.

 

[Orangeburst]

He’s not charged under the PRA. There’s no criminal penalty for that. I think it’s mostly a red herring.

The government will have to prove that he wasn’t authorized to possess the records. If he designated them as personal records, then the PRA could be relevant under those circumstances, he could try to use it as a defense.

But it has got the same flaw as the magical declassification wand: There has to be evidence that he actually declared them personal records for it to work

Also, Amy Berman Jackson is a district court judge from a different district than Cannon. Her ruling is not controlling over Cannon or the 11th circuit. There’s also a procedural difference in that this is the government saying “these are our records” and that was that dumbass twitter guy saying they were government records.

So, the 11th circuit could look at the statutory definition of presidential records and personal records and find that these don’t meet the definition of personal records. I don’t know what they would do that for the same reason Jackson didn’t, but they could and the definition of personal records definitely doesn’t apply to the stuff charged.

All that said, I think it’s unlikely to be a major issue given what was litigated before. I think all this stuff may have even been litigated but I can’t swear to it.

Is there a provision for this?

 

[BowlBrother85]

Post the 2014 loophole closure then.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1233

 

[Orangeburst]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1233

OK thanks. Still doesn't explain why Jackson said Congress needed to clarify it in 2020.

 

[BowlBrother85]

OK thanks. Still doesn't explain why Jackson said Congress needed to clarify it in 2020.

No idea ... but this probably isn't the heart of the case against Trump anyway.

 

[WBO]

All this has to be true, just like the pee tape, Russian collusion etc etc. Dims will fabricate anything to get idiots to believe it.

The pee tape is true. Just as true as the assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.

But you guys have a bigger problem, while House Reps are running to defend Trump, Repub Senators are not, especially the top three in their leadership.

I'm guessing McConnell had a nice tall glass of bourbon the night the indictment came out to celebrate. And Cruz, despite how he pandered in 2016, you know he hates Trump for attacking his father. Then Sununu says the 2024 candidates are blowing it because they are not condemning Trump. I haven't seen a party this divided since McGovern won the Dem nomination by getting the Illinois delegation thrown out at the convention.

Half your party believes the charges are proper. You are once again seeing prominent Repub politicians and talking heads say they won't vote for Trump in a general election.

But believe me, I want Trump to stay in the race and I want him to win the nomination. I may have to make a contribution, just like I did in '96 to Pat Buchanan to keep him in the race against Dole and weaken him. He pulled Dole so far to the right that Dole never had a chance. I know our contributions alone didn't do it, but it still feels good and I am still on all the Repub donor lists so I get all of their solicitations and invitations and I forward those to the Dem party. Hillsdale College is constantly sending out plans.

 

[RockyTop85]

I just want to see equal application. I’d assume you’d want that as well. We all seem to agree that most of these politicians are dirty, trump included. But it’s clear there’s significantly more interest in Trumps legal woes Vs any other politician.

I believe politicians are getting special treatment compared to the rest of us. (And that Trump has benefitted from that.) We can disagree about whether that is prudent or, if prudent, where the line should be drawn. I believe that the line is not visible enough and should be published somewhere, but it’s apparently just a matter of prosecutorial discretion.

The important questions are 1. what is the line and 2. is the line moving.

The line, as Comey articulated it, was: “All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice”

You can argue that Hillary met 2/4 factors of that standard and should have been prosecuted and I won’t disagree with you. But there’s also room for DOJ to reasonably conclude that Trump met 3/4 (I don’t see any evidence of disloyalty to the United States, the other 3 don’t seem like close calls). So I think you have to stretch the facts to conclude that the standard is obviously being applied unequally.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

I saw this FULL interview, did you? The guy is flat out a train wreck.

According to you, all Republican candidates are a train wreck. So he must be a good one.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[jmacvols1]

Former DOJ Attorney Finds Glaring Flaw in Trump Indictment, Says Leaks Came From 'Inside DOJ'

“I’m beginning to read the indictment against Trump,” Clark said. “But even three pages in, it’s clear that the leaks that preceded the indictment are far too close to what is actually being pleaded by DOJ to be a coincidence.”

“For example, in paragraph 6a on page 3, we hear about the recording of the Bedminster call, which the MSNBC’s of the world have been beating a dead horse about for quite a while based on such leaks,” he continued. “This means that Trump lawyers could not possibly be the source of the leaks. Ergo, the leaks are coming from DOJ. They must be investigated and punished.”

“Also, this is grounds for granting a motion highlighting jury pool poisoning and dismissing the indictment before it reaches even its one-month birthday,” he added. “All of this is so outrageous; it shocks the conscience. It’s fundamentally anti-American. Trump Witch Hunt Number … what? I’ve lost count. Let’s call it Trump Witch Hunt #99.”

 

[newyorkvol]

I believe politicians are getting special treatment compared to the rest of us. (And that Trump has benefitted from that.) We can disagree about whether that is prudent or, if prudent, where the line should be drawn. I believe that the line is not visible enough and should be published somewhere, but it’s apparently just a matter of prosecutorial discretion.

The important questions are 1. what is the line and 2. is the line moving.

The line, as Comey articulated it, was: “All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice”

You can argue that Hillary met 2/4 factors of that standard and should have been prosecuted and I won’t disagree with you. But there’s also room for DOJ to reasonably conclude that Trump met 3/4 (I don’t see any evidence of disloyalty to the United States, the other 3 don’t seem like close calls). So I think you have to stretch the facts to conclude that the standard is obviously being applied unequally.

So now we have a continuum of law? 2/4 no prosecution. 3/4 prosecution? And then how do you defend that Hillary’s 2/4 was as SOS, not President.

I’m actually just trying to see the true differences. And from what I see, the differences lie primarily in political party.

 

[AM64]

Trump broke the law. He deserves to be prosecuted. Hillary broke the law and even had her people destroying evidence, smashing up devices. That was pretty egregious and just as much an FU as Trump's behavior IMO, but in the end, she was protected when she should have been prosecuted. Potentially, Biden and Pence should face charges for the mishandling of classified information. But what really scares me in their situations is how seemingly no one was aware they even had this information. With Trump, they seemed to know what documents he had. But with Biden and Pence.... Is our handling of classified materials so inept that they could hold onto classified documents for years with no one the wiser? That's alarming to me. Another sign of a broken, corrupt, too large government that we can't keep track of sensitive materials.

When it comes to politicians, the selective prosecution needs to stop. Party affiliation should not matter. If you break the law, you should be charged. Let a jury sort it out, not other politicians. The system is corrupt enough as is. We can't have politicians only answerable to themselves.

That is the real issue, and the very one nobody seems to be interested in. It shows either systemic organizational negligence or total lack of institutional control. You cannot even pretend to control, preserve, and protect classified information with a system that flawed. NARA and their "custodial care" seems to be another DC joke. It's one issue not to be able to control the improper copying and electronic distribution of classified documents, but to be unable to maintain the security of the originals is absurd.