Trump indicted over classified documents

209,143 Views | 3433 Replies | Last: 3 days ago by will25u
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 4:58a, 3/7/24
AG
The Stormy case is really a falsification of business records one, where the prosecutors would have to prove that Trump knowingly falsified business records to cover up evidence of a separate crime.

Does anyone really think Trump himself classified/documented payments to his then-fixer Cohen? No, give me a break. The guy doesn't even email, let alone enter figures in a record/ledger.
Reply Quote
2
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 7:01a, 3/7/24
Quote:
Same brief as amici is before SCOTUS on the immunity issue. Possible off ramp for a 9-0 per curiam to avoid addressing immunity? Smith has no authority so they don't have to address the criminal immunity issue?


about as possible as Biden announcing tonight that Clarence Thomas is his new running mate
Reply Quote
6
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:58p, 3/7/24
Reply Quote
1
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BMX Bandit • 1:04p, 3/7/24
AG
BMX Bandit said:
Quote:
Same brief as amici is before SCOTUS on the immunity issue. Possible off ramp for a 9-0 per curiam to avoid addressing immunity? Smith has no authority so they don't have to address the criminal immunity issue?


about as possible as Biden announcing tonight that Clarence Thomas is his new running mate
which, honestly, isn't all that long of an odds situation given that Biden is a dementia-addled vegetable
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ThunderCougarFalconBird • 1:09p, 3/7/24
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
BMX Bandit said:
Quote:
Same brief as amici is before SCOTUS on the immunity issue. Possible off ramp for a 9-0 per curiam to avoid addressing immunity? Smith has no authority so they don't have to address the criminal immunity issue?


about as possible as Biden announcing tonight that Clarence Thomas is his new running mate
which, honestly, isn't all that long of an odds situation given that Biden is a dimentia-addled vegetable
I can't imagine how many times Xiao Biden would drop "Boy!" or worse on CT.

It would be more "spicy" language than an NWA album.
Reply Quote
1
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:52p, 3/7/24
Hearings set!


I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
2
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:17a, 3/12/24
"Employee #5", one of the unnamed people in this indictment has gone public:

Quote:
Butler described how Trump co-defendant Walt Nauta made a strange request for his help in June 2022 to move boxes of documents from Mar-a-Lago onto a waiting private jet.


He said he had "no idea" that the 10 to 15 boxes he moved with Nauta and De Oliveira contained classified material. It was the same day federal investigators met with Trump's attorneys, looking for the documents.

"They were the boxes that were in the indictment, the white bankers boxes. That's what I remember loading," he said.


https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4524719-trump-employee-5-classified-docs-mar-a-lago-witch-hunt/amp/
Reply Quote
2
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:37a, 3/12/24
At this point I kind of don't believe anything anybody says in relation to Trump. The opposition party has gotten so many people to lie under oath by them either knowing they won't be prosecuted for lying, or the Democrats holding something over their head to get them to lie about Trump.

It's kind of ridiculous that has come to this. But all they do is lie about Trump all the time, and then it comes out that they were lying at some point later.
Reply Quote
6
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BMX Bandit • 6:46a, 3/12/24
AG
Oh no, some boxes were moved by some guys. Horrible. Throw them all in a gulag.

Shipwreckedcrew's update on this one from last month is still about right;

Quote:
  • Several weeks ago the Judge vacated all the pretrial filing dates that are necessary in that case given the involvement of classified documents as part of the allegations charged in the indictment and the evidence to be presented at trial. Those issues must be addressed in pre-trial motions, and in some instances issues can be taken up on appeal.
  • The Judge refused to vacate the existing May 24 trial date thereby blocking Smith or Trump from using the May 24th date for any other trial they might have cough, cough.
  • The Judge set a March 1 status conference where the parties will discuss discovery, various classified evidence issues remaining and how to address them, and a new pretrial schedule. At that point I expect she will set a new trial date and only then vacate the existing trial date.
  • But she can continue to tie up the calendar by setting a new trial date 45-60 days further out, such as early-to-mid-July, and filling in the time in between with numerous pretrial matters. If the DC Judge hasn't set a new trial date by that time about 4 weeks from now there won't be enough time ahead of a July trial date in Florida to schedule all the pretrial matters and a potentially 12 week trial in DC and not overlap AGAIN the pretrial dates in the Florida case. That means the DC case will have to be set after the scheduled end of the Florida case, which is estimated to be 10+ weeks itself, potentially stretching into September. Just as the DC case was going to occupy nearly the entirety of the period January to May for pretrial matters and the trial itself, the Florida case is likely to tie up the entirety of May to September at least. Nothing in the DC case can be done while all the attorneys and Trump are occupied working on the Florida case.
  • THAT is the landscape for SCHEDULING the DC case whenever the Mandate is sent back to the District Court.
  • That does not mean the Florida case will actually go to trial in July I'm almost 100% sure it will not. But that is a decision that likely won't be made until May or June. By then the DC case will likely be 1) on the SCOTUS docket for the fall and not able to be scheduled for trial, or 2) already scheduled for a trial that likely won't begin until late October or November following whatever period of time after the scheduled end of the Florida case is deemed necessary for the pretrial work still to be done in the DC case.
You can see all the moving pieces that are now almost beyond control in the lawfare that the Democrat establishment has put in place. Who decided to indict Trump in two different district courts on unrelated charges less than two months apart? Amateurish and idiotic.
Who has been working with both the Manhattan DA and the Fulton County DA?
I wouldn't be surprised if the current view of the Manhattan DA's Office was something akin to "You told us we would never need to take this case to trial that one of the two federal cases would go first and that would be the end of him. What are we supposed to do now?"
It has almost degenerated completely into a clown show.
Reply Quote
6
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:28p, 3/12/24
Judge grants Trump extension in blow to Jack Smith

Quote:
The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's classified documents trial granted the former president's legal team a 10-day extension to make filings in the case, despite opposition to the motion from special counsel Jack Smith.

Florida-based federal Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday ruled that Trump may file replies to motions by March 24, 2025.

The ruling came as a blow to prosecutors, who had argued that the schedule "has been in place for months" and that Trump's legal team says it needs more time based on circumstances it had been aware of for years, such as Trump's criminal trial in New York, which is scheduled to begin on March 25.

Trump is expected to attend a hearing on Thursday in Florida where his attorneys will argue that the classified documents case should be tossed, per NBC News.
Reply Quote
1
MiamiHopper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 3:09p, 3/12/24
This judge has no intention of trying this case this year.
Reply Quote
2
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 3:19p, 3/12/24
Quote:
Trump's legal team says it needs more time based on circumstances it had been aware of for years, such as Trump's criminal trial in New York, which is scheduled to begin on March 25.

What an absurd statement by the "reporter."

Yes, he has been aware of some circumstances for a good while. How can he defend himself in multiple trials and campaign for President all at the same time? The knowledge of those things doesn't make it any more feasible.

Just more proof the DOJ coordinated all of this to interfere in the election.What a disgusting display of Stalinist tactics by Joe Biden and his corrupt cabal.
Reply Quote
4
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MiamiHopper • 3:19p, 3/12/24
MiamiHopper said:
This judge has no intention of trying this case this year.
It shouldn't be tried this year. Or ever.
Reply Quote
2
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 3:23p, 3/12/24
AG
Quote:
Just more proof the DOJ coordinated all of this to interfere in the election.What a disgusting display of Stalinist tactics by Joe Biden and his corrupt cabal.
DOJ and the Biden WH. Kamala meeting with Fani Willis is a red flag. I don't know why McAfee refused to allow defendants'counsel to go into that during the evidentiary hearing on the motion to disqualify. Guess it ultimately didn't matter because Fani lied about that on the stand anyway.
Reply Quote
4
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 3:57p, 3/12/24
AG
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Just more proof the DOJ coordinated all of this to interfere in the election.What a disgusting display of Stalinist tactics by Joe Biden and his corrupt cabal.
DOJ and the Biden WH. Kamala meeting with Fani Willis is a red flag. I don't know why McAfee refused to allow defendants'counsel to go into that during the evidentiary hearing on the motion to disqualify. Guess it ultimately didn't matter because Fani lied about that on the stand anyway.
Because it never happened unless an event with 450+ guests and Kamala Harris speaking from a stage counts as a private meeting.

And if it did, it wouldn't be particularly germane to the issue in front of McAfee.
Reply Quote
1
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 4:12p, 3/12/24
AG
Was the event five hours? Because that's how long she was there.

In any even Wade's own billings reflect two meeting with WH counsel that we know of. Once in Athens, GA and the one in DC in 2022.
Reply Quote
5
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 4:16p, 3/12/24
aggiehawg said:
Was the event five hours? Because that's how long she was there.

In any even Wade's own billings reflect two meeting with WH counsel that we know of. Once in Athens, GA and the one in DC in 2022.
2011 is only interested in the official narrative.
Reply Quote
5
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 4:21p, 3/12/24
AG
aggiehawg said:
Was the event five hours? Because that's how long she was there.

In any even Wade's own billings reflect two meeting with WH counsel that we know of. Once in Athens, GA and the one in DC in 2022.
Everyone's apppointment ended at 11:59pm on 2/28/2023: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023.02_WAVES-ACCESS-RECORDS.csv

In fact, everyone's appointment in the White House logs defaults to ending at 11:59pm. https://www.whitehouse.gov/disclosures/visitor-logs/

The silver bullet piece of evidence says her appointment (made on February 24) was scheduled from 6:30 to 11:59pm, which I think a normal person would guess meant the party ran until midnight.




Quote:
March 1, 2023:

OUT AND ABOUT VP Kamala Harris and second gentleman Doug Emhoff hosted a Black History Month event at the Naval Observatory last night. The event, honoring young Black emerging leaders, was thrown in collaboration with BET and featured a performance by Coco Jones with DJ D-Nice playing music until the end of the night, and "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever" actress Dominique Thorne introducing the veep.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2023/03/01/a-bipartisan-response-to-east-palestine-00084933


Reply Quote
1
2 edits
barbacoa taco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 4:28p, 3/12/24
AG
Ellis Wyatt said:
Quote:
Trump's legal team says it needs more time based on circumstances it had been aware of for years, such as Trump's criminal trial in New York, which is scheduled to begin on March 25.

What an absurd statement by the "reporter."

Yes, he has been aware of some circumstances for a good while. How can he defend himself in multiple trials and campaign for President all at the same time? The knowledge of those things doesn't make it any more feasible.

Just more proof the DOJ coordinated all of this to interfere in the election.What a disgusting display of Stalinist tactics by Joe Biden and his corrupt cabal.
He filed a bogus motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity (for acts committed after his presidency) solely in an attempt to delay the trial. He used the 3/25 NY trial as an "excuse" for needing more time, even though he filed the same motion in said trial this week. He can cut the crap with the sob stories.
Reply Quote
1
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to barbacoa taco • 4:30p, 3/12/24
barbacoa taco said:
Ellis Wyatt said:
Quote:
Trump's legal team says it needs more time based on circumstances it had been aware of for years, such as Trump's criminal trial in New York, which is scheduled to begin on March 25.

What an absurd statement by the "reporter."

Yes, he has been aware of some circumstances for a good while. How can he defend himself in multiple trials and campaign for President all at the same time? The knowledge of those things doesn't make it any more feasible.

Just more proof the DOJ coordinated all of this to interfere in the election.What a disgusting display of Stalinist tactics by Joe Biden and his corrupt cabal.
He filed a bogus motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity (for acts committed after his presidency) solely in an attempt to delay the trial.
You know that he was in negotiations over the documents, right? Until the DOJ just raided his house.

Of course you do.
Reply Quote
4
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 4:42p, 3/12/24
AG
He's referring to a filing in the New York case. They are trying to get it delayed because they say some evidence should be precluded under Presidential Immunity.


But either way, the Trump team was in negotiations to return documents the Trump team had certified weren't there?
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
jt2hunt
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 6:02p, 3/12/24
AG
Such a twisted statement of the truth!

Reply Quote
3
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 6:18p, 3/12/24
I stand corrected. The mountain of lawfare thrown at him to impede his ability to campaign and interfere with the election is hard to separate at times. Of course, that's the whole point.
Reply Quote
2
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jt2hunt • 6:53p, 3/12/24
AG
jt2hunt said:
Such a twisted statement of the truth!



What is?
Reply Quote
Foreverconservative
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:04p, 3/13/24
What an effing load of nonsense by the DOJ HACK Jack Smith.

Trump used his private office at Mar-a-Lago when he served as the POTUS and it was always guarded by USSS.

It now serves as the "Office of the Former President", which is funded by Congress and heavily guarded 24/7/365 by the USSS. Not to mention the private security that Trump has employed for years from the Academi Group, (formally Blackwater) all having TS/SCI SAP clearances.

It's very secure, damn sure more secure than Mr Potato Head's garage and basement, with his crackhead son entertaining who knows who on the regular. Jackass Smith forgot that the FBI had visited the location where the documents were stored at Mar-a-lago and were satisfied and asked for a EXTRA LOCK and were provided with it immediately and then suddenly they raided the property which makes no sense whatsoever expect that they wanted to show Trump in a bad light and create non stop negetive news around him. The raid was nothing but a hit job on Trump . They are desperate to remove him from running at any cost.


“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:42p, 3/14/24
I must have missed that there was a hearing today?

Reply Quote
1
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 1:49p, 3/14/24
Nothing on heaven, or on earth can possibly prepare the human ear for the level of shrieking you were going to hear if Cannon dismisses this case.

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
7
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:49p, 3/14/24
AG
Quote:
Donald Trump was in a Florida courtroom on Thursday as his lawyers argued for the dismissal of charges against the former president for alleged mishandling of classified documents.
District Judge Aileen Cannon is holding a day-long hearing in Fort Pierce, north of Miami, to hear a pair of dismissal motions filed by Trump's attorneys.

Trump, 77, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, pleaded not guilty in June to federal charges of unlawfully retaining national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice and making false statements.

He kept the classified files -- which included records from the Pentagon, CIA and National Security Agency -- unsecured at his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida and thwarted official efforts to retrieve them, according to the indictment.

Trump's lawyers are arguing in court that he had the right to retain the documents under the Presidential Records Act and the indictment should be tossed out.

Special counsel Jack Smith, who filed the charges against Trump, rejected that argument in a court filing.

"Trump was not authorized to possess classified records at all (let alone at unsecured locations at Mar-a-Lago)," Smith said, adding that the documents in question, some of which were top secret, were "presidential, not personal" and are government property.

Trump's lawyers are also seeking to have the charges dropped on the grounds that the statute under which he was indicted suffered from "unconstitutional vagueness."

"Trump's vagueness argument is meritless," Smith responded. "Trump is charged with the unauthorized possession and willful retention of national defense information. The statute's prohibitions are clear."
LINK
Reply Quote
1
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:30p, 3/14/24
AG
Quote:
NEW: From FLA courthouse in Trump's classified documents case with a prediction.

Robert Hur report and testimony is the biggest elephant in the room. The term "arbitrary enforcement" used frequently by both the defense and Judge Aileen Cannon.

Cannon hammered the fact no former president or vice president has been charged under Espionage Act for taking and keeping classified records including national defense information--which represents 32 counts against Trump in Jack Smith's indictment.

Prediction: Cannon won't dismiss the case based on the motions debated today--vagueness of Espionage Act and protection under the Presidential Records Act.

But it's very likely she will dismiss the case based on selective prosecution, a motion still pending before her.
Cannon pressed both defense and Special Counsel to explain when the "crime" of willful retention of national defense information begins--she noted the date in Jack Smith's indictment as to when Trump first violated the Espionage Act.

January 20, 2021, the day he left office

Quote:
Cannon again asked for historical precedent as to when a former president or vice president faced charges for similar conduct. Bratt of course said there is none.

She added "vice president" on numerous occasions for a reason--Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence all skated on criminal charges. Trump is the only one who has not.

Cannon: "Arbitrary enforcement...is featuring in this case."

Cannon also addressed the "foreseeability" as to Trump's awareness he was committing a crime by keeping classified/national defense information.

"Given the constellation of what happened before"--meaning no criminal prosecution of former presidents including Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan and vice presidents--Cannon suggested Trump could have reasonably expected he was in the clear.

Also of interest: Jay Bratt claiming there is no official process for a president to obtain or keep a security clearance. His argument is Trump's clearance automatically expired at the end of this term--which contradicts how former government officials maintained clearances long after their service ended.

But there is a problem. The Dept. of Energy, learning of Smith's indictment against Trump in the summer of 2023, retroactively revoked Trump's "Q" security clearance.

Bratt says the government has emails and a draft memo to revoke Trump's clearance.

Cannon's counterargument is--but if there is no formal process for authorizing or removing a president's security clearance--why did DOE need to memorialize it post-indictment.

Bratt didn't really have an answer.


LINK
Reply Quote
4
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 2:44p, 3/14/24
AG
Im Gipper said:
Nothing on heaven, or on earth can possibly prepare the human ear for the level of shrieking you were going to hear if Cannon dismisses this case.
There would be lots of shrieking, but for anyone on "that side" of this case, if they accept this isn't going to trial before election day and not for another 4+ years if Trump is elected again, then its perhaps irrelevant what she does.

If she dismisses the case, then its appealed and gives the government their opportunity to have her thrown off the case if she bungles another ruling like she did in the civil trial. Or, it just starts all over again the next time a Democrat is in the White House.
Reply Quote
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:57p, 3/14/24
Does the Supreme Court of the United States have the ballsack to decide the fate of Trump in the next 235-days?

What are we seeing here?
Reply Quote
1
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 4:51p, 3/14/24
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Does the Supreme Court of the United States have the ballsack to decide the fate of Trump in the next 235-days?

What are we seeing here?



I thought Trump was going to jail? You finally off that obsession?


I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
1
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:59p, 3/14/24
AG
Cannon denies dismissal on the case for unconstitutional vagueness with what the 11th Circuit should rule is an unconstitutional word salad

Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 5:04p, 3/14/24
AG


Judge speak.
Reply Quote
4
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:05p, 3/14/24
Smoke signaling for help from the 11th Cir.
Reply Quote
2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.