Yes, and I personally agree, but do I really need to point out that is what the establishment would say even if it WERE a political maneuver?
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
His defiance of a subpoena is a crime in every jurisdiction regardless of the sensitivity of the documents.
If you are served with a subpoena it’s a crime to conceal and lie about things that are responsive to the subpoena.
Here are some reasons why I think this is obviously different than, say, Nixon prosecuting Humphrey or McGovern for the non-crime of running against him.
Trump has publicly admitted the criminal behavior in nearly all of the cases against him. His claims that his actions were not crimes are patent nonsense.
The laws he’s alleged to have broken are long-standing, and serious. Reality Winner got a 5 year jail sentence for leaking one classified document. The Rosenbergs were executed over nuclear secrets. Even if convicted, Trump will likely face nothing worse than house arrest. It’s not like Biden shoved through a new law against being a GOP candidate for the presidency.
The criminal actions he’s accused of, and admitted to, are in line with Trump’s personality and history (It’s mine - MINE! I have the power! I cannot lose!). Those actions are unlike the actions or crimes of other high elected officials, or even candidates for high office.
Trump has gotten tremendous deference in the legal cases against him. Anyone else who was being searched for possessing classified documents or defense information would have bene arrested on the spot, as part of the search. Contrast the arrest of that dumb kid who leaked classified info on social media, versus Trump being invited to turn him self in, and immediately released on his own recognizance. Trump still has his passport for crying out loud!
Adding to that, there are many crimes he could have been indicted for, but was not under prosecutorial discretion.
If Biden was trying to select his weakest rival, he should have stopped the prosecutions and let Trump be the nominee. Biden already beat Trump. That was before the insurrection, before the documents case, and before the economy improved. This isn’t Nixon taking out Muskie to run against McGovern. This is the Biden administration following the law, even if it means a better candidate will run against Biden in the next election. Because any GOP POTUS candidate other than Trump has a better chance of beating Biden that Trump does.
Eh, not really. Compare the Republicans’ insistence on “Lock her up!”, and when questioned why, the mob only said the louder “Lock her up!”.
You’re missing my point. If we lived in the dictatorship of Crisistan, do you think the Crisistan DOJ would say “We’re investigating Borat because he’s opposing the dear leader” or do you think they would say “We’re investigating Borat because there is a shitload of evidence that he has committed many serious crimes” even if the former were the reality?
This is true, and I think it is proper. As a former president and current serious candidate it is good that the Justice Department proceed with all possible caution. Not because Trump personally deserves it (he obviously does not and deserves to be in the next cell from the Discord kid and Reality Winner) but because we need to prove it’s not political. By giving Trump the advantage at every turn it makes the claim that it was political absurd.
We want a system that defers to the defendant in general, and even more so in this case. Again, not because Trump deserves it, but because of what it says about our system, and because Trump can still be convicted with all the advantages given him.
I believe I have seen speculation that the documents he’s charged with keeping were ones that the prosecution believes it can prove were specifically included in the subpoena, and they have evidence to show that Trump knew he still had them after the subpoena.
If so, that’s a strong case to rebut his argument that “My staff just crammed all this stuff into boxes when I left Washington.” The offence is knowing that you have the docs, and wilfully refused to return them when asked.
Sorry, but it still comes down to the shitload of evidence.
I understand your point, that of course accusers will claim there is evidence to support their accusations.
For examples of making unfounded claims without evidence, look no further than Rudy Giuliani, Fox “News,” John Durham – and of course Trump himself. It works for awhile to make unsubstantiated claims. But when actual evidence cannot be produced, things go badly for those who are lying about it.
At some juncture, an accuser will need to produce that evidence – as Jack Smith has. Smith could not have obtained indictments against Trump without proving up the evidence he had to support them.
Remind me: Why is Hillary Clinton not in jail? Andrew McCabe? Peter Strzok? James Comey? Ruby Freeman? Ray Epps? Hunter Biden?
I worry far less about the government we currently have making false claims than the opposition who are trying to return to power and do it continually without shame.
And my point is that we don’t need to resort to hypotheticals. We’ve already seen, in the real world, that politicians who want to lock up their opposition don’t feel any need to give reasons. Or, to look at a nation that’s already gone all the way down the slippery slope, Putin hasn’t bothered to give any real justification for any of the folks he’s had arrested, either.
Exactly. Anyone paying attention can readily see that Trump has followed Putin’s playbook to the letter.
I have often said on this board that Trump doesn’t just admire Putin. He wants to be Putin.
What terrifies me is how successful this ploy has been in our country to date. If we become a country that no longer demands proof for accusations made, Trump or someone like him will realize their dream.
Yes, but in the US, “The Establishment” is required to actually publish what it is they’re accusing people of, and what evidence they’re using to prove that. Anyone can read the indictment they filed, and judge for themselves if this is an evidence-based prosecution, or a political hitjob.
There’s a reason why the GOP politicians almost never actually take their bullshit to court, and it’s because actual court filings would show that their charges are based on nothing. Just look at what happened in almost all of Trumps “stolen election” lawsuits. None of them cited any actual evidence, and that was obvious on the face of them.
I want to quote these because I think they need repeating. I have to stop every time I run across one of the hundred names and figure out who we’re talking about.
Just including the letters “tan” somewhere in the name don’t always make it obvious. The “dictatorship of Crisistan” was particular confusing since I assumed it was referring to some type of Christian dictatorship.
That’s correct to an extent. He is charged with retaining documents pursuant to the subpoena (and all the evidence to show it was willful). However, he is also charged with retaining some documents he did return pursuant to the subpoena.
I believe the reason Jack charged that way is in case Judge Cannon went crazy and invalidated the search warrant and thus those documents that were kept after the subpoena and recovered by the FBI via the search warrant could not be used/charged. If that were to happen, Jack would still have a case with the other documents Trump returned in response to the subpoena since NARA initially asked for them to be returned prior to the subpoena and they were not, which is enough to trigger the retention crime. A much weaker case, but still a case.
us-response-to-trump-request-to-delay-trial.pdf (documentcloud.org)
here is the filing. another thing of beauty.
As for the impact of the Presidential Records Act on this prosecution, any argument that it
mandates dismissal of the Indictment or forms a defense to the charges here borders on frivolous.
The PRA is not a criminal statute, and in no way purports to address the retention of national
security information. The Defendants are, of course, free to make whatever arguments they like
for dismissal of the Indictment, and the Government will respond promptly. But they should not
be permitted to gesture at a baseless legal argument, call it “novel,” and then claim that the Court
will require an indefinite continuance in order to resolve it.
Yup.He said Putin invading Ukraine was a genius move.
Praising Putin so he can get help from him?
Loves the idea of a dictator?
Putin has dirt on Trump?
I vote for all of the above.
This part, I don’t think actually holds true. Trump may be a lot of things, but secretive he’s not. He’s been called out for plenty of sins and crimes, which he either denies or attempts to misdirect. I doubt Putin needs to exert any more influence on Trump through blackmail. Just the fact that he’s a dictator not subject to government regulation or oversight is enough to make Trump drool at his feet.
I love this line, talking abut the ability to produce an unbiased jury:
To be sure, the Government readily acknowledges that jury selection here may merit additional protocols (such as a questionnaire) and may be more time-consuming than in other cases, but those are reasons to start the process sooner rather than later.
Boom!
Yes, and that’s exactly why there was no need to have Stormy Daniels sign an NDA to attempt to keep it hidden
/s
But he has tried in the past to conceal things, like Stormy Daniels. So, yes, he does have an annoying habit of surfing the waves of such disclosures that would swamp other people, but at the same time, there are at least a few things he’d prefer to keep hidden.
This is probably true, but wasn’t there also supposedly significant financial leverage, i.e., that Russian banks held billions in loans to Trump companies that would destroy his holdings if called? ISTR lots of us on these boards hoping that would come to light during these multiple investigations – along with evidence of money laundering – but nothing has.
Apologies if this hijack is running too far from the thread.