Federal Indictment of Donald Trump

[AM64]

Turley said it was strong. Dershoshitz said weak. I'm convinced dershoshitz is on the take from some pro Trump organization.

Or maybe law as practiced is simply two faced and inconsistent. The blindfold certainly seems to fit although it makes no sense for justice to be blind or deaf. Most people dealing with fact based decisions prefer all their faculties fully operational.

 

[RockyTop85]

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.

All of law involves continuums. The difference between first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter; the difference between felony theft and misdemeanor theft; the difference between preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt; etc.

But this also isn’t law, it is a framework for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

If the prosecutor determines that Hillary only met 1/4, which I think is what Comey ultimately concluded, or that 2/4 isn’t enough it still doesn’t show unequal application of law if there is evidence of 3/4 with Trump.

Also, under these circumstance, I don’t think their former positions within the government matter. Nothing in the statute says it matters. Nothing in that discretionary framework says it matters. There are fact patterns where it could be legally relevant to a defense, but those don’t seem to be present here. That could change when Trump gets his say, but it appears the prosecutor considered those possibilities.

So, again, arguing that it’s arbitrary or non-transparent, or that they reached the wrong decision on Hillary or Trump is where I think reasonable minds can differ. But if we’re still just arguing about whether Trump was held to a different standard, what is the argument?

 

[RockyTop85]

Is there a provision for this?

The statute says they have to be designated at the time of their creation/receipt or as soon as practicable thereafter. I’m paraphrasing. The decision you cited says it has to be during the presidency. I didn’t see that explicitly in the statute, so it would be subject to the same caveats of not being controlling.

Off the top of my head, I’m not sure of the authority for the weight a district court ruling in another district/circuit. It’s one of those things that you learn in law school and it’s so well settled that nobody has to look it up again. I’m sure I could find one but even circuit court decisions aren’t binding on each other. When they disagree is when you tend to get cases going to SCOTUS.

Edit:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-c...ralCourtsandBindingandPersuasiveAuthority.pdf

US v. ART. OF DRUG CONSISTING OF 203 PAPER BAGS, 818 F. 2d 569 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 1987 - Google Scholar

 

[AM64]

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.’”

Seems like a bad decision and bad precedent; but your are right, it is very clear. To me I don't care who you are, official records belong to the "business" not to the person.

 

[AM64]

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.

Just don't waste your time discussing inconsistencies in the law or that the law as applied is a political tool. It's a bit like being instructed to "turn to port" but with a flexible frame of reference ... whether the left turn is based on the perspective of someone inside or someone outside facing the plane.

 

[Orangeburst]

The statute says they have to be designated at the time of their creation/receipt or as soon as practicable thereafter. I’m paraphrasing. The decision you cited says it has to be during the presidency. I didn’t see that explicitly in the statute, so it would be subject to the same caveats of not being controlling.

Off the top of my head, I’m not sure of the authority for the weight a district court ruling in another district/circuit. It’s one of those things that you learn in law school and it’s so well settled that nobody has to look it up again. I’m sure I could find one but even circuit court decisions aren’t binding on each other. When they disagree is when you tend to get cases going to SCOTUS.

Edit:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-c...ralCourtsandBindingandPersuasiveAuthority.pdf

US v. ART. OF DRUG CONSISTING OF 203 PAPER BAGS, 818 F. 2d 569 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 1987 - Google Scholar

Well if needed..there is that quick expedition to the SC that I alluded

 

[RockyTop85]

Well if needed..there is that quick expedition to the SC that I alluded

Could be. Generally, pretrial rulings can be appealed with the trial judge’s permission (“interlocutory appeal”). Those would go to 11th circuit to be reviewed by a 3 judge panel and then the entire 11th circuit could decide to rehear it en banc. Then it could go to SCOTUS. I think it would be unusual for an interlocutory appeal to go that far but this is an unusual case.

If Trump loses he can follow the same path. If he wins the government generally cannot appeal.

Cannon’s prior history of bending over backwards for Trump is going to make it interesting. She can do a lot more to help him in a criminal case than she did in that bizarro lawsuit and it would be difficult for the government to get her punted off the case.

 

[Orangeburst]

Wild hair..maybe the DOJ..ie Biden, doesn't want to win the case or if Trump is convicted, Biden pardons him.
If Trump were to go to prison for process crimes, this nation will rip apart. Not hyperbole.

 

[lawgator1]

Wild hair..maybe the DOJ..ie Biden, doesn't want to win the case or if Trump is convicted, Biden pardons him.
If Trump were to go to prison for process crimes, this nation will rip apart. Not hyperbole.

I've been thinking about this. Its a tough call, politics aside, because on the one hand it might help to calm frayed nerves and of course people can still make the judgment that, regardless of the charges, what he did was so monumentally stupid that they should never vote for him.

On the other hand, Trump thumbed his nose at every lawful authority and command to return the documents. He actively thwarted it at times. And that's just really hard to simply forgive, particularly sicne the materials we are talking about were so sensitive.

 

[Orangeburst]

I've been thinking about this. Its a tough call, politics aside, because on the one hand it might help to calm frayed nerves and of course people can still make the judgment that, regardless of the charges, what he did was so monumentally stupid that they should never vote for him.

On the other hand, Trump thumbed his nose at every lawful authority and command to return the documents. He actively thwarted it at times. And that's just really hard to simply forgive, particularly sicne the materials we are talking about were so sensitive.

This is how civil disobedience and wars start. People see it as one sided at the very minimum, on top of everything else regarding the DOJ.

 

[OrangeBoro]

Wild hair..maybe the DOJ..ie Biden, doesn't want to win the case or if Trump is convicted, Biden pardons him.
If Trump were to go to prison for process crimes, this nation will rip apart. Not hyperbole.

No chance. The radical unhinged base would never forgive Biden or any member of his regime

 

[BreatheUT]

I definitely like nut job’s low inflation, cheap gas, tax cut , secure border, low unemployment, low interest rates. Dang. He sure is crazy.

+ no wars....what a radical being described!

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

This is how civil disobedience and wars start. People see it as one sided at the very minimum, on top of everything else regarding the DOJ.

How is it one-sided? The GOP has put Clinton and Biden through the wringer as far as investigations go and have found nothing. Trump had all 3 branches of government in his control and still couldn’t pin anything on Clinton. So stop with this “one-sided” ********. All it does is normalize this behavior among the rubes who are too unintelligent to form their own opinions. Once you downplay the severity of the action, the action doesn’t seem so bad, and that is the entire GOP playbook.

 

[Orangeburst]

How is it one-sided? The GOP has put Clinton and Biden through the wringer as far as investigations go and have found nothing. Trump had all 3 branches of government in his control and still couldn’t pin anything on Clinton. So stop with this “one-sided” ********. All it does is normalize this behavior among the rubes who are too unintelligent to form their own opinions. Once you downplay the severity of the action, the action doesn’t seem so bad, and that is the entire GOP playbook.

That is rich.

 

[lawgator1]

The "one-sided" thing is just a quagmire of back and forth what abouts available to both sides which does not in any way, shape, or form, make what Trump did okay.

I get it, because it's all you really have left to offset this. But it doesn't change the facts.

 

[lawgator1]

Anybody catch Jim Jordan's comments??? Says he takes Trump at his word and Trump said he declassified the documents.....

Nice little out he created for himself to bail down the line.

 

[clarksvol00]

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.

I would say the devil is in the details, but that's a pretty big detail for some our fellow posters to ignore.

 

[clarksvol00]

Or maybe law as practiced is simply two faced and inconsistent. The blindfold certainly seems to fit although it makes no sense for justice to be blind or deaf. Most people dealing with fact based decisions prefer all their faculties fully operational.

This isn't a direct comparison between Donny and Hills, but law enforcement has always been inconsistent. There was a time when the slightly drunk high school senior who got pulled over had been told to go home and sleep it off, while the drunk 21 year old who had gotten the same warning two or three times already gets hauled in. Like i said, i dont want to say theres a direct comparison, but discretion isn't necessarily two faced.

 

[davethevol]

This isn't a direct comparison between Donny and Hills, but law enforcement has always been inconsistent. There was a time when the slightly drunk high school senior who got pulled over had been told to go home and sleep it off, while the drunk 21 year old who had gotten the same warning two or three times already gets hauled in. Like i said, i dont want to say theres a direct comparison, but discretion isn't necessarily two faced.

That’s an incredibly asinine analogy, especially as it relates to Trump, Hillary, and Biden.

 

[clarksvol00]

That’s an incredibly asinine analogy, especially as it relates to Trump, Hillary, and Biden.

You are apparently incredibly asinine enough that you didn't comprehend all the words in my post.

 

[rekinhavoc]

Alan Dershowitz slams Trump indictment, shares one ‘damning piece of evidence’ in the DOJ's case

 

[RockyTop85]

I would say the devil is in the details, but that's a pretty big detail for some our fellow posters to ignore.

Agreed. The inaccurate statement about the Mueller report was more of a “devil is in the details” issue.

 

[clarksvol00]

Alan Dershowitz slams Trump indictment, shares one ‘damning piece of evidence’ in the DOJ's case

Is there a reason to believe a lawyer who has been paid to represent and unequivocally defended Donald Trump is credible to speak on matters relating to Trump at this point?

 

[newyorkvol]

Agreed. The inaccurate statement about the Mueller report was more of a “devil is in the details” issue.

You say I’m defending him, but as a lawyer you still take a partisan side. I’m not a lawyer. I read the news. NPR said he was liable for battery. Not rape. Not assault. She wrote in a book that he raped her. He said he didn’t. Jury said he didn’t rape her but defamed her by saying he didn’t rape her. How is that possible?

And what was inaccurate about the mueller investigation? The hey found he obstructed an investigation that shouldn’t have happened and didn’t prove what it was looking for

 

[clarksvol00]

You say I’m defending him, but as a lawyer you still take a partisan side. I’m not a lawyer. I read the news. NPR said he was liable for battery. Not rape. Not assault. She wrote in a book that he raped her. He said he didn’t. Jury said he didn’t rape her but defamed her by saying he didn’t rape her. How is that possible?

And what was inaccurate about the mueller investigation? The hey found he obstructed an investigation that shouldn’t have happened and didn’t prove what it was looking for

I don't think he just said he didn't rape her, he said he'd never even met or heard of the women. I'm not sure how that changes things, but if he assaulted or battered or whatever you say he did according to npr, he'd definitely met her or heard of her.