Donald Trump Indicted by special counsel

[canadyjd]

….

He will. It is in the best interest of all Americans that Trump has a fair trial and can use every right of a defendant under the Constitution.

Agreed. And I agree the interview was a stupid thing to do in that everything he says will be assumed to be from the worst possible motives. Standard practice…. Defendants don’t do interviews.

DT is his own worst enemy and, at the same time, his own best defender. He is making the “personal items” argument and referring to the Clinton precedent.

Whether it is accepted by the court, we will see.

I think DT is perfectly content to stretch this beyond the election, become POTUS, and then fire/prosecute everyone involved.

peace to you

 

[Van]

I've given you many breaks. You just don't realize it.


But he hasn't. And that fact you don't like the prosecutor does not make it "ex post facto," nor eliminate the copious evidence carefully presented in this indictment for the document crimes in Florida.

Moreover, this is likely just the first of at least two more federal indictments: (1) One for the documents that traveled to Bedminster (as well as revealing classified documents); and (2) for the January 6th activities.

There is also likely an indictment coming from Georgia for his post-election activities in August.

This has nothing to do with the Presidential Election, since these cases likely will not go to court until after the 2024 election.

Yes, the Godless left will gin up multiple false claims and send them one after the other, to create a storm of false charges. The question for you is why with the prosecutor"s record of fabricating charges by stretching the interpretation of existing law beyond recognition, and the FBI known record of manufacturing false evidence, would you not see the whole charade as a nothing burger?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Yes, the Godless left will gin up multiple false claims and send them one after the other, to create a storm of false charges.

The Godless right also gins up multiple false claims about their political enemies. But that’s not what we are talking about.

The question for you is why with the prosecutor"s record of fabricating charges by stretching the interpretation of existing law beyond recognition, and the FBI known record of manufacturing false evidence, would you not see the whole charade as a nothing burger?

For the sake of your question, I will pretend your wild accusations are true on their face.

I would not see this federal indictment as a “nothing burger” (a stupid phrase that I hate) since the indictment is based on things that Trump has claimed, the testimony of Trump’s attorneys, and physical evidence that has been well documented, including security videotape and audio recordings. There is also extensive testimony based on an extraordinary number of people who worked for Trump — including those who still work for him. And just about every time Trump makes a speech or gives an interview, he confirms aspects of the charges against him.

Person who have read the indictment and comprehended the charges understand those things. And no amount of weird ex post facto pocket veto ad hominem full stop arguments change those facts.

 

[Van]

The Godless right also gins up multiple false claims about their political enemies. But that’s not what we are talking about.
For the sake of your question, I will pretend your wild accusations are true on their face.
I would not see this federal indictment as a “nothing burger” (a stupid phrase that I hate) since the indictment is based on things that Trump has claimed, the testimony of Trump’s attorneys, and physical evidence that has been well documented, including security videotape and audio recordings. There is also extensive testimony based on an extraordinary number of people who worked for Trump — including those who still work for him. And just about every time Trump makes a speech or gives an interview, he confirms aspects of the charges against him.

Person who have read the indictment and comprehended the charges understand those things. And no amount of weird ex post facto pocket veto ad hominem full stop arguments change those facts.

I see that truth does not matter to those on the Left. FBI fabricated charges. Ignore. Ginned up law interpretation to create an ex post facto crime. Ignore. Suggest these facts are "wild accusations." You bet.

Once again a nothing burger is presented as if not a hoax. Time will tell.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I see that truth does not matter to those on the Left.

You are projecting your disdain for truth on me. I have documented everything, but you have only cited the first sentence of Article II of the Constitution, which is irrelevant to the issue. It seems that the one connecting with relevant evidence and the specifics of the indictment is the one who is concerned about truth. You have essentially stamped your foot repeatedly and screamed what you wish to be true, while claiming persecution for yourself and your leader, Donald Trump.

FBI fabricated charges.

Please provide a compelling argument that the FBI has fabricated evidence for this indictment. Trump has essentially confirmed almost every claim that the Special Prosecutor has made, so does the FBI control Donald Trump and his attorneys?

Ignore.

Not ignored. There’s just nothing to evaluate since you have providing no evidence except for your unsupported assertion.

Ginned up law interpretation to create an ex post facto crime.

The “interpretation” is quite standard. The Trump Administration prosecuted persons under these very statutes. Remember Reality Winner? She spent 66 months in federal prison for simply one count under the Espionage Act.

And you still haven’t learned what an ex post facto charge actually is. Are you coming up with this nonsense yourself or are you listening to some unhinged pundit that is feeding you this argument?

Ignore.

Not ignored at all. I dealt with it at length. Just because you decide not to agree doesn’t mean I ignored it.

Suggest these facts are "wild accusations." You bet.

It is much nicer than saying that they are less valuable than horse manure. I am trying to be charitable and take your seriously.

Once again a nothing burger is presented as if not a hoax.

It is not a hoax at all. Legal experts from across the political spectrum believe that this indictment is quite serious and will be very hard to fight for Trump’s defense attorneys. Many believe Trump will end up in prison due to his own recklessness.

Time will tell.

It will. If the interpretations of the law that I have presented are upheld and Trump is convicted, will you admit you were wrong?

 

[Van]

The denial that the FBI has fabricated evidence. And the request that I present such evidence. Note the claim this poster does not know perfectly well about the fabrication such as altering documents.

The claim the interpretation is "quite standard" has been challenged by Mr. Turley and others.

Offering absurdity is ignoring the reality.

I cite well documented facts and you call them names. Not your finest hour.

How many hoaxes does it take, to conclude the left uses one false charge after another.

Yes, which is probably more than I can expect from anyone on the Left.

 

[Baptist Believer]

The denial that the FBI has fabricated evidence.

I specified fabricated evidence regarding this indictment. You like to distort what I write.

And the request that I present such evidence.

A perfectly reasonable request. I’ve been presenting evidence all along.;

Note the claim this poster does not know perfectly well about the fabrication such as altering documents.

You are correct that I do not “know perfectly well” about FBI fabrication of documents. If there has been a case like that, it does not invalidate every other prosecution the FBI has ever attempted. Moreover, the Trump defense team would be well advised to hammer on any evidence supporting THIS indictment that may have been fabricated. Do you know of such fabrication in the evidence for the indictment?

“The claim the interpretation is "quite standard" has been challenged by Mr. Turley and others.”

Are you referring to Jonathan Turley who is all over the place with absurd theories, as well as explicitly saying the indictment is extremely serious? Do you agree with him there, or do you only agree with him when he says something you like?

I cite well documented facts and you call them names.

You apparently assume I live in the same news/punditry bubble in which you live. It should be clear that I don’t.

You don’t actually cite anything, you just reference them, expecting me to know what is going on in your mind. When you do cite things like a “pocket veto,” it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

I can’t help but notice that you are avoiding answering my question — “If the interpretations of the law that I have presented are upheld and Trump is convicted, will you admit you were wrong?”

It is not surprising. It would require you to have the courage of your convictions.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I specified fabricated evidence regarding this indictment. You like to distort what I write.


A perfectly reasonable request. I’ve been presenting evidence all along.;


You are correct that I do not “know perfectly well” about FBI fabrication of documents. If there has been a case like that, it does not invalidate every other prosecution the FBI has ever attempted. Moreover, the Trump defense team would be well advised to hammer on any evidence supporting THIS indictment that may have been fabricated. Do you know of such fabrication in the evidence for the indictment?


Are you referring to Jonathan Turley who is all over the place with absurd theories, as well as explicitly saying the indictment is extremely serious? Do you agree with him there, or do you only agree with him when he says something you like?


You apparently assume I live in the same news/punditry bubble in which you live. It should be clear that I don’t.

You don’t actually cite anything, you just reference them, expecting me to know what is going on in your mind. When you do cite things like a “pocket veto,” it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

I can’t help but notice that you are avoiding answering my question — “If the interpretations of the law that I have presented are upheld and Trump is convicted, will you admit you were wrong?”

It is not surprising. It would require you to have the courage of your convictions.

Of course… he is a PP aka a political pastor

pease to you irregardless

 

[Van]

I specified fabricated evidence regarding this indictment. You like to distort what I write.
I must have missed where you agreed that none of the present charges should be considered valid because the FBI has fabricated evidence against Mr. Trump repeatedly.

A perfectly reasonable request. I’ve been presenting evidence all along.;
You have not presented any evidence such as SCOTUS rejecting his distortions of the law in the past.
SNIP

 

[Baptist Believer]

I must have missed where you agreed that none of the present charges should be considered valid because the FBI has fabricated evidence against Mr. Trump repeatedly.

I have missed where you established such a thing AND demonstrated why the evidence for this indictment (collected from Trump’s own statements, his attorneys, physical evidence, and audio and visual records) may have been fabricated.

You have not presented any evidence such as SCOTUS rejecting his distortions of the law in the past.

You make a vague reference to something and then condemn me for not bringing it up. That’s a desperate rhetorical move.

I did a little research (since you seem to be afraid of it) and I think you are unknowingly making a reference to McDonnell v. United States. If you were to read the decision AND the issues around it, you would know that there was no unique interpretation or “stretching” of the interpretation of the law (in this case, the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201). It had been the standard interpretation of the law for a number of years. After the Supreme Court vacated part of McDonnell’s conviction on those counts, a number of previous bribery convictions unrelated to Jack Smith’s prosecution were also overturned, including the notorious case of William Jefferson.

So your assertion that Jack Smith is somehow a rogue prosecutor based on losing in the Supreme Court is completely without merit.

And for the third time — “If the interpretations of the law that I have presented are upheld and Trump is convicted, will you admit you were wrong?”

I'm not planning to ask again. I'll just let your lack of confidence in your own arguments stand for itself.

 

[Van]

I have missed where you established such a thing SNIP .

There is no need to me to argue with a stone wall. The left manufactured evidence, such as altering documents, and you simply say "taint so."

 

[Baptist Believer]

There is no need to me to argue with a stone wall.

Coming from you, that's quite funny.

Go live your best life.

 

[Van]

Coming from you, that's quite funny.

Go live your best life.

Yet another post addressing me and not the topic.

I must have missed where you agreed that none of the present charges should be considered valid because the FBI has fabricated evidence against Mr. Trump repeatedly.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Update on the “Documents” case:

The trial date for Trump’s “documents” case has been set to begin on May 20, 2024. Of course, Judge Cannon can adjust the date according to the interests of justice.

Prosecutor, Jack Smith, has informed the court he has 84 potential witnesses lined up for the prosecution, although the list has not been released to the public.

The next year will likely be very busy for former President Trump and his attorneys.

An indictment from the State of Georgia will likely to be released by August 2023, which may have numerous defendants including Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Lindsay Graham, and other high- and low-profile persons.

About a week ago, Trump announced that he had received a target letter from prosecutor, Jack Smith, regarding issues related to January 6th, the “stolen election” allegations, and the fake electors scheme. There is speculation that Smith is attempting to file his federal charges regarding similar allegations and evidence against Trump before Willis’ state-level charges. However, that remains unknown since neither indictment has been released.

I will continue to make updates as this story develops.

 

[canadyjd]

Well, the special counsel added charges in the documents case AND Trump has now been indicted for January 6 riots.

I haven’t seen the charges yet for January 6, but I suspect treason, sedition and the DOJ will seek the death penalty. Nothing else will satisfy the radicals in our justice department

On the other hand, DT says he will run for POTUS even if he is convicted and sent to prison and is confident he will still win.

And he could be right.

We live in very interesting times.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Well, the special counsel added charges in the documents case AND Trump has now been indicted for January 6 riots.

I haven’t seen the charges yet for January 6, but I suspect treason, sedition and the DOJ will seek the death penalty. Nothing else will satisfy the radicals in our justice department

On the other hand, DT says he will run for POTUS even if he is convicted and sent to prison and is confident he will still win.

And he could be right.

We live in very interesting times.

peace to you

From what I have seen the Jan 6 issue was that the riots were due to Trump lying (Trump was repeatedly informdd, from documents brought up, that he had lost the election but he kept on stating otherwise and many Trump supporters believed him).

I don't think they can get him on insurrection or even rioting (he publicly told people to act peacefully). But the riots were a result of a number of people believing his misinformation.

That said, all Trump should have to do is say "I didn't believe the information".

 

[Wingman68]

 

[JonC]

View attachment 8292



View attachment 8293

I don't see how they could charge him with insurrection.

If they could, then why not charge Biden with insurrection as his lies also led to the riots as well (it wasn't an insurrection).

 

[KenH]

If they could, then why not charge Biden with insurrection as his lies also led to the riots as well (it wasn't an insurrection).

When was that?

 

[KenH]

A 2024 rerun of Joe Biden vs. Donald Trump would be a lose-lose situation for the United States. The two major political parties desperately need to do better.