The Trump Crime Family - Legal Issues

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Chicks

The fact that many a Conservative lawyer, all of whom have read the indictment, all of whom are well versed in the law, all of whom are infinitely sharper that Whell, are very, very concerned for Whell's Dear Leader says pretty much everything.

Indeed. Even the insufferable Trump suck-up, Jonathan Turley admits that Dear Leader is in deep shit.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

If you read it, you would have known that the Presidential Records Act is unmentioned and irrelevant when it comes to retaining national defense information.

I didn't mention that act as it related to Trump. I mentioned it in relation to Biden and Pence, and only to point out that they have no defense at all for retaining confidential or top secret documents. Please get a clue.

Originally Posted by finnbow

As someone who held a Nuclear Top Secret (Q) clearance for 20 years, I know for certain that anyone else who did what Trump did would have been indicted a year ago. Instead of being persecuted as he claims, Trump is actually getting preferential treatment. Also, a former U.S. Air Force intelligence officer was sentenced Thursday to three years in federal prison for keeping classified documents at his home and other unauthorized locations.. This is exactly what Trump did, plus Trump also obstructed justice and made false statements.

So you're saying that the indictments for Biden and Pence are overdue?

[whell]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

True to form whell selects points he wants to defend and ignores the rest. Especially the part about willfully refusing to give back what he took. Especially the part about trying to hide what he took. Especially lying about what he was trying to keep and what was given back.
Come on whell, get to the part about Hillary not being charged and Joe keeping classified material in his garage next to or underneath of (depending who's shoveling the shit.) his Corvette.
Whell, I realize you can't help yourself but damn fella, is this the best you can do?

Another forum member who can't read, or just ignores what I've posted to the contrary. But, it's the best you can do, I guess. In the interest of helping you get a clue, go have a look at posts 1076 and 1078 in this thread.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I didn't mention that act as it related to Trump. I mentioned it in relation to Biden and Pence, and only to point out that they have no defense at all for retaining confidential or top secret documents. Please get a clue.

So you're saying that the indictments for Biden and Pence are overdue?

The Pence case is closed and Biden's is still open, but both are cooperating fully and there was no apparent criminal intent. In Trump's case, criminal intent to retain the documents is pretty damn clear, as are his sharing of classified info and obstruction efforts. Please get a clue.

Do you truly believe that what Trump and Pence did are the equivalent in the eyes of the law? If you have skepticism about Trump's case, how can you believe in a viable prosecution of Pence?

Your equivalencies and whataboutisms are truly a sight to behold. You're either brainwashed or simply insist on bad faith debating.

[finnbow]

Get on board, Whell!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...is-indictment/

Scott: “This case is a serious case with serious allegations, but in America you are still innocent until proven guilty.”

Haley: “If this indictment is true, if what it says is actually the case, President Trump was incredibly reckless with our national security. This puts all of our military men and women in danger if you’re going to talk about what our military is capable of or how we would about invading or doing something with one of our enemies. And if that’s the case, it’s reckless, it’s frustrating and it causes problems.”

Former Trump secretary of state Mike Pompeo: “If the allegations are true, President Trump had classified documents where he shouldn’t have had them, and then when given the opportunity to return them he chose not to do that for whatever reason. … That’s inconsistent with protecting America’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. And if allegations are true, some of these were pretty serious, important documents.”

Former Trump attorney general William P. Barr: “If even half of it is true, then he’s toast. It’s a very detailed indictment, and it’s very, very damning.”

Former New Jersey governor and 2024 presidential candidate Chris Christie: “A very tight, very detailed, evidence-laden indictment, and the conduct in there is awful.”

Former Arkansas governor and 2024 presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson: “Trump’s actions — from his willful disregard for the Constitution to his disrespect for the rule of law — should not define our nation or the Republican Party.”

Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.): “They’re very serious allegations.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): “The charges in this case are quite serious and cannot be casually dismissed. Mishandling classified documents is a federal crime because it can expose national secrets, as well as the sources and methods they were obtained through.”

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah): “Mr. Trump brought these charges upon himself by not only taking classified documents, but by refusing to simply return them when given numerous opportunities to do so.”

Buck: “I think the allegations are very serious. I think there were national security implications from having documents in an unsecure area. … He hid documents, purposefully putting them in a shower, purposely putting them on — on a stage. So there — there clearly is an intent to hide.”

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) on whether he would support Trump if convicted: “I’d just have to read the conviction, but no, honestly, on the surface, I wouldn’t. That doesn’t look good.”

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.): “I just think it’s obvious what the president did was wrong. I just think the emperor has no clothes, and we need to have Republicans stand up and say that, because come around after the primary … the other party’s going to be saying this.”

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Tex.): “It’s very problematic. There’s a reason I’m not commenting on it.”

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

I didn't mention that act as it related to Trump. I mentioned it in relation to Biden and Pence, and only to point out that they have no defense at all for retaining confidential or top secret documents. Please get a clue.



So you're saying that the indictments for Biden and Pence are overdue?

Are they being asked to defend themselves?
In fact Pence's case is closed and Biden's is still under review and neither of them screamed "Witch Hunt".
Trump also got off the hook for documents that were in his possession similar to Pence, because he returned them when asked. Any comments on that?

He kept the bulk of it and lied about it, not once, not twice but thrice and it took a court ordered search to recover the stolen documents.

[Chicks]

[Chicks]

Judge allows E. Jean Carroll to amend her defamation lawsuit to seek more damages against Trump
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/13/polit...all/index.html

ROFL. Just keep on flapping your ignorant jaw, Donny!

[Chicks]

Ex-Trump lawyer dismantled for 'prosecutorial misconduct' claims that were already decided on appeal
https://www.rawstory.com/amp/trump-c...uct-2661274304

Wow. Donny’s lawyers appear to be about as bright as Whell.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The Pence case is closed and Biden's is still open, but both are cooperating fully and there was no apparent criminal intent. In Trump's case, criminal intent to retain the documents is pretty damn clear, as are his sharing of classified info and obstruction efforts. Please get a clue.

Do you truly believe that what Trump and Pence did are the equivalent in the eyes of the law? If you have skepticism about Trump's case, how can you believe in a viable prosecution of Pence?

Your equivalencies and whataboutisms are truly a sight to behold. You're either brainwashed or simply insist on bad faith debating.

That's it! Bad faith debating! It's a far right specialty. This description of the way it works, from Jean Paul Sartre, addresses anti-Semites, but all these hateful slime creatures of the right do just like this, with all their crazy bullshit ideas.

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

(Quoted by Doug Muder in 'The Weekly Sift')