You literally have proof that this is a fact; that he is objectively bad.
You can still dislike liberals and Trump at the same time though, fortunately.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
Just released:
[KIdding, of course]
America’s Mayor comes through with a novel defense and assuages our fears: all the documents were as safe in trump’s basement as they would be in the National Archives.
Somehow I doubt that when you can buy ten no-skill padlock lockpicking shims for less than two bucks.
…and they had to be told to even use the padlock in the first place.
Mick Mulvaney goes on CNN to confirm Trump is guilty and knew what he was doing:
I like this quote in particular:
Mulvaney also said in the interview that Trump would not have taken the classified documents if he did not “perceive it to be in his own interest, a benefit to him,” but that it may have been an oversight.
Trump wouldn’t have broken the law unless he felt he could benefit from doing so. Tell us something we don’t know, Mickey!
What a poor attempt at a CYA move. I knew he had them but didn’t think it was a big deal, not worthy of a warrant. Of course he wouldn’t because to admit so makes him an accesory. Which he is.
Saw this way of putting it shomewhere else:
The FBI came on to him like a bitch! When you have probable cause you can do that! Grab 'em by the evidence!
[smashes the non-existent “LIKE” button about a billion times]
I am so going to meme this.
I think this will fit here…
Could the FBI have made a sting in regard to the classified documents? Contact Trump acting as someone that would like to buy the documents.
Would that be entrapment? Don’t they do this kind of stuff with drug dealers?
I don’t know that Trump had any plans to sell the documents. I get the impression that Trump doesn’t plan much of anything. When Trump sees something of value (people, property, ideas, favors) he claims it for himself. The documents he stole were leverage; something to keep until he found a use for them, or could trade for something better.
I would think at this point Trump knows the heads of all criminal nations and would only deal with people he already knew. Sending in a supposed representative of say North Korea would be easy for him to spot since there would be no love message attached to the communication.
My WAG is that it would be entrapment if, based on only knowing that he had them, offered to buy them.
However, if ‘word on the street’ was that he was looking for a buyer, that would be different.
And as more and more rats are fleeing the sinking ship, it’s entirely possible one/some of those people would work with the FBI to lessen any punishment they know is coming.
Thanks for the responses all. Yeah, all he knew was that they probably had value. If nothing else, they had value to boost his ego. That’s nearly as important as $.
No, I think it wouldn’t be entrapment in the first scenario. If you have illegal goods, and an undercover cop offers to buy them, then if you agree you’ve attempted to sell illegal goods. It’s not entrapment just because the police officer gave you the opportunity.
Entrapment would be more like if the feds transported documents to Mar a Lago for safe keeping, then turned around and tried to convict trump for illegal possession.
Trump would have a hell of a time arguing entrapment.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-645-entrapment-elements
Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that “Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person’s mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute.” Jacobson v. United States , 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant’s lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct.
He already illegally took the documents in the first place. If he had a legal right to those documents and the government induced him to illegally sell them, that would be one thing, but he already broke the law taking them in the first place, as well as failing to return them when told he had to.
I was going to say an argument could be made for entrapment. My argument being that he could say ‘I was just keeping them for [some made up ‘personal’ reason], but then this guy offered me tens of millions of dollars and threatened to tell the FBI if I didn’t sell them to him’ or something along those lines.
However, wiki says:
In the United States, two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the “subjective” and “objective” tests.
- The “subjective” test looks at the defendant’s state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no “predisposition” to commit the crime.
- The “objective” test looks instead at the government’s conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would usually have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.
It would be a stretch to show that he has no predisposition to crime or that he’s normally law-abiding.
FWIW, I’m not saying that’s how those definitions get applied in this scenario, I just thought it was amusing.
Cool. But as far as I know, Trump was never roped into any sting to sell them. IMHO, he probably had buyers bidding already. Not that it would make one damn bit of difference at this point.
The bolded part would be the entrapment, in that case. Merely making it possible for someone to commit a crime generally isn’t entrapment. The cops have to go beyond that, into pressuring, harassing, or threatening the person into committing the crime.
Of course, he’d say he was coerced, but figuring out if he really was would be up to the courts.