I'm so excited

 

Trump's been indicted

 

And I know, I know, I know he's guilty.

1 minute ago, LaosLover said:

I'm so excited

 

Trump's been indicted

 

And I know, I know, I know he's guilty.

I feel like jumping high. So high. So high.

I left out an "I know", but it still works.

 

MacManus:

 

"Know? What do we really know? Ever? About anything?".

10 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Trumps side is claiming that the seized documents had been declassified and thus didn't need to be handed over 

So start by reading the full thread, the classification is not an issue in the indictments he has just been given. Refer to Presidential Act which categorically states that is not the case even if not classified. Refer to Espionage indictment, classified or not is not relevant. 

 

Regards classification however. Transcripts from Trump meeting in 2021 to a group of people.

 

“Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this,” Trump says at one point, according to the transcript. “This was done by the military and given to me.”

 

Trump continues: “All sorts of stuff – pages long, look. Wait a minute, let’s see here. I just found, isn’t that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know. Except it is like, highly confidential. Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this.”

 

“As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,” Trump says, according to the transcript.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/politics/trump-tape-didnt-declassify-secret-information/index.html

17 minutes ago, billd766 said:

More lies from Trump.

I would suggest that another lie added to the thousands that he has already told although significant will have no consequences and Trump will not be held accountable.

 

Trump's lawyer said today that charges for this Mar-a-lago indictment include making false statements .

 

These are the lies or false statements that will be Trump's nemesis.

 

He will duly be judged in court by a jury of his peers and then he will be held fully responsible for them.

43 minutes ago, billd766 said:

And who would that be?

 

AFAIK nobody else has done this before.

 

If I am wrong, please correct me and name those people.

Sorry, can't name them, apparently that would be considered derailing, deflecting and off-topic, so you'll just have to use your imagination.

39 minutes ago, billd766 said:

MTG?  ????

Marjorie Taylor Greene.

2 hours ago, candide said:

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

He hasn't been found guilty,  just indicted.

I know! But I can't wait to have fun!

You're going to be disappointed.

2 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

He hasn't been found guilty,  just indicted.

Don't worry he will go down hopefully!

He won't be going down but, as a hypothetical, if he did, why do you think that he would "go down hopefully"?

trolling meme removed as well as a troll post.

14 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

I would suggest that another lie added to the thousands that he has already told although significant will have no consequences and Trump will not be held accountable.

 

Trump's lawyer said today that charges for this Mar-a-lago indictment include making false statements .

 

These are the lies or false statements that will be Trump's nemesis.

 

He will duly be judged in court by a jury of his peers and then he will be held fully responsible for them.

Makes methink that thee should be punishment for politicians and presidents telling lies , especially when it can easily be proven that what the poly / pres said isblatant lies / untrue / fake, etc. 

 

Surely all countries want and expect that politicians and presidents have good and obvious ethics and well established they tell the truth on all subjects. 

 

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

4 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"...a good day for the rule of law!"

...only if it applies to the others that committed the exact same offences.

Without knowing the details of Trump’s indictment how can you say what offences have been committed by Trump, let anyone by others?

I did not say that I knew what offences he has been charged with, I said that others committing the same offences that he has been indicted for should be treated in the exact same way. 

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

4 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"...a good day for the rule of law!"

...only if it applies to the others that committed the exact same offences.

Others who took government documents, many classified, and refused to return them?  Who are these others?

Read the posts in the early part of thread, we're not permitted to say the names.

32 minutes ago, LaosLover said:

I left out an "I know", but it still works.

 

MacManus:

 

"Know? What do we really know? Ever? About anything?".

We don't know what we don't know.

An off topic post has been removed 

Summons indicates Trump-appointed judge will initially oversee case.

'The summons sent to Donald Trump as part of his indictment for illegally retaining classified documents indicates U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed by the former president, will be assigned to oversee his case, at least initially, ABC reported on Friday, citing sources.

 

Reuters was not immediately able to confirm the ABC report. Often, the judge who makes an initial appearance in a case does not proceed to oversee it.'

 

Summons indicates Trump-appointed judge will initially oversee documents case -ABC | Reuters

 

12 minutes ago, bignok said:

We don't know what we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld has entered the conversation.

4 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

.only if it applies to the others that committed the exact same offences.

Who are you implying it applies to?

And what "exact same offences."

49 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

So start by reading the full thread, the classification is not an issue in the indictments he has just been given. Refer to Presidential Act which categorically states that is not the case even if not classified. Refer to Espionage indictment, classified or not is not relevant. 

 

Regards classification however. Transcripts from Trump meeting in 2021 to a group of people.

 

“Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this,” Trump says at one point, according to the transcript. “This was done by the military and given to me.”

 

Trump continues: “All sorts of stuff – pages long, look. Wait a minute, let’s see here. I just found, isn’t that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know. Except it is like, highly confidential. Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this.”

 

“As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,” Trump says, according to the transcript.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/politics/trump-tape-didnt-declassify-secret-information/index.html

Trump personally made the claim that he de classified all the documents .

   Has the tape been verified as it being genuine and does it actually exist ?

   Is it a genuine tape ar yet another "someone told me about it" report ?

6 minutes ago, LaosLover said:

-Donald Rumsfeld has entered the conversation.

Where and with what pertinent information?

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

Trump personally made the claim that he de classified all the documents .

He might claim it but it is not a legal defence!

Just now, scottiejohn said:

He might say it but it is not a legal defence!

If Trump did de classify all the documents , wouldn't that make him not guilty to having classified documents ?

   Sounds like a decent legal defence to me 

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

If Trump did de classify all the documents , wouldn't that make him not guilty to having classified documents ?

   Sounds like a decent legal defence to me 

The most serious charge doesn't relate to the classification of the documents.

27 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Trump personally made the claim that he de classified all the documents .

   Has the tape been verified as it being genuine and does it actually exist ?

   Is it a genuine tape ar yet another "someone told me about it" report ?

Is that verified that Trumps claim is legal?

 

What part of the indictments listed have relevance to classified documents? None. 

 

All charges are related to retaining documents and obstructing justice. Read the OP

3 hours ago, candide said:

I love the current front page of Fox News website! ????

https://www.foxnews.com/

I love how Fox News as usual can't get even the very basic things right. The DOJ does not indict anyone. It's a grand jury that indicted trump. Grand juries are not part of the DOJ, they are randomly selected residents of the location of the case.

 

BTW this also means that at least 12 randomly selected people from Trumps homebase agreed after being presented the facts that Trump needs to face trial.

14 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Is that verified that Trumps claim is legal?

 

What part of the indictments listed have relevance to classified documents? None. 

 

All charges are related to retaining documents and obstructing justice. Read the OP

If the documents were declassified , wouldn't that make him not guilty of retaining classified document ?

31 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

If Trump did de classify all the documents , wouldn't that make him not guilty to having classified documents ?

   Sounds like a decent legal defence to me 

The trouble with his claims is that there is absolutely no evidence that he ever declassified the documents. Even his own lawyers have never claimed, in any legal submission, media interview or statement, that he did so.

 

More importantly though, it doesn't even matter whether they were declassified or not.

 

Because (and again, according to his own lawyers) he has not been charged with keeping or mishandling classified documents. 

 

Rather, he has been charged with "wilful retention of national defence information." 

 

Also, there are charges of obstruction of justice (that are both more serious and carry longer sentences). He is further charged with making false statements.

 

So basically, none of the charges rely on the documents being classified.

 

See info on the BBC article below.

 

Trump indicted

 

I should point out that although the BBC article's headline uses the words "classified documents," if you read the article, it becomes clear that none of the charges actually revolve around questions of their classification.

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

If the documents were declassified , wouldn't that make him not guilty of retaining classified document ?

If documents are not classified that still doesn't mean you can just remove them from the governments possession. He didn't retain copies, he kept and hid originals according to the reports.

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

If the documents were declassified , wouldn't that make him not guilty of retaining classified document ?

Trump first claimed that the FBI planted classified documents in his BR. Only later did he claim that he had declassified them., And even if declassified, they are still official labelled sensitive and can only be stored in secure locations. He had no right to keep them once the National Archives asked for them back. That's the law.

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

If the documents were declassified , wouldn't that make him not guilty of retaining classified document ?

Also, he's on video claiming he had classified documents including one concerning Iran. In the tape he says he could have declassified the documents but now he can't.  The thing is, his lawyers haven't been able to locate that document about Iran.

Trump boasts about having non-declassified papers in bombshell recording: ‘I have a big pile’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-iran-document-tape-b2354610.html