Trump Indictment Watch

Garmel said:
First of all, the FBI the first time around said they couldn't find them. Trump said they couldn't either. There's only 100 left. The court will have to prove that they lied on purpose which is difficult. All of this is moot anyway because when Trump took them home they were declassified and they are his.
Click to expand...

That's not how "declassification" works...for the thousandth time. There is an official legal process, as there should be. Trump is such a bad and obvious liar.

It's like he calls "backboard" after the shot and then argues about having the right to call backboard. You have to "declassify" before you take them from the WH. It's a pretty simple rule. And the POTUS does not have the right to claim anything he wants is his property. That would be rather stupid.
 
Runnin said:
That's not how "declassification" works...for the thousandth time. There is an official legal process, as there should be. Trump is such a bad and obvious liar.

It's like he calls "backboard" after the shot and then argues about having the right to call backboard. You have to "declassify" before you take them from the WH. It's a pretty simple rule. And the POTUS does not have the right to claim anything he wants is his property. That would be rather stupid.
Click to expand...

There's no binding official process for the president. NARA assumed that Bill Clinton had declassified his stuff by just taking them home. Read Judicial Watch vs. NARA.

President's power isn't absolute. NARA can take him to court at any time over anything he has declassified or taken.

The system does seem to be too lax. I will agree with that.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
No

[tw]1665892621716430849[/tw]
Click to expand...


How do you define a non crime? Violating a law is crime whether it has a criminal punishment in it or not. Even if everything Trump has is ruled to be his personal records he legally has the right to keep its still a crime to obstruct a subpoena for them.


I find the OLC opinion to be suspect. It says Trump attempted to "modify" the investigation not obstruct it with criminal intent but thats a whole separate argument. It says it was an attempt to modify the investigation not criminally obstruct the investigation because it was efforts to impair or intentionally alter evidence(documentary or testimonial) that would negatively impact the Special Counsels ability to obtain and develop evidence. This is only really relevant if there is no underlying crime. I expect there will be an underlying crime so that really all goes out the window.


Beyond all that the defense against obstruction in that memo is outright laughable. To say there was no corrupt intent in firing Comey or that Trump saying he "hopes" Comey would leave Flynn alone was not clearly directing an action is ridiculous. I could boil it all down to "well its not an open and shut case so it shouldnt be brought" is how I would summarize it. Which I agree its not an open and shut case, but you have to be a very naive person to believe Trumps defenses on these issues. What the memo amounts to is saying that a person who successfully obstructs an investigation can not be charged with obstructing an investigation because they didnt find an underlying crime. But as I said, its a moot point so long as there is an underlying crime which I expect there will be in this case.
 
Garmel said:
There's no binding official process for the president. NARA assumed that Bill Clinton had declassified his stuff by just taking them home. Read Judicial Watch vs. NARA.

President's power isn't absolute. NARA can take him to court at any time over anything he has declassified or taken.

The system does seem to be too lax. I will agree with that.
Click to expand...


Even if we accept all that, how would you defend a tape of Trump admitting the document he is showing off is classified. And as I have said the issue of classification will go to the Supreme Court where you can not remotely claim he wont get a fair hearing. He appointed a third of the court and theres a conservative majority. We can probably just assume Clarence Thomas will rule for Trump no matter what to appease his wife and the Liberal Judges will vote against Trump. So it really comes down to how the other 4 conservative judges rule. Trump needs all of them to rule in his favor.
 
Last edited:
cajunrevenge said:
How do you define a non crime? Violating a law is crime whether it has a criminal punishment in it or not. Even if everything Trump has is ruled to be his personal records he legally has the right to keep its still a crime to obstruct a subpoena for them.
Click to expand...

The correct process is for NARA to take him to court over it. The court doesn't have the authority to issue subpoenas at this point since it's assumed it's his. Now, if NARA wins the case they can take the documents back.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Even if we accept all that, how would you defend a tape of Trump admitting the document he is showing off is classified. And as I have said the issue of classification will go to the Supreme Court where you can not remotely claim he wont get a fair hearing. He appointed a third of the court and theres a conservative majority. We can probably just assume Clarence Thomas will rule for Trump no matter what to appease his wife and the Liberal Judges will vote against Trump. So it really comes down to how the other 4 conservative judges rule. Trump needs all of them to rule in his favor.
Click to expand...

We'll cross that bridge when we get there. First of all, let's wait until that tape is actually found out to be real.
 
Again, this isnt about NARA. This is about classified and national security documents. Trump did not say "yes I have these documents but no they arent classified or national security documents for whatever reason". He said no I dont have them and I couldnt find them after a diligent search. He is making this argument AFTER being caught with them. He had a legal process to make his arguments. He declined to do so at the appropriate time. I watch a lot of interrogation videos by police. This is like a person denying they killed someone then after caught saying they did it in self defense. Self defense is a legitimate argument. That the person didnt make that argument until they were caught red handed killing the person kind of makes that excuse hard to believe.
 
Did he really have someone drain the pool into the office to destroy the surveillance tapes...and it ultimately didn't even work?

I hope that didn't happen.
 
Tapate50 said:
Right? 4d chess man.

You seem to have the best grasp of all of this.

I would push my chips in with ya
Click to expand...

Thanks. According to the law I am correct but that isn't going to stop the DOJ from going after Trump. He'll more than likely be indicted.
 
Last edited:
Merrick Garland is the biggest POS we've ever had as an AG and that's saying something. Going after Biden's enemies and letting the lib protestors illegally protest at the SCOTUS homes is despicable. Thank God for McConnell for keeping this clown off the Supreme Court.
 
It is just unfathomable that anyone can look at everything in context and think Trump is a victim. Even if we accept you peoples twilight zone opinions Trump has advocated for lawfare against anyone who says something he doesnt like from the start of his political career. So even with the worst interpretation of events I wouldnt feel an ounce of sympathy for Trump. No one has advocated for lawfare against political opponents more than Donald Trump.
 
Who did Trump go after? Lotsa election talk that's all. You would had a point if Barr went after Trump's enemies but he didn't.
 
Garmel said:
Who did Trump go after? Lotsa election talk that's all. You would had a point if Barr went after Trump's enemies but he didn't.
Click to expand...


Are you serious? The Durham witch hunt to go after Hillary? The Ukraine call and everything else to "get Biden" going into 2020 election. He has constantly put pressure on Lady G to use the Senate Intel committee to "get Biden". He even admitted to telling Barr to go after Hillary a few days ago but Barr told him no.




Whatever you think of Biden, and I think he is a stupid piece if **** even in his prime, I have no doubt he has no involvement in anyone going after Trump.
 
Tapate50 said:
I mean if you are gonna cite examples maybe pick some folks a little cleaner than the Clintons?
Click to expand...


By legal standards they are clean. Two of the most investigated people on the history of the country. I think they are crooks personally but I apply the same standard to Trump and I get attacked by the rapid response team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top