Trump indicted….again
- Thread starter dbmhoosier
- Start date
I'm hoping the number of idiots that vote for him for being indicted is lower than you think.
God help us all if not.
He’s allowed to take any Presidential Record he wants, classified or not, per the Presidential Records Act. If they requested something back that he couldn’t have and he refused to give it back show us the formal request? His team has claimed they gave everything back that was requested. There is no crime.
And Hillary intentionally committed real crimes. The Presidential Records Act didn’t apply to her. She destroyed evidence too.
Well, let's face it..... that applies to all politicians.
Man...have we not learned anything in the last 7 years? There are tons of people, and not just the stereotypical "Trumpers"...that started following him BECAUSE of the birther comments. There are more that started following him BECAUSE of his Mexican immigrant comments. And ironically, there are tons that cemented their following because of his "lock her up" chants. His popularity defies anything that's ever been seen before.
The reason he's even a "thing", mainly, though is the faulty view that he's somehow championing the common man...fighting against the DC machine..."draining the swamp". What do you think is going to happen when these indictments don't end his candidacy, and/or don't end with him in jail?
I can feel the anger, energy, excitement already for his rallies. He won't even have to have debates...all he'll need to say is something like..."I'm not doing them. They're put on by the same people that indicted me." He'll get about 30-40 million "hell yeahs!"...
I don't want to be right about this one...but I fear I will be.
You can't be sure about that. I remember stories reported on this forum during the last election about Democrats switching sides and helping get candidates that supported Trump nominated as the Republican candidate. It would be good strategy to switch sides and try to get Trump nominated if it was obvious who the Democrat nominee was gonna be.
Uh, are you sure a felony conviction even would disqualify Trump from serving as President under the Constitution?
No one is limiting your choices. Despite what Trump said yesterday about hoping to disprove the charges "swiftly", it is virtually certain that he will not go to trial before the 2024 election. He will again stall his legal proceedings by filing several appeals. He will not be a felon before the 2024 election.
So, you will still have all your same choices to vote for Trump next year.
Hmm, it appears the Presidential Records Act states that all official records are owned by the National Achives.
First sentence is "Presidential Records Act - States that the United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of all Presidential records".
Second paragraph:
Requires the Archivist to assume custody, control, and preservation of and access to the records of a President upon the conclusion of the President's term of office; making such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible. Requires the Archivist to place such records in a Presidential archival depository or another facility operated by the United States. Authorizes the Archivist to designate, after consultation with the President, a director for each depository or facility.
If your take is true, why did he say he shouldn't have the one document (assuming the transcript is accurate)?
He can take any Presidential Record he wants. If the National Archives wants something back that’s to be negotiated between them and the Trump team. There is no criminal component to the Presidential Records Act.
And say he had some highly important document they wanted back. Why did they wait until 18 months after he left office to request it back?
The bolded points are really everything here.
1) We'll see what's in the indictment at some point soon. I suspect, however, that they could show the formal request AND have audio/video clearly implicating him in a crime and there is a not small number of people that simply would not care.
2) His team claiming they didn't commit a crime so there is no crime is a tautology and logically invalid. "His team has claimed they gave everything requested, if true there is no crime" is closer to a valid argument although we can't be 100% sure since we have insufficient information on what the evidence is or even what the charge is. Why are you giving such deference to what his team is claiming? In the history of criminal defense teams, admitting to their client's wrongdoing out of the gate is typically not a winning strategy.
Presumably that would be easy to figure out. Which primary you vote in isn't a confidential record, only who you voted for. If there were a large uptick in party switching that's statistically significant over normal years then it would be really easy to prove. The fact that it's been a conventional wisdom thing as opposed to being shown indicates to me that it's more legend than fact.
Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true.
The point went right over your head. It doesn't take a large majority to create a revolution.
We all want to see the evidence, especially to learn if there are any named, alleged co-conspirators, who probably would be looking out for themselves at this point and beyond Trump's control. (Minor co-conspirators tend to flip.).
As for the audio, I think I read it was recorded on a laptop on a conference table during a meeting, by someone who was to take the minutes of the meeting. This suggests there may be other recordings of Trump's voice at other meetings. Who knows what other recordings they may have.
And, didn't one of Trump's lawyers sign a letter to the govt. saying incorrectly that Trump had returned all the subject documents to the Archives? I bet she wants to explain how she did that innocently.
Maybe Trump just didn't notice the bright red and yellow markings on the documents:
He's not a detail-oriented guy, you know.
Destroying classified is a much worse offense. That's not even a question.
Senators who remove classified documents without authorization is a crime. That's not even a question. And don't say him turning them over - after decades - is an excuse. It's not - he knew removing classified docs violated the law.
Either charge everyone or charge no one. Just stop the 2-tier system of justice in this country.
??
explain, please, with links to the statute
"Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office".
Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978
The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2209, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents that were created or received after January 20, 1981 (i.e., beginning with the Reagan Administration). The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of...
www.archives.gov
So now you're shaping the crime to fit the charge.
You don't think Biden knew he was taking classified docs as a Senator? He wasn't always the doddering fool he is today.
Last edited:
Clinton didn't do that when he had tapes in his sock drawer.??
explain, please, with links to the statute
"Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office".
Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978
The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2209, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents that were created or received after January 20, 1981 (i.e., beginning with the Reagan Administration). The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of...
Hypocrite.
He didn't refuse to give them back. He gave back many of them and then was in discussions to give back the rest when Mar a Lago was raided by the Gestapo.
I don't think you can evaluate this until we know whether there are any other co-conspirators or co-defendants.
It'll be hard for Trump to claim he is a martyr if other conspirators and defendants say, "Yeah, we did it."
"Yeah, that's right. That's exactly what that creep Sammy Gravano did to me."
-- Signed John Gotti
The PRESIDENT can take records. All permissions are tied to the job, not to the man. The second he stopped being president, he lost all permissions and clearances.
Here is a sentence I put up before,
Requires the Archivist to assume custody, control, and preservation of and access to the records of a President upon the conclusion of the President's term of office;
Once a President leaves office, the National Archives everything. Now you mention the archives requesting things back, THEY DID. There were multiple letters sent.
The other part of that is classified, Donald Trump has NO security clearance. None. Zip, Zero. Nor does Joe Biden. POTUS has all the security. The second Donald Trump lost the presidency, he lost the ability to see or possess classified information. Now the current president can extend security clearance to a former president, and most times ex-presidents receive security briefings. Biden did not allow this for Trump.
If you don't like the actual act, the man who serves as litigator for the National Archives says this, "No president has the right to retain presidential records after he or she leaves office."
I've shown my hand, the actual law and the litigator for archives. Show me where an ex-president is allowed to keep what they want.
I don't know the timeline. I thought the raid occurred right after the subpoena was issued.
Point is, the subpoena shouldn't have been issued if there were still discussions between Trump and the National Archives.
A felony conviction is not a disqualifier under the Constitution. I think it highly unlikely he goes to trial before the 2024 election, even though he should. Would have been funny had they figured out a way to file in the Eastern District of Virginia - the dreaded Rocket Docket.
I think you overestimate the intelligence of his followers. He could convince them that he was a martyr after confessing and wearing a shirt for a month that says "i'm guilty"
I'll add that people in the executive branch screw this up all the time. All. The. Time.
We're going to hear about ad nauseam with Biden or Pence being found to have classified records. Pulling back the curtain for a moment, the FBI doesn't care about people in high positions screwing up. They certainly won't make a federal case out of it. It's only a thing if/when they're getting effed with by the person. If they had said, "we think you took some records with you by mistake, can we have those back" and the response was "whoops, sure did, here ya go" then absolutely none of this would be happening. No MAL raid (which, not for nothing, the FBI didn't publicize anyway, the former POTUS did), no grand jury, no indictment, nothing. It's a big ol' nothing if a mistake is made and rectified in a reasonable manner. Again, we'll have to wait and see on the indictment and evidence, but I would expect to see a situation that is the opposite of a reasonable manner.
I bet they'll get a change of judge or they will just end up appealing her rulings like they did before.
