Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

Treasonous Trump indicted

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
Matt
Posts: 9799
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

Re: How This Indictment Is Just Like What Communists Do

Post by Matt » Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:37 pm

Rate This wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:26 pm
I got about 3 paragraphs in and had to stop… that man is delusional.
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2020/at ... treatments


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13867
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: How This Indictment Is Just Like What Communists Do

Post by Rate This » Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:51 pm

Matt wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:37 pm
Rate This wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:26 pm
I got about 3 paragraphs in and had to stop… that man is delusional.
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2020/at ... treatments
Oh boy… so he’s also a flim-flam man.



User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 10036
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am

Re: How This Indictment Is Just Like What Communists Do

Post by TC Talks » Fri Jun 09, 2023 10:55 pm

Rate This wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:26 pm
I got about 3 paragraphs in and had to stop… that man is delusional.
Ben probably does the deepest dive into the crazy pool of anyone on the board.


“The more you can increase fear of drugs, crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.”
― Noam Chomsky

Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.

bmw
Posts: 6670
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Treasonous Trump indicted

Post by bmw » Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:17 am

So I've finally had a chance to read through most of the indictment. Here are my thoughts:

-Considering that only 31 documents are in question, I'm not sure why so much is made of the various boxes, including photos of rooms full of boxes. The vast majority of the documents in those boxes are not at issue in this indictment, and as such, this looks more like fodder for the media than anything else.

-Counts 1 through 31 are NOT going to stick. These are basically all the same count (just each one count being for a different document) and allege that Trump engaged in espionage. Here's the relevant section of US Code:
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it
What is fascinating here is that the question of whether Trump was authorized to possess the documents cited is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT because if you look at section (d) in Section 793, the same exact language exists, except the word "authorized" is in place of "unauthorized." In other words, GUILTY or NOT GUILTY has nothing to do with whether your possession of said documents was authorized or not. The key question here is whether you conveyed the information to others not entitled to receive it. Assuming that some of the statements of fact in the affidavit are proven to be true, this would appear to be the case. However, there's one final element, and that's the one that's going to be impossible to prove (unless there's more on the tapes than what is quoted in the affidavit), and that is intent. The prosecution is going to have to prove that Trump not only conveyed information to others not entitled to receive it, but that he did so knowing that the information he conveyed could be used to injure the United States. And I don't know how that question can even be answered without the jury actually being able to review the classified documents in question. The prosecution appears to be relying on past executive orders that define various classification markings and is going to generically argue that any document with a "secret" or "top secret," by definition, meets the criteria. But I don't think it is that simple. For example, the information in the documents that Trump showed others could be outdated and thus no longer a threat to national security. Without seeing the actual contents of the documents, the threat they pose to national security is unprovable.

==================

The remaining counts all have to do with obstruction. I will say this - some of the lawyer memos certainly look damaging. But at this stage, it all amounts to hearsay.

I'm sure I have more to add to this, but it is getting late and I've had a BUSY work week, so I'm mentally done for the day.

EDIT - one other thing I wanted to add here - if you read through 18 USC Chapter 37, the language in most other sections applies specifically to people doing things WITH THE INTENT of damaging the US and helping the enemy. 793(d) and (e) are the exception to this as they more vaguely only require that the information conveyed could damage the US, not necessarily that the person conveying said information did so with ill-intent towards the US. In Trump's case, it appears his only motive here was one of bragging. I don't think he showed anybody the stuff he did with the intent of those people taking that information and conveying it to the enemy. So taken in its broader context, this Chapter of US Code appears to have been written for the purpose of punishing those actively engaged in espionage, which, IMO, Trump was not.



Deleted User 9015

Re: Treasonous Trump indicted

Post by Deleted User 9015 » Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:40 am

bmw wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:17 am
Image



User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8538
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Treasonous Trump indicted

Post by audiophile » Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:48 am

You should have fixed your AC, less water needed.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

Mega Hertz
Posts: 4265
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:09 pm
Location: Brighton

Re: Treasonous Trump indicted

Post by Mega Hertz » Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:52 am

Neckbeard wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:40 am
bmw wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:17 am
Image
Nice jugs.


"Internet is no more like radio than intravenous feeding is like fine dining."
-TurkeyTop

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13867
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Treasonous Trump indicted

Post by Rate This » Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:08 am

bmw wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:17 am
So I've finally had a chance to read through most of the indictment. Here are my thoughts:

-Considering that only 31 documents are in question, I'm not sure why so much is made of the various boxes, including photos of rooms full of boxes. The vast majority of the documents in those boxes are not at issue in this indictment, and as such, this looks more like fodder for the media than anything else.

-Counts 1 through 31 are NOT going to stick. These are basically all the same count (just each one count being for a different document) and allege that Trump engaged in espionage. Here's the relevant section of US Code:
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it
What is fascinating here is that the question of whether Trump was authorized to possess the documents cited is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT because if you look at section (d) in Section 793, the same exact language exists, except the word "authorized" is in place of "unauthorized." In other words, GUILTY or NOT GUILTY has nothing to do with whether your possession of said documents was authorized or not. The key question here is whether you conveyed the information to others not entitled to receive it. Assuming that some of the statements of fact in the affidavit are proven to be true, this would appear to be the case. However, there's one final element, and that's the one that's going to be impossible to prove (unless there's more on the tapes than what is quoted in the affidavit), and that is intent. The prosecution is going to have to prove that Trump not only conveyed information to others not entitled to receive it, but that he did so knowing that the information he conveyed could be used to injure the United States. And I don't know how that question can even be answered without the jury actually being able to review the classified documents in question. The prosecution appears to be relying on past executive orders that define various classification markings and is going to generically argue that any document with a "secret" or "top secret," by definition, meets the criteria. But I don't think it is that simple. For example, the information in the documents that Trump showed others could be outdated and thus no longer a threat to national security. Without seeing the actual contents of the documents, the threat they pose to national security is unprovable.

==================

The remaining counts all have to do with obstruction. I will say this - some of the lawyer memos certainly look damaging. But at this stage, it all amounts to hearsay.

I'm sure I have more to add to this, but it is getting late and I've had a BUSY work week, so I'm mentally done for the day.

EDIT - one other thing I wanted to add here - if you read through 18 USC Chapter 37, the language in most other sections applies specifically to people doing things WITH THE INTENT of damaging the US and helping the enemy. 793(d) and (e) are the exception to this as they more vaguely only require that the information conveyed could damage the US, not necessarily that the person conveying said information did so with ill-intent towards the US. In Trump's case, it appears his only motive here was one of bragging. I don't think he showed anybody the stuff he did with the intent of those people taking that information and conveying it to the enemy. So taken in its broader context, this Chapter of US Code appears to have been written for the purpose of punishing those actively engaged in espionage, which, IMO, Trump was not.
Are you training for the Olympics or something? All of the things you supposedly think are tenuous were in the document. The mental gymnastics you just used here to get him out of it are incredible…

Counts 1-31 will stick… he had the documents in areas that were openly accessible by the public and he is on tape describing himself showing documents to someone from his PAC. He even says “you shouldn’t see this”. This thing is airtight and Trump is very very sloppy. 793 (e) was used specifically because it does NOT require intent. What the rest of the sections do is irrelevant… 793 (e) is the issue at hand. That section also simply requires transmission. Talking about its existence is willfully transmitting it. It doesn’t have to be intended to hurt anybody but the nature of the material is so unbelievably sensitive that even mentioning it to your grandmother while having tea is dangerous. It also has language penalizing someone who doesn’t return documents when asked. Trump willfully and intentionally hid documents, moved documents around, moved them to New Jersey and actively did so to avoid their return. He’s in deep shit.

Despite his protests about witch hunts and blah blah blah… He shoots himself in the foot at every turn and inflicts collateral damage on himself at every chance he gets. This man is unbelievably stupid. He clearly has no ability to plan or think ahead. And I say that looking objectively at his actions. You run him next year and it’ll be a 60-40 drubbing at best.

If you want some free advice that I give in good faith because I’d love to see a drubbing but I know you wouldn’t… MOVE ON or GET SOME NEW IDEAS and GO INTO THE POLITICAL WILDERNESS for a cycle or two. That’s what is supposed to happen. Instead the Republicans have been doubling down on the same strategy since 2008 despite losing more than they’ve won. That’s not the way this is supposed to work. When a party loses they are supposed to look at why, find out what the electorate wants and change their policy positions to match it better. That hasn’t happened. The Republican Party is clearly not a healthy one. It’s dying. The continued support and white washing of offenses regarding Trump even in a situation that is so airtight it makes a vacuum chamber jealous… is breathtaking.



Matt
Posts: 9799
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

Re: Treasonous Trump indicted

Post by Matt » Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:27 am

bmw wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:17 am
So I've finally had a chance to read through most of the indictment. Here are my thoughts:

-Considering that only 31 documents are in question, I'm not sure why so much is made of the various boxes, including photos of rooms full of boxes. The vast majority of the documents in those boxes are not at issue in this indictment, and as such, this looks more like fodder for the media than anything else.

-Counts 1 through 31 are NOT going to stick. These are basically all the same count (just each one count being for a different document) and allege that Trump engaged in espionage. Here's the relevant section of US Code:
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it
What is fascinating here is that the question of whether Trump was authorized to possess the documents cited is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT because if you look at section (d) in Section 793, the same exact language exists, except the word "authorized" is in place of "unauthorized." In other words, GUILTY or NOT GUILTY has nothing to do with whether your possession of said documents was authorized or not. The key question here is whether you conveyed the information to others not entitled to receive it. Assuming that some of the statements of fact in the affidavit are proven to be true, this would appear to be the case. However, there's one final element, and that's the one that's going to be impossible to prove (unless there's more on the tapes than what is quoted in the affidavit), and that is intent. The prosecution is going to have to prove that Trump not only conveyed information to others not entitled to receive it, but that he did so knowing that the information he conveyed could be used to injure the United States. And I don't know how that question can even be answered without the jury actually being able to review the classified documents in question. The prosecution appears to be relying on past executive orders that define various classification markings and is going to generically argue that any document with a "secret" or "top secret," by definition, meets the criteria. But I don't think it is that simple. For example, the information in the documents that Trump showed others could be outdated and thus no longer a threat to national security. Without seeing the actual contents of the documents, the threat they pose to national security is unprovable.

==================

The remaining counts all have to do with obstruction. I will say this - some of the lawyer memos certainly look damaging. But at this stage, it all amounts to hearsay.

I'm sure I have more to add to this, but it is getting late and I've had a BUSY work week, so I'm mentally done for the day.

EDIT - one other thing I wanted to add here - if you read through 18 USC Chapter 37, the language in most other sections applies specifically to people doing things WITH THE INTENT of damaging the US and helping the enemy. 793(d) and (e) are the exception to this as they more vaguely only require that the information conveyed could damage the US, not necessarily that the person conveying said information did so with ill-intent towards the US. In Trump's case, it appears his only motive here was one of bragging. I don't think he showed anybody the stuff he did with the intent of those people taking that information and conveying it to the enemy. So taken in its broader context, this Chapter of US Code appears to have been written for the purpose of punishing those actively engaged in espionage, which, IMO, Trump was not.
Your feeling of the validity of the charges aside, and acknowledging that more damning evidence will be introduced at a trial, do you think Trump is fit to hold office again?


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

User avatar
MWmetalhead
Site Admin
Posts: 11786
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am

Re: Treasonous Trump indicted

Post by MWmetalhead » Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:54 am

While I agree that few or none of the espionage charges will likely stick (the charges relating to the two specific documents referenced in the indictment that were willfully divulged to civilians who lacked security clearances could be an exception), I think there is validity to charges 33 through 37. For reasons I explain in a post that follows, I do think getting a conviction on count 32 will be challenging.

Trump knew he had the classified / secret / top secret documents, it's evident he knew exactly where some of them were housed, it's evident they didn't just wind up with his personal records randomly (as he previously posited), and most troubling to me - he FLAUNTED the records to those without security clearances and knew in doing so he was violating the law! It is also clear false statements & information were provided to the FBI by Trump himself or at Trump's direction and that documents were moved in an apparent effort to complicate the FBI investigation.

While the indictment mentions a couple specific instances where Trump flaunted such records, it is reasonable in my opinion to assume that there are several (perhaps many) additional instances where he flaunted such info that we don't even yet know about.

Thanks to Trump's reckless actions, Iran now knows that the Pentagon developed - at some point - a detailed plan to attack that country. (The media divulging that fact is not at all helpful to our national security interest, I might add.) This is a great example of why such info needs to be stored with utmost care.

Trump's actions here and in other matters in my view clearly make him unfit to hold office again.

By the way, it is my opinion that Nauta should not be prosecuted. I feel somewhat bad for him; he was put in a tough position.



User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 10036
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am

Re: Treasonous Trump indicted

Post by TC Talks » Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:58 am

This is generally called damning evidence...
Former President Donald J. Trump declared at a meeting in July 2021, six months after leaving the White House, that a document in front of him was “classified” and “highly confidential,” according to a person briefed on the matter.

That meeting, with people helping his former chief of staff with a book, has been previously reported but new details of Mr. Trump’s specific comments appear to demonstrate explicitly that he was aware that materials he had taken with him from the White House included classified information. The recording is expected to be a key piece of evidence in the case against him that the special counsel Jack Smith brought this week, with seven counts related to his possession of reams of classified material.

Mr. Trump also indicated he couldn’t show the document to the people in front of him — many if not all of whom didn’t have security clearances that would allow them to see sensitive government material — and added, “As president, I could have declassified them, now I can’t,” according to the person briefed on the matter, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Mr. Trump then said the document was “classified,” and a woman in the room replied, “Now we have a problem,” according to the person familiar with the recording.


“The more you can increase fear of drugs, crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.”
― Noam Chomsky

Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.

User avatar
MWmetalhead
Site Admin
Posts: 11786
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am

Re: Treasonous Trump indicted

Post by MWmetalhead » Sat Jun 10, 2023 8:01 am

Gotta love the Trump quotes on paragraph 22 of the indictment. Trump sure is a lying sack of shit.



Matt
Posts: 9799
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

Re: Rachel Maddow Suggests A Quid Pro Quo For Trump

Post by Matt » Sat Jun 10, 2023 8:04 am

Ben Zonia wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2023 7:07 pm
Even Rachel Maddow sees what's going on here. Third World Politics at its worst.

https://rumble.com/v2t3ucc-msnbc-russia ... tment.html
Whoops: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4043 ... ent-msnbc/


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 10036
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am

Re: Treasonous Trump indicted

Post by TC Talks » Sat Jun 10, 2023 8:15 am

Image


“The more you can increase fear of drugs, crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.”
― Noam Chomsky

Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.

User avatar
MWmetalhead
Site Admin
Posts: 11786
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am

Re: Treasonous Trump indicted

Post by MWmetalhead » Sat Jun 10, 2023 8:17 am

I meant to say paragraph 22 in my earlier post, not page 22. Sorry about that. I've edited my earlier post to fix the typo.

It is unclear if Nauta knew what Trump was asking him to do was (possibly) illegal. If there is reasonable doubt that Nauta knew the action he was being asked to take was for purposes of obstructing an investigation, then both Trump and Nauta should be found Not Guilty relative to count 32 (since there is no such thing as a conspiracy of one), and Nauta should also be found Not Guilty relative to counts 33, 34, 35, and 36. Of note, Nauta was not charged under count 37.

Assuming the recounting of facts in the indictment is correct and Trump has no valid defense, I do think Trump is guilty of counts 33 through 37. These counts include:

#33: Withholding a Document or Record under 18 U.S.C. section 1512(b)(2)(A), 2
#34: Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record under 18 U.S.C. section 1512(c)(1), 2
#35: Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation under 18 U.S.C. section 1519, 2
#36: Scheme to Conceal under 18 U.S.C. section 1001(a)(1), 2
#37: False Statements and Representations under section 18 U.S.C. section 1001 (a)(2), 2

Although the heading for counts 1 through 31 mentions "willful retention," the relevant portion of the U.S. code excerpted by bmw earlier does also speak to divulgement of such info to adversaries or to individuals who do not have proper security clearance. In two cited instances, Trump knowingly and willfully divulged highly sensitive info to individuals who lacked proper clearance and did not have a "need to know." So, I think it is possible he will be found guilty on 2 of those first 31 counts.



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic