Trump indicted fopr stealing docs

[wbtravis007]

The investgations did uncover crimes, but they were passed on because "she didn't intend to break the law". That is one of the differnces Flock and many of us are frustrated with. With Trump, no grace, with Democrats, nothing but grace.

Wrong. Specific intent was an element of the crimes being investigated. If she didn't have that specific intent, she didn't break the law.

In Donny's case, however, it does not appear the prosecution will have any difficulty proving his specific intent. So I'll ask you again: If Donny did what he's alleged to have done, including but not limited to in paragraph 6 of the indictment, should have have been prosecuted? --Bob

Hillary didn't have specific intent to destroy the servers or smash her phones? It was all by accident? RiiiIIIiiiight. Get your head out of your butt. No Trump shouldn't be charged until previous crimes that should have been investigated and the perpetrators charged are prosecuted first. First come first serve. That includes the thousands that illegally enter our country, the thousands who streal and destroy business in your state that are allowed to do so without fear of proscecution by folks you support, and so on. I believe justice should be blind and the fact that the current DOJ has those blindfolds off of her, anything she does is "fruit of the poisoned tree" or whatever term you use to let folks off on technicallities.

Flock topped you, too. But just barely.

[BackInTex]

Wrong. Specific intent was an element of the crimes being investigated. If she didn't have that specific intent, she didn't break the law.

In Donny's case, however, it does not appear the prosecution will have any difficulty proving his specific intent. So I'll ask you again: If Donny did what he's alleged to have done, including but not limited to in paragraph 6 of the indictment, should have have been prosecuted? --Bob

Hillary didn't have specific intent to destroy the servers or smash her phones? It was all by accident? RiiiIIIiiiight. Get your head out of your butt. No Trump shouldn't be charged until previous crimes that should have been investigated and the perpetrators charged are prosecuted first. First come first serve. That includes the thousands that illegally enter our country, the thousands who streal and destroy business in your state that are allowed to do so without fear of proscecution by folks you support, and so on. I believe justice should be blind and the fact that the current DOJ has those blindfolds off of her, anything she does is "fruit of the poisoned tree" or whatever term you use to let folks off on technicallities.

Flock topped you, too. But just barely.

Oh wow! I must try harder. You inspire me by your tenaciousness to get ahead of PastorFireball as the least relevant person to this bored, and society. I think you might just make it.

[Bob78164]

Apparently BiT is writing columns for Yahoo! under a pseudonym. Possibly with help from others here. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Looks like trollboy is back.

Love the wonderful, over the top, repeat what I have been told to and don't think about it anymore responses. Thinking is hard. Why bother when someone else has already told you what to say?

Hey bobby, Did Trump collude with Russia?

[silverscreenselect]

Thinking is hard. Why bother when someone else has already told you what to say?

That must be your daily mantra.

[flockofseagulls104]

Thinking is hard. Why bother when someone else has already told you what to say?

That must be your daily mantra.

Hmm, Variation on your clever look-in-the-mirror meme. I guess it's back to the ignore list for you. Never anything new or noteworthy. never any introspection. Never anything remotely clever or humorous. Never thinking for yourself. [Or is it 'fopr'? A new preferred preposition?] Never budging an inch from your appointed narrative to consider anything else. Just the same old bull. Just talking points you search for and post or paraphrase and, of course, personal insults. Not interesting at all. Dull.

[wbtravis007]

Hillary didn't have specific intent to destroy the servers or smash her phones? It was all by accident? RiiiIIIiiiight. Get your head out of your butt. No Trump shouldn't be charged until previous crimes that should have been investigated and the perpetrators charged are prosecuted first. First come first serve. That includes the thousands that illegally enter our country, the thousands who streal and destroy business in your state that are allowed to do so without fear of proscecution by folks you support, and so on. I believe justice should be blind and the fact that the current DOJ has those blindfolds off of her, anything she does is "fruit of the poisoned tree" or whatever term you use to let folks off on technicallities.

Flock topped you, too. But just barely.

Oh wow! I must try harder. You inspire me by your tenaciousness to get ahead of PastorFireball as the least relevant person to this bored, and society. I think you might just make it.

So, I totally get your point about my relevance on this board. I’m wondering, though, about whether, when you say “and society,”you’re talking about, like, the society pages of a newspaper, or, say, the planet.

I always appreciate constructive criticism, so I hope that you’ll clarify this for me so that I can take it into account while I’m introspecting. (Just so you’ll know: I took Flock’s advice about introspecting, and you wouldn’t believe what a difference it’s made in my life! Evidently not reflected here, but still.)

[Estonut]

Apparently BiT is writing columns for Yahoo! under a pseudonym. Possibly with help from others here.

I guess you didn't make it past the headline...

• The article is from USA Today, not Yahoo!
• You didn't detect any tongue in the author's cheek? This was clearly not written by a Republican.

[silverscreenselect]

I guess it's back to the ignore list for you.

Flock ignores a lot of other things, like any facts that get in the way of his selected narrative. Or he pretends they never happened, as seems to be the case with the 2000 mules that were to be exposed in Operation Dumbo Drop. He even ignores the fact that there is an ongoing Special Counsel investigation, with a veteran Republican prosecutor in charge, of the documents found in Biden's home and offices, just so he can keep making the claim that the system is rigged against Republicans.

[jarnon]

Flock ignores a lot of other things, like any facts that get in the way of his selected narrative. Or he pretends they never happened, as seems to be the case with the 2000 mules that were to be exposed in Operation Dumbo Drop. He even ignores the fact that there is an ongoing Special Counsel investigation, with a veteran Republican prosecutor in charge, of the documents found in Biden's home and offices, just so he can keep making the claim that the system is rigged against Republicans.

There’s also an investigation, led by a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney, of Hunter’s business dealings and laptop.

Keep in mind that Flock views the critical political struggle in this country as the swamp (mainstream Democrats and Republicans and career civil servants) vs. the champions of traditional values.

[wbtravis007]

Apparently BiT is writing columns for Yahoo! under a pseudonym. Possibly with help from others here.

I guess you didn't make it past the headline...

• The article is from USA Today, not Yahoo!
• You didn't detect any tongue in the author's cheek? This was clearly not written by a Republican.

I think you’re right that “someone” isn’t very good at recognizing a tongue in a cheek here.

Not bob many numbers, though.

[Bob78164]

Apparently BiT is writing columns for Yahoo! under a pseudonym. Possibly with help from others here.

I guess you didn't make it past the headline...

• The article is from USA Today, not Yahoo!
• You didn't detect any tongue in the author's cheek? This was clearly not written by a Republican.

I guess you missed my point. This obvious parody is indistinguishable from what BiT has been saying here in all seriousness. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Apparently BiT is writing columns for Yahoo! under a pseudonym. Possibly with help from others here.

I guess you didn't make it past the headline...

• The article is from USA Today, not Yahoo!
• You didn't detect any tongue in the author's cheek? This was clearly not written by a Republican.

I guess you missed my point. This obvious parody is indistinguishable from what BiT has been saying here in all seriousness. --Bob

Not even close to what I've said, but then again, your ability (or perhaps willingness) to look beyond your own prejucices does not exist in this realm.

[Weyoun]

I guess you didn't make it past the headline...

• The article is from USA Today, not Yahoo!
• You didn't detect any tongue in the author's cheek? This was clearly not written by a Republican.

I guess you missed my point. This obvious parody is indistinguishable from what BiT has been saying here in all seriousness. --Bob

Not even close to what I've said, but then again, your ability (or perhaps willingness) to look beyond your own prejucices does not exist in this realm.

Quick question. If you had classified documents, such as military plans to invade Iran, and you left them in your bathroom, and you let your friends look at them, would you be arrested? I am not worried about Trump or Hillary Clinton. I’m just asking your opinion on whether not you would be arrested for sharing military secrets in your bathroom. I am just trying to get a sense as to whether not you think some bad or illegal or both happened, and not your opinion about the FBI picking on a billionaire.

[Weyoun]

Thinking is hard. Why bother when someone else has already told you what to say?

That must be your daily mantra.

Hmm, Variation on your clever look-in-the-mirror meme. I guess it's back to the ignore list for you. Never anything new or noteworthy. never any introspection. Never anything remotely clever or humorous. Never thinking for yourself. [Or is it 'fopr'? A new preferred preposition?] Never budging an inch from your appointed narrative to consider anything else. Just the same old bull. Just talking points you search for and post or paraphrase and, of course, personal insults. Not interesting at all. Dull.

Quick question. If you had classified documents, such as military plans to invade Iran, and you left them in your bathroom, and you let your friends look at them, would you be arrested? I am not worried about Trump or Hillary Clinton. I’m just asking your opinion on whether not you would be arrested for sharing military secrets in your bathroom. I am just trying to get a sense as to whether not you think some bad or illegal or both happened, and not your opinion about the FBI picking on a billionaire.

[Bob78164]

I guess you missed my point. This obvious parody is indistinguishable from what BiT has been saying here in all seriousness. --Bob

Not even close to what I've said, but then again, your ability (or perhaps willingness) to look beyond your own prejucices does not exist in this realm.

Quick question. If you had classified documents, such as military plans to invade Iran, and you left them in your bathroom, and you let your friends look at them, would you be arrested? I am not worried about Trump or Hillary Clinton. I’m just asking your opinion on whether not you would be arrested for sharing military secrets in your bathroom. I am just trying to get a sense as to whether not you think some bad or illegal or both happened, and not your opinion about the FBI picking on a billionaire.

Wrong hypothetical. Donny wasn't charged with merely possessing them.

If you had those documents, the government demanded them back, and you claimed you returned everything you had, knowing that was false, and you moved documents around in an effort to hid them from the government, and if you decided to talk about the contents of those military plans to random friends and an interviewer from the press, knowing that the documents were still classified and that the friends and interviewer weren't cleared to have that information, would you be arrested and charged? --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Not even close to what I've said, but then again, your ability (or perhaps willingness) to look beyond your own prejucices does not exist in this realm.

Quick question. If you had classified documents, such as military plans to invade Iran, and you left them in your bathroom, and you let your friends look at them, would you be arrested? I am not worried about Trump or Hillary Clinton. I’m just asking your opinion on whether not you would be arrested for sharing military secrets in your bathroom. I am just trying to get a sense as to whether not you think some bad or illegal or both happened, and not your opinion about the FBI picking on a billionaire.

Wrong hypothetical. Donny wasn't charged with merely possessing them.

If you had those documents, the government demanded them back, and you claimed you returned everything you had, knowing that was false, and you moved documents around in an effort to hid them from the government, and if you decided to talk about the contents of those military plans to random friends and an interviewer from the press, knowing that the documents were still classified and that the friends and interviewer weren't cleared to have that information, would you be arrested and charged? --Bob

So, I guess, Mr. Above Average Lawyer, we now take it for granted that we judge the case in the media, based solely on what the prosecution tells us? From a prosecutor who is completely biased against who he is prosecuting, appointed by the same Justice Department who goes after parents at school board meetings as domestic terrorists, and refuses to investigate or prosecute any of the multiple serious charges against prominent democrats? And who wasted our time, money and deliberately sabotaged the Trump administration by pushing Hillary's hoax about Russian collusion for 4 + years? And by the same ilk of people who deliberately and outrageously LIED to the American people about Hunter Biden's laptop? Oh, and from the same swamp creatures that gave us the Jan 6th Star Chamber?

But you still take their word as gospel. You are quite the fool. And they count on people like you.

President Trump laid out how he was going to defend himself against these charges in a speech he gave at Bedminster. The Usual Suspect media decided YOU did not need to see that. They get to decide all the things you don't need to see. And you let them. Saves you from having to think for yourself.

And BTW, for the 100th time... Did Trump collude with Russia?

[silverscreenselect]

So, I guess, Mr. Above Average Lawyer, we now take it for granted that we judge the case in the media, based solely on what the prosecution tells us? From a prosecutor who is completely biased against who he is prosecuting,

Donald Trump is entitled to his day in court where he can attempt to explain the boxes of documents in the bathroom and the ballroom stage. But this indictment was issued by the grand jury, a group of ordinary citizens in South Florida, and not by Democratic prosecutors. As far as Jack Smith's "completely biased" against Trump, I guess that's based on the assumption that anyone who prosecutes a criminal defendant is completely biased against them. Smith has only made one very brief statement about the case and has said nothing else. As for his record, he was head of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Unit and was in charge of the prosecution of John Edwards. He was also responsible for the prosecution of former Speaker of the New York Assembly, Sheldon Silver (a Democrat), and Jeffrey Sterling, a CIA agent who leaked information to a New York Times Reporter. When he took the position at the Public Integrity Unit, he reviewed ongoing investigations and recommended closing investigations into Senator John Ensign and Representatives Tom DeLay and Jerry Lewis (all Republicans). He started out as an Assistant US Attorney in New York, where he first gained notice by securing a death penalty conviction of a black man for killing two New York City police officers (The sentence was overturned on appeal, but it was the first death penalty sentence in a federal criminal case since capital punishment was reinstated.)

Smith has prosecuted a number of Republicans, including former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. But his record shows him going after allegedly crooked politicians from both parties. His critics point to the fact that his wife, a filmmaker, donated to Democratic causes and made a documentary about Michelle Obama. (Funny how that doesn't seem to bother them when they discuss Clarence and Ginni Thomas.) But many of the political prosecutions of Democrats, including Edwards and Silver, took place after Smith married, So, the only "evidence" of a bias against Trump or Republicans in general is the fact he got an indictment against Trump.

[Bob Juch]

So, I guess, Mr. Above Average Lawyer, we now take it for granted that we judge the case in the media, based solely on what the prosecution tells us? From a prosecutor who is completely biased against who he is prosecuting,

Donald Trump is entitled to his day in court where he can attempt to explain the boxes of documents in the bathroom and the ballroom stage. But this indictment was issued by the grand jury, a group of ordinary citizens in South Florida, and not by Democratic prosecutors. As far as Jack Smith's "completely biased" against Trump, I guess that's based on the assumption that anyone who prosecutes a criminal defendant is completely biased against them. Smith has only made one very brief statement about the case and has said nothing else. As for his record, he was head of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Unit and was in charge of the prosecution of John Edwards. He was also responsible for the prosecution of former Speaker of the New York Assembly, Sheldon Silver (a Democrat), and Jeffrey Sterling, a CIA agent who leaked information to a New York Times Reporter. When he took the position at the Public Integrity Unit, he reviewed ongoing investigations and recommended closing investigations into Senator John Ensign and Representatives Tom DeLay and Jerry Lewis (all Republicans). He started out as an Assistant US Attorney in New York, where he first gained notice by securing a death penalty conviction of a black man for killing two New York City police officers (The sentence was overturned on appeal, but it was the first death penalty sentence in a federal criminal case since capital punishment was reinstated.)

Smith has prosecuted a number of Republicans, including former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. But his record shows him going after allegedly crooked politicians from both parties. His critics point to the fact that his wife, a filmmaker, donated to Democratic causes and made a documentary about Michelle Obama. (Funny how that doesn't seem to bother them when they discuss Clarence and Ginni Thomas.) But many of the political prosecutions of Democrats, including Edwards and Silver, took place after Smith married, So, the only "evidence" of a bias against Trump or Republicans in general is the fact he got an indictment against Trump.

It's too bad you're not barred in Florida; TFG needs a good lawyer.

[silverscreenselect]

this shows how corrupt this weaponization of law enforcement is. Right or wrong, this is yet ANOTHER attempt to take out the opposition by the swamp and the people in power. Trump will be elected whether they use their corrupt power to put him in jail or not.

Speaking of the weaponization of law enforcement:

I will appoint a real special "prosecutor" to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the USA, Joe Biden, the entire Biden crime family, & all others involved with the destruction of our elections, borders, & country itself!

[jarnon]

But didn't he commit a crime?

If you kept war plans and nuclear secrets in your bathroom and showed them to friends, would you go to jail?

Considering all the legal cases Trump has settled over the years, I'm surprised he doesn't make a plea deal in this case and the New York one too. Bragg still hasn't specified what additional crime Trump committed that would raise his falsification of business records to a felony. He's probably accept a guilty plea to misdemeanors with no prison time. In Florida, there's no doubt that Trump mishandled documents and defied a subpoena. A guilty plea could spare him from incarceration.

Maybe Trump believes that casting himself as the victim of unfair prosecution, or even a political prisoner, will take him back to the White House.

CNN has broadcast an audio recording of Trump showing a classified document to interviewers.



Combined with testimony of the four people at the interview, this is extremely strong evidence. Pundits are wondering why Smith didn't charge Trump with the additional crime of revealing defense secrets. There could be a procedural reason: the interview was in New Jersey so the charge would have to be filed there. I think Smith is using this as another inducement for a plea deal.

[flockofseagulls104]

Of course, we'll ignore the fact of all the felonious leaks. This leak was probably done by the same mastermind who leaked the Supreme Court draft of the Dobbs document. Whoever did both of them will never be caught or even looked for. They are too good. Probably work for Putin? It's ok. The law or ethics don't matter if it's about getting Trump, right?

[jarnon]

Of course, we'll ignore the fact of all the felonious leaks. This leak was probably done by the same mastermind who leaked the Supreme Court draft of the Dobbs document. Whoever did both of them will never be caught or even looked for. They are too good. Probably work for Putin? It's ok. The law or ethics don't matter if it's about getting Trump, right?

The recording was made by a private person, so the leak isn't necessarily illegal.

Trump's response:

The Deranged Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith, working in conjunction with the DOJ & FBI, illegally leaked and “spun” a tape and transcript of me which is actually an exoneration, rather than what they would have you believe. This continuing Witch Hunt is another ELECTION INTERFERENCE Scam. They are cheaters and thugs!

[Bob78164]

The recording was made by a private person, so the leak isn't necessarily illegal.

The much more important question is whether Donny actually did feed his own ego by sharing top secret plans for a potential attack against a foreign country with people who weren't cleared to receive those plans. But that's a question his supporters will do anything -- anything at all -- to avoid confronting. Just as they avoided confronting the fact that Donny outed an undercover Israeli agent directly to the Russian government in the Oval Office.

Donny is a danger to the Republic. The American people must never again allow him near the levers of power. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

The recording was made by a private person, so the leak isn't necessarily illegal.

The much more important question is whether Donny actually did feed his own ego by sharing top secret plans for a potential attack against a foreign country with people who weren't cleared to receive those plans. But that's a question his supporters will do anything -- anything at all -- to avoid confronting. Just as they avoided confronting the fact that Donny outed an undercover Israeli agent directly to the Russian government in the Oval Office.

Donny is a danger to the Republic. The American people must never again allow him near the levers of power. --Bob

Your whole political party is an existential threat to this country. And they know that Trump is the only threat to them, which is why they are and have been throwing anything and everything they can possibly think of to try and prevent him from being re-elected.

And the more they do, so obviously political and using their power as a weapon, gets more people realizing who and what they really are. Do you really want to live in Venezuela? That's what they want.