FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
I believe you are absolutely correct. If Trump is hoisted by his own petard, that’s just fine. A lot of situations become tragedies because of hubris.
I don’t recall that. Can you provide some examples?
No, the context was discussion of a plea bargain. Federal plea bargains occur when some counts are dropped, so he would not be found guilty of everything he’s charged with.
I didn’t bring the phrase “slap on the wrist” into this thread. That dismissive phrase, almost always applied to real punishment, is part of the mentality where the U.S. came to have the world’s highest incarceration rate. The relevance to this thread is that I do not wish for the thread subject indictment to result in a long sentence.
That’s one driving force.
Another is our system of justice. I could not find firm recent statistics on the average time from indictment to trial, but did find this on a law firm site:
In federal court it is pretty routine to have a case set for trial within 12-18 months of filing.
Original filing was June 9, 2023, with a superseding indictment on July 27, 2023. So delay so far, while long to me, is with normal parameters.
One thing I posted last year I still think. It would have been better for prosecutors to forget about the document secrecy and instead prefer misdemeanor charges, having no right to a jury trial, for stealing National Archives property. If Smith had done that, Trump might now be a convicted criminal facing a punishment big enough to deter.
There seems to be an American prosecutorial ethic of preferring the most serious charges possible, knowing they are almost always reduced by a plea bargain. The first part of that happened here. Forty counts and three defendants mean this never was likely to finish up in time for November voters to know if Trump is guilty, in the documents case, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Maybe Trump will start a long sentence on these charges a few years from now, and then get out of prison due to illness. I do not see the value.
Given how many deep-cover American operatives got exposed and killed during the tRump administration, I think you can take that as a given.
I said this earlier, but that’s a pretty safe bet. I heard multiple experts point out that hostile states were well aware of this treasure trove (hell, at a certain point it was a daily news item), a treasure trove that had all the tight security of an unlocked garden shed.
There were no Mission Impossible, high-tech, dangling-from-the-ceiling maneuvers necessary. “Which way is the restroom?” would have done the trick. I forget who I’m paraphrasing, but one expert said it would have been “spy malpractice” to not have taken advantage of the classified data Trump hoarded.
It is absolutely absurd to trivialize Trump’s actions because we don’t have videotape of him in a trench coat in a dark garage, handing nuclear secrets over to a Russian agent. He is a scoundrel who undoubtedly made our nation less secure as a result of these crimes.
Throw the book at him.
I’m getting “Maxwell Smart vs. Conrad Siegfried” vibes here.
If only. More like “Boss Hogg versus the Abwehr, in a joint venture with the KGB.”
Okay, I’ll bite. How many were there? What is the source of your information?
Start here. I’ll check in later.
ETA: And here:
WASHINGTON – As U.S. intelligence agencies gauge the potential damage from Donald Trump storing hundreds of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, hanging in the balance is the threat to foreign sources of information recruited sometimes over a period of years and at great cost.
The documents at Mar-a-Lago were among the country’s most closely held secrets, dealing with human sources of intelligence and information that was supposed to be returned to agencies that provided it. Human sources are typically foreign nationals who risk prison terms and execution for spying on their own governments.
He hid the documents, so we didnt know, and trump himself has embarked on a policy of “delay, delay, delay”.
Mind you I would accept house arrest with a condition he never makes any threats or runs/accepts for any office.
But what if he does?
That’s a very good idea. Create an algorithm that takes into account the amount of unnecessary delay his antics have extended the process by and output a multiplication factor to apply to the sentencing guidelines.
A condition of suspended sentence (or parole) usually means you serve it all out hard time if you violate it.
The first link is paywalled.
The second talks about the risks, but doesn’t make it clear that anyone was killed through Trump leaks.
Yup, and the whole trying to overturn a presidential election in three different ways kinda bugs me. 
Sheese.
- Insurrection (Death and hundreds injured). Now hundreds in prison.
- Fake Electors (while incredibly stupid, I may have f’ed things up enough to send it to the House)
- Bullying the Secretary of State of Georgia. Election interference there is clear.
He should be in prison for the rest of his life.
This recalls the free-speech-hostile use of the Espionage Act that made it so unpopular among liberals:
When I started posting in this thread, I had hoped that judges would follow sentencing guidelines rather than make up novel punishments.
If Trump is sentenced to prison in this case, he should have the normal monitored email access given other Federal Bureau of Prisons inmates. So long as he wasn’t threatening the guards or warden, or planning an escape, or a riot, he, like other inmates, should have freedom of speech. I expect he would write political posts for Truth Social or similar. I wouldn’t like those posts, but I also wouldn’t like living in a country where Trump’s ideas are suppressed.
Perhaps you missed it the first time…
Since you made the claim again, I’ll ask again. Do you have evidence to support that liberals “often” criticize the Espionage Act?
Gift link:
Googling should locate find dozens of books and articles with liberal critiques of the Espionage Act as used against Eugene Debs and Ethel Rosenberg. For example:
A Century of Repression: The Espionage Act and Freedom of the Press
In this thread, it has been suggested that the Espionage Act prosecution be used to stifle the freedom of speech of one Donald Trump. That may be progressive, but it isn’t liberal as the term was used in the 20th century.
I’m not sure I want to totally endorse this next link, but the author’s job history (worked at the Brennan Center for Justice) seems liberal to me:
The Espionage Act Isn’t the Right Statute to Criminalize Trump