Jump to content

45 indicated


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Does the Trump transcript about how he "can't declassify anymore" also shoot down any possible argument about how he sincerely believed he truly won 2020 and, thus, didn't have the necessary intent to commit the crime? (Note, I'm not saying that's a winning, good, or even non-frivolous argument - I'm just trying to anticipate the kind of arguments he's going to attempt)

These crimes, unlike some other crimes with which he might be charged (namely obstruction of an official proceeding in connection with 1/6), don't require rigorous proof of some nebulous intention.

793(e) provides as follows:

(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; or

The required mental states are bolded.

1519 provides as follows, as an example of the several obstruction crimes:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Again, bolded, but there's ample evidence elsewhere of knowing concealment and the intention to impede or obstruct.

But yeah, this shows a) he was fully aware of having at least one classified document (Biden and Pence could legitimately argue that they had no such knowledge until brought to their attention) and b) that it was in classified and not for public consumption and c) that maybe he ought not have it at all.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I read the entire deposition this afternoon. I looked at the middle of it Thursday, and I was surprised at how accessible it is for a layperson such as myself. Smith saying "read the deposition" should be echoed everywhere. 

The document is masterful in generating a clear narrative and weaving together the facts of the investigation and Trump's own words. There's no need for me to offer any commentary, ipse dixit.

I mainly want to convey the brilliance of those who prepared the case and then created the language in the indictment. If one reads it, one cannot but be astonished at how powerful the case is against Donald Trump.

And it's an easy interesting read.

The indictment, you mean?  

There really aren't usually depositions in criminal cases, where you get to talk to a witness on the record before they testify, known as a "discovery deposition."  That's why grand juries are so important:  they are, for the most part, the only chance the government has to put a witness under oath and get their testimony on the record before calling them as witnesses at a trial.

Sure, they can do "witness interviews" that are mostly off the record and not under oath, but under penalty of perjury before the FBI.  It's not quite the same thing.  For the longest time, incomprehensibly, the FBI categorically refused to record or video any such interviews and instead 'recorded them" by a form known as a FD-302.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

There's a Trumpy church at the end of my street.  I'm seriously thinking about doing up a flier advertising a free bus ride that leaves from there at 9am Monday, posting it, and having an awesome walk with my dog tomorrow.

Please do this

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

He looks like he'd enjoy facts about cats. No information about said bus trip on their website.b5078934f156ceb1a49d8cd915144c62.jpg

I wonder if he'd enjoy pics of hairy assholes.

2 hours ago, C-Man said:

The video clips:

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

These crimes, unlike some other crimes with which he might be charged (namely obstruction of an official proceeding in connection with 1/6), don't require rigorous proof of some nebulous intention.

793(e) provides as follows:

(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; or

The required mental states are bolded.

1519 provides as follows, as an example of the several obstruction crimes:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Again, bolded, but there's ample evidence elsewhere of knowing concealment and the intention to impede or obstruct.

But yeah, this shows a) he was fully aware of having at least one classified document (Biden and Pence could legitimately argue that they had no such knowledge until brought to their attention) and b) that it was in classified and not for public consumption and c) that maybe he ought not have it at all.

True, but what if they argue something Nixonian like "when the President does it, it's not illegal" and claim that the Executive power supercedes (or "trumps") whatever statute they are trying to enforce.

Obviously before a sane and impartial judge the defendant would have the "you're not the President" problem. But there are people who truly cling to the idea that it's debatable whether Biden won.

Under those circumstances I think Trump's admission that he lacked the power that a President would have had is powerful.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The indictment, you mean?  

There really aren't usually depositions in criminal cases, where you get to talk to a witness on the record before they testify, known as a "discovery deposition."  That's why grand juries are so important:  they are, for the most part, the only chance the government has to put a witness under oath and get their testimony on the record before calling them as witnesses at a trial.

Sure, they can do "witness interviews" that are mostly off the record and not under oath, but under penalty of perjury before the FBI.  It's not quite the same thing.  For the longest time, incomprehensibly, the FBI categorically refused to record or video any such interviews and instead 'recorded them" by a form known as a FD-302.

Indictment. Hey, I'm a layman! Cut me some slack, bro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So less than half the respondents said he should be charged?  That...is not great.

well over half said yes if you only count the yes and no responses (i'm assuming).

i also assume 17% said some version of "i have no idea what i'm doing dog sitting at computer" response.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Why aren’t his ex lawyers notes covered by attorney / client privilege ?

when he discusses not responding / getting rid of / hiding the document 

crime-fraud exception.   It was litigated a while back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

So less than half the respondents said he should be charged?  That...is not great.

13% think the documents charges are serious, but that Trump should not be charged for them. 

 

10388692.gif

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I think that’s 48 indy and 35 R which is pretty damn good. 

Nope. It's overall and even worse, 47% view this as politically motivated vs 37% who say it's not politically motivated. 

Quote

2. While perceptions have shifted on the severity of this indictment compared to the last, attitudes are stable on whether Trump should be charged for a crime, whether the charges are politically motivated, and whether or not he should suspend his campaign.

More believe that the former president should be charged in this case (48%) and suspend his campaign (46%) than believe he should not (35%, 38%, respectively).

Overall, roughly half believe Trump should be charged, and should suspend his campaign (48% and 46%, respectively). These views are unchanged from April, where 50% said Trump should be charged and 48% agreed he should suspend his campaign.

On the other hand, 47% view the latest charges as being politically motivated, also unchanged from April (50%). These views are mainly driven by Republicans, while Democrats want to see Trump charged and to suspend his campaign. Interestingly, independents are split, with roughly half agreeing with all three sentiments.

Still, the share of Americans who believe these charges are politically motivated (47%) outnumber those who do not (37%).

 

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I do not disagree with anything you say. But the question I was responding to was, how can a judge rule on a matter associated with a president after being appointed by that president?  Having a particular judge be completely wrong about legal issues and being vigorously bench-slapped in a rather public manner by the 11th circuit seems, to me, to still be insufficient grounds under existing jurisprudence to recuse the judge.  

Anyone trying to assert fraud claims in federal court under the enhanced pleading requirements knows that just alleging - or even proving that someone did something wrong, or even egregiously wrong - is insufficient to plead fraud in the way many want here.   Using that fraud analogy to the judge, there needs to be more before she will be yanked off the case. That is just my opinion. That is not what I want to see happen, or the result that I would prefer.    So, while I hate Trump more than even Trump haters, that does not extend to me saying that it is easy or doable to forcibly remove her from the case. Even with her dumb Fuckery in her previous handling of the case.

I very much look forward to being wrong.

I’m fully aware there are insufficient grounds for the judge to recuse herself. I’m also fully aware no fraud exists, furthermore there is no evidence of fraud. I was merely pointing out in a world, not of common law, but of common sense, that allowing a judge, that owes her position of power to one private citizen, to oversee the same private citizen’s case in her courtroom is fucking absurd and makes a mockery of the entire justice system. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Another way to read that is that half of independents and two thirds of Republicans are just fine with Republic-betraying crimes so long as it’s DJT doing them. That…is problematic.

There’s no such thing as independents. They’re just too embarrassed to call themselves Republicans. But that’s what they are 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m fully aware there are insufficient grounds for the judge to recuse herself. I’m also fully aware no fraud exists, furthermore there is no evidence of fraud. I was merely pointing out in a world, not of common law, but of common sense, that allowing a judge, that owes her position of power to one private citizen, to oversee the same private citizen’s case in her courtroom is fucking absurd and makes a mockery of the entire justice system. 

I know you know Neon.  But others might have read it differently. So my verbose ass replied. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nbmishoid said:

For about 25 years now I assumed you were an attorney.  Apologies as I can’t explain how I came to that.

It's because he's full of shit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

j/k

Edited by Gil Bang
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
honestly, you need a little more time to let these facts bake in. A young lawyer I work with was unaware of the ethical problems of Justice Thomas, and as of Friday unaware with any details of the Trump indictment. There are a lot of people like that. Some of the poll results were gathered the ninth. If some of those responses are before Jack Smith gave his press - and before anyone had a real chance to read the indictment and figure out what that was about, the numbers will be skewed.
While the GQP cult numbers might not change, I will bet you that the numbers will change among independents if you give it a few weeks.

edit: damn voice software changes it as i save
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barr’s statements are an attempt to ingratiate himself to sane people. Trumpkins already hate him because…well, Trump hates him and and that’s enough. In other words, at no personal cost but with perceived upside. That his statements are mostly true is beside the point with vermin like Bill Barr. It’s a dog and pony show trotted out for consumption. His words mean nothing.

Edited by Degenerate Gardner
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

if Barr thinks we will forget his treasonous derailment of the results of the Mueller probe and how he falsely presented the findings to the country, and that this will redeem him in the eyes of everyone, that piece of shit is entirely wrong

I hope you are right, but there are quite a few people that have already forgotten the Iran Contra cover-up work he did for Reagan and Bush 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever happen, the problem for years has been the electorate. A large plurality are hate cultists (deplorables if you will), another plurality oppose the cult but really don't get what's going on. The last plurality can't name the vice president, their own senators, or the significance of the date, Jan. 6.

The hate cultists form the hate engine that existed before Trump was even a republican. He was just cunning enough to up the volume on the hate, appear more fun than the stuffed shirts he was running against, and seize the reins of the hate engine. 

If Trump gets shot out of the saddle (or a cannon for all I care) the hate engine does not disintegrate. Hate will be magnified by resentment and some other cunning fuckwad far smarter than Trump will be the cult leader. Like Trump, I think that person may very well be another government outsider. Pillow guy? Kare Lake? Tucker Carlson?

I don't see the mob getting behind someone like DeSantis or (vom) Ted Cruz. They want someone that they errantly believe is just like them.

It's Idiot World, Jake. Emotional storms sweeping over the crumbling foundations of a pretty good idea for a country.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Grade of D as in David said:

I hope you are right, but there are quite a few people that have already forgotten the Iran Contra cover-up work he did for Reagan and Bush 1.

And his family connection to Jeff Epstein. 

This one good act doesn't clear him of his past, but it was a good thing he did. He staked out a place where others might be able to follow. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Aaaaaand nothing to see here

 

 

So 80% think he should be president from prison? 

Really can't wait for this lovely little moment in our history to be over. You could show these people video of Trump murdering their families and they'd be like "oh well I don't necessarily support Trump murdering my family, but I do like his policies...."

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Texas Jeff said:

Ain't nothing gonna happen....

I was around for the OJ trial.  This will play out the same way.

That’s a ridiculous comparison. The Trump stolen docs case is like if they found the bloody knife in OJ’s house and we had him giving a national interview saying, “Of course I would kill my wife. As her husband I have a right to do that.”

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s a ridiculous comparison. The Trump stolen docs case is like if they found the bloody knife in OJ’s house and we had him giving a national interview saying, “Of course I would kill my wife. As her husband I have a right to do that.”
It also ignores the fact that OJ did actually go to jail... eventually.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Red Five said:

So 80% think he should be president from prison? 

Really can't wait for this lovely little moment in our history to be over. You could show these people video of Trump murdering their families and they'd be like "oh well I don't necessarily support Trump murdering my family, but I do like his policies...."

This is our concern dude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think it reflects a clear lack of understanding of what's going on here from the deplorables. Like, "Oh sure he can be convicted and get his slap on the wrist for these fake crimes, and then get on with the business of being president".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

Why aren’t his ex lawyers notes covered by attorney / client privilege ?

when he discusses not responding / getting rid of / hiding the document 

 

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

crime-fraud exception.   It was litigated a while back.

Yep. He told his lawyers to commit crimes and that is not covered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • blacklab changed the title to 45 indicated


×
×
  • Create New...