Trump Indictment Watch

cajunrevenge said:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...source=reddit.com#Echobox=1686166165primaries.




Trump supposedly will be charged under Section 793 of the espionage act which doesn't require the documents to be classified. It also applies even if he had a legal right to have the documents which makes any arguments about PRA a moot point.
Click to expand...

"Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation"

They'll have to prove Trump was deliberately trying to hurt the country. That's going to be quite difficult to prove. I mean, DC will go along with that but the SCOTUS will laugh their ass off at it.
 
Garmel said:
"Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation"

They'll have to prove Trump was deliberately trying to hurt the country. That's going to be quite difficult to prove. I mean, DC will go along with that but the SCOTUS will laugh their ass off at it.
Click to expand...

I think its posturing- if they do file charges on 793 its proves its just to discredit his 2024 run and that is all.
 
Garmel said:
"Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation"

They'll have to prove Trump was deliberately trying to hurt the country. That's going to be quite difficult to prove. I mean, DC will go along with that but the SCOTUS will laugh their ass off at it.
Click to expand...


Much like the NY jury that voted to convict Trump of rape because they hate him so much?
 
Tapate50 said:
I think its posturing- if they do file charges on 793 its proves its just to discredit his 2024 run and that is all.
Click to expand...


Thats a novel concept considering Trump only gets more popular with you people when he is in legal trouble. Every time its "This is helping Trump, he's more popular that ever, look at his polls going up, look at the money he is raising over this". Then when he loses all of a sudden you blame that which you people claimed was helping him. Every. Single. Time.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Much like the NY jury that voted to convict Trump of rape because they hate him so much?
Click to expand...

They voted to give her the money with laughable evidence to back it up. The woman is totally cuckoo for cocoa puffs and hardly believable. In a sane region of the U.S. she would have gotten zilch.
 
Garmel said:
They voted to give her the money with laughable evidence to back it up. The woman is totally cuckoo for cocoa puffs and hardly believable. In a sane region of the U.S. she would have gotten zilch.
Click to expand...

But you told me they hated Trump so much they would convict on any charges. Caroll provided her testimony and they had several other people give testify to Trump doing similar things to them. They also had Trumps admission to "grabbing women by the pussy" audio tape as well as Trumps deposition where he said powerful people have gotten away with that type of behavior for a thousand years...."unfortunately, or fortunately. Which may be the most incriminating statement in a deposition other than outright confessing. Trump chose not to testify and provided no defense. So we have 3 accusers. Trump on tape saying he does it. And the deposition of Trump saying people like himself get away with doing it..."unfortunately, or fortunately"..... vs no defense by Trump. Do you understand that in a civil case the burden of proof only has to be better than 50/50 and not beyond a reasonable doubt? You think Hillary should be convicted of crimes that other people confessed to because "she is a liar" despite no convictions like perjury in her history but I bet you think it would be absurd for the civil jury to not believe Trump because he is a pathological liar.
 
Last edited:
cajunrevenge said:
Thats a novel concept considering Trump only gets more popular with you people when he is in legal trouble. Every time its "This is helping Trump, he's more popular that ever, look at his polls going up, look at the money he is raising over this". Then when he loses all of a sudden you blame that which you people claimed was helping him. Every. Single. Time.
Click to expand...

What

Take a deep breath man.
 
cajunrevenge said:
But you told me they hated Trump so much they would convict on any charges. Caroll provided her testimony and they had several other people give testify to Trump doing similar things to them. They also had Trumps admission to "grabbing women by the pussy" audio tape as well as Trumps deposition where he said powerful people have gotten away with that type of behavior for a thousand years...."unfortunately, or fortunately. Which may be the most incriminating statement in a deposition other than outright confessing. Trump chose not to testify and provided no defense. So we have 3 accusers. Trump on tape saying he does it. And the deposition of Trump saying people like himself get away with doing it..."unfortunately, or fortunately"..... vs no defense by Trump. Do you understand that in a civil case the burden of proof only has to be better than 50/50 and not beyond a reasonable doubt? You think Hillary should be convicted of crimes that other people confessed to because "she is a liar" despite no convictions like perjury in her history but I bet you think it would be absurd for the civil jury to not believe Trump because he is a pathological liar.
Click to expand...

How can Trump have a defense if she can't even name the year it happened? That's the problem in all of this.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
i did indeed notice its presence in b and c, and absence in d, e, f, g and h
Click to expand...

You'll notice that all of them except "f" either refers to a previous clause or has the "injury to the U.S." clause there. The "F" shouldn't pertain to Trump because he has no superior officer.
 
Garmel said:
How can Trump have a defense if she can't even name the year it happened? That's the problem in all of this.
Click to expand...


She didnt remember the exact year. Two people testified that she told them about the attack and identified the year as 1996. Beyond that Trump lied about having never met her and he said she wasnt his type but confused her in a photo for his ex-wife. In any civil case the jury is almost always going to find the person willing to testify under the penalty of perjury more trustworthy than the person who refuses to do so. I bet Trump wanted to testify. He even said he was leaving his rundown golf course early to go confront her in court. No lawyer worth anything would let Trump testify under oath in court because he is a pathological liar.
 
Trump did not lie about meeting her or at least it can't be proven he did. I've been in a group photograph of people before without knowing them.

Spring of 1996. What's the date? Trump can't even have an alibi.

A person with mental problems can just make stuff up and tell friends about it. The woman has no credibility.

I can make a story and say that you raped me and and tell it to a couple friends for the hell of it. 25 years later I take you to court and I take you to the cleaners. Let's see how fair you think that would be. That's just a scenario but in reality I wouldn't have a chance because you aren't Trump.
 
Last edited:
There exists few people on this earth with less credibility than Trump and most of them do Meth and Crack. Why didn't the jury vote to convict on the rape charge if they were out to get Trump?
 
There's no "convict" here since it's a civil trial. All they cared about was getting cash out of Trump. Going this route also will help in the appellate courts.
 
Garmel said:
[tw]1593846025508118529[/tw]
Click to expand...

This was a ruling that changed precedent for what's considered an "official act". So Jack Smith was only following the legal precedent that had been set by many convictions. I don't know how you would expect Smith to know the Supreme Court would change the precedent already set. The court didn't weigh in on whether that exonerated McDonnell. It just narrowed the definition for "official act" thus requiring vacating the conviction with state having the options to retry the case if they wanted.



You just regurgitate anything from your overlords without even looking into it.
 
Garmel said:
There's no "convict" here since it's a civil trial. All they cared about was getting cash out of Trump. Going this route also will help in the appellate courts.
Click to expand...



Conviction. Guilty. It's semantics. The jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll. Happy? All they wanted was to get money out of Trump but they voted no on the rape accusation which would have generated the most money for Carroll. In what world does that make sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top