37 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Funny you say that. 45 recently said he WOULD accept a plea deal - on 1 condition - that the government pay him $$$ to accept it ????????????????

Give him $10 and tell him he has to leave the country and can't talk about it, lest he fall off a balcony.

Nixon's VP was a rascal, corruption and influence peddling, got caught, agreed to resign in exchange all charges dropped, and lived quietly ever after.  For more info look up Spiro Agnew.

 

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

But, unlike you, he won't be questioning the legitimacy of the process by invoking invalid use of the Presidential Records Act.

"I have read it and I know it is bogus as President Trump is covered under the Presidential Records Act."

And what will you say if he's convicted?

If I am proven wrong, I will say "I was wrong".

I think the serious charges hold no water. Maybe he will get a slap on the wrist like the last time he was indicted.

18 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

If I am proven wrong, I will say "I was wrong".

I think the serious charges hold no water. Maybe he will get a slap on the wrist like the last time he was indicted.

Please explain why the serious charges hold no water.  Are you being serious or just looking at what you only want to look at.  With the records in his possession never having gone to the National Archives, as required by law, the man essentially stole Government documents.

23 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

If I am proven wrong, I will say "I was wrong".

I think the serious charges hold no water. Maybe he will get a slap on the wrist like the last time he was indicted.

Have you seen the indictment on this case and the evidence it includes?

 

The last time he was indicted (hush money) hasn't gone to trial yet, that's slated for 25th March 2024, so where is the slap on the wrist?

 

Perhaps some research is needed by you

Skimmed the thread. Problem: not enough trump trash dimwits to zestfully thump on the head. They're demoralized at Pattaya balcony slip 'n fall levels. Too Kumbaya here with much stolid agreement.

 

Bottom line: Post 1/6 fiasco, snipers are going to be in play. They can put up their shaky-looking gallows and wear their Auschwitz shirts for laughs, but if they ever try rush a Federal building again, they're going to drop like flies. 

 

And then, after some Tucker-whining, that's going to be the end of their cosplay civil war.

It's started.

 

Bomb threat at Miami courthouse forces press and Trump supporters to move before arraignment

 

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-arraignment-bomb-threat-miami/

40 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's started.

 

Bomb threat at Miami courthouse forces press and Trump supporters to move before arraignment

 

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-arraignment-bomb-threat-miami/

Here we go. 

 

 

LIVE | Trump’s hearing to take place at Miami courthouse following indictment

 

 

On 6/10/2023 at 2:26 PM, ozimoron said:

I'm trying to understand how that happens. It's very reminiscent of Jim Jones. How do these false prophets convince people to destroy their own lives in his servitude?

That gal from the Airforce who got capped smashing her way into the house of representatives would have an answer, but she died so that the former guy might take state secrets home to show his golf buddies. 

 

Strange days indeed!  

There remains a possibility that Smith could also charge Trump in NJ, charges arising from transporting documents to Bedminster and disseminating them to his supporters. These documents weren't included in the indictment. No mention of the missing document either.

13 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Have you seen the indictment on this case and the evidence it includes?

 

The last time he was indicted (hush money) hasn't gone to trial yet, that's slated for 25th March 2024, so where is the slap on the wrist?

 

Perhaps some research is needed by you

Yes I have.

 

I was talking about the Carroll case, as you know: not guilty of rape, "liable for battery and defamation", 5 million and off you go = slap on the wrist.

14 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Please explain why the serious charges hold no water.  Are you being serious or just looking at what you only want to look at.  With the records in his possession never having gone to the National Archives, as required by law, the man essentially stole Government documents.

Despite what has been repeatedly claimed, the indictment is not about classified documents. Trump is not being charged with the mishandling of classified documents.

 

They are using a 100-year old law, the Espionage Act, and have requalified the documents as "national defence information" in order to make that WWI statute apply to Trump. The reason they are trying to do that is because they know that under the Presidential Records Act, the President did not commit a chargeable offence.

 

I'm telling you, this is going nowhere. We can pick up this conversation once the case is closed.

 

And just FYI, a document "with classified markings" means it is no longer classified, i.e. it has been declassified.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-indictment-unsealed-classified-documents-b2354885.html

25 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Despite what has been repeatedly claimed, the indictment is not about classified documents. Trump is not being charged with the mishandling of classified documents.

 

They are using a 100-year old law, the Espionage Act, and have requalified the documents as "national defence information" in order to make that WWI statute apply to Trump. The reason they are trying to do that is because they know that under the Presidential Records Act, the President did not commit a chargeable offence.

 

I'm telling you, this is going nowhere. We can pick up this conversation once the case is closed.

 

And just FYI, a document "with classified markings" means it is no longer classified, i.e. it has been declassified.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-indictment-unsealed-classified-documents-b2354885.html

Yet even Republican lawyers, such as Barr,  consider it's a damning indictment

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

Despite what has been repeatedly claimed, the indictment is not about classified documents. Trump is not being charged with the mishandling of classified documents.

 

They are using a 100-year old law, the Espionage Act, and have requalified the documents as "national defence information" in order to make that WWI statute apply to Trump. The reason they are trying to do that is because they know that under the Presidential Records Act, the President did not commit a chargeable offence.

 

I'm telling you, this is going nowhere. We can pick up this conversation once the case is closed.

 

And just FYI, a document "with classified markings" means it is no longer classified, i.e. it has been declassified.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-indictment-unsealed-classified-documents-b2354885.html

The Presidential Record Act make it clear that the documents Trump stole are government property, but you claim that is not a chargeable offense.  Please explain.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

Yes I have.

 

I was talking about the Carroll case, as you know: not guilty of rape, "liable for battery and defamation", 5 million and off you go = slap on the wrist.

He wasn't indicted for the Carroll case. Thats a civil case. Like I said you need to do some research.

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Yes I have.

 

I was talking about the Carroll case, as you know: not guilty of rape, "liable for battery and defamation", 5 million and off you go = slap on the wrist.

Ahhh…..you forgot sexual assault…..anyway from what I could see it was a very tepid demonstration not many people I wonder if that’s penetrating Donnie’s skull and just wait till we know more details of what he purloined and who he showed them to…….

Off-topic post and reply have been removed 

Looks like his rhetoric and fan base, all but a few, have decided they wont be bothered to protest.  My take on it is they do not want to be arrested for breaking laws if they followed the lead protagonists.

 

Hardly anyone showed up to protest Trump's arraignment today... but Twitter sure had a lot to say about it (msn.com)

A troll post has been reported and removed.  Continue posting inflammatory posts and  you will be suspended.

 

10. You will not post troll messages. Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing forum members by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other members into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Pence joined in along with Haley, Scott, Asa and of course Sununu and Christy solidly flipping. 

Will DeSantis join on not?

8 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

He wasn't indicted for the Carroll case. Thats a civil case. Like I said you need to do some research.

I stand corrected on the terminology, thank you.

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

The Presidential Record Act make it clear that the documents Trump stole are government property, but you claim that is not a chargeable offense.  Please explain.

The indictment does not mention the Presidential Records Act, which gives a President access to documents, both classified and unclassified, once he leaves office. It also allows for good-faith negotiation with the National Archives. Yet the indictment assumes that Trump had no right to take classified documents. That assumption is false.

 

"Trump is not charged with violating the Presidential Records Act, which has no enforcement mechanism."

"Prosecutors are not relying on the PRA to bring charges against Trump. He is instead charged with retaining national defense information under a different law known as the Espionage Act, a 1917 statute that has been used to prosecute other high-profile cases related to the retention or dissemination of classified information."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-presidential-records-act-indictment-arraignment/

11 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The indictment does not mention the Presidential Records Act, which gives a President access to documents, both classified and unclassified, once he leaves office. It also allows for good-faith negotiation with the National Archives. Yet the indictment assumes that Mr. Trump had no right to take classified documents. That assumption is false.

 

"Trump is not charged with violating the Presidential Records Act, which has no enforcement mechanism."

"Prosecutors are not relying on the PRA to bring charges against Trump. He is instead charged with retaining national defense information under a different law known as the Espionage Act, a 1917 statute that has been used to prosecute other high-profile cases related to the retention or dissemination of classified information."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-presidential-records-act-indictment-arraignment/

Ok, I stand corrected.  He violated the Presidential Records Act, which makes Presidential documents government property which he did not return once asked to do so (also known as stealing).  However he was charged with violating the Espionage Act, which is much worse than stealing documents.

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Ok, I stand corrected.  He violated the Presidential Records Act, which makes Presidential documents government property which he did not return once asked to do so (also known as stealing).  However he was charged with violating the Espionage Act, which is much worse than stealing documents.

Please post evidence where violating the PRA is worse than violating the Espionage Act. I'm curious and you made the claim

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Ok, I stand corrected.  He violated the Presidential Records Act, which makes Presidential documents government property which he did not return once asked to do so (also known as stealing).  However he was charged with violating the Espionage Act, which is much worse than stealing documents.

But in this case the Presidential Records Act supersedes the Espionage Act, which is much older. It will become immediately apparent that the DoJ and Special Counsel Smith redefined the Mar-a-Lago documents so that the Espionage Act applies to them, in an attempt to turn a non-crime into a crime. That case holds no water.

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

But in this case the Presidential Records Act supersedes the Espionage Act, which is much older. It will become immediately apparent that the DoJ and Special Counsel Smith redefined the Mar-a-Lago documents so that the Espionage Act applies to them, in an attempt to turn a non-crime into a crime. That case holds no water.

If it holds no water then the case will be dismissed. Yet I do not believe the case will be dismissed.  Lets wait and see what occurs. The 14th amendment stands in the balance should he be convicted or accept a plea deal.

35 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Please post evidence where violating the PRA is worse than violating the Espionage Act. I'm curious and you made the claim

I stated the opposite.

31 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

But in this case the Presidential Records Act supersedes the Espionage Act, which is much older. It will become immediately apparent that the DoJ and Special Counsel Smith redefined the Mar-a-Lago documents so that the Espionage Act applies to them, in an attempt to turn a non-crime into a crime. That case holds no water.

Why would an act defining ownership of documents supersede the Espionage Act?  Good luck trying that argument in court.

55 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The indictment does not mention the Presidential Records Act, which gives a President access to documents, both classified and unclassified, once he leaves office. It also allows for good-faith negotiation with the National Archives. Yet the indictment assumes that Trump had no right to take classified documents. That assumption is false.

 

"Trump is not charged with violating the Presidential Records Act, which has no enforcement mechanism."

"Prosecutors are not relying on the PRA to bring charges against Trump. He is instead charged with retaining national defense information under a different law known as the Espionage Act, a 1917 statute that has been used to prosecute other high-profile cases related to the retention or dissemination of classified information."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-presidential-records-act-indictment-arraignment/

Not sure what your point is, The indictment includes evidence of Trump on tape talking about highly secret documents. 

 

Trump retained documents related to national defense that were classified at the highest levels, and some so sensitive they required special handling.

That includes one “Top Secret” document, dated June 2020, “concerning nuclear capabilities of a foreign county” found at Mar-a-Lago, according to the indictment.

 

"SCIF. These documents are not supposed to be reviewed in a Secret Service-secured place, but in a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF."

 

Why did Trump lie to his own lawyers and hide boxes with documents from his own lawyers?

 

“I don't want anybody looking, I don't want anybody looking through my boxes, I really don't, I don't want you looking through my boxes,”

 

You should read the full indictment not just summaries. Here's a good copy that has notes attached to each relevant page:

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2023/06/politics/annotated-trump-indictment-dg/

 

 

 

 

48 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

But in this case the Presidential Records Act supersedes the Espionage Act, which is much older. It will become immediately apparent that the DoJ and Special Counsel Smith redefined the Mar-a-Lago documents so that the Espionage Act applies to them, in an attempt to turn a non-crime into a crime. That case holds no water.

So you're saying you know more than Jack Smith and the whole of the DOJ?  Without even reading the indictment?  Impressive.  Well there's been subject matter experts who have poured through that indictment and every last one has said that it's a powerful and airtight document.  We're talking experts in all manner of constitutional law, national security, historical/legal precedents, etc.  Heck, Trump's own AG Bill Barr just said that Trump is toast.

 

You're engaging in what I would call "wishful thinking."  Don't quit your day job.  

29 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Not sure what your point is, The indictment includes evidence of Trump on tape talking about highly secret documents. 

 

Trump retained documents related to national defense that were classified at the highest levels, and some so sensitive they required special handling.

That includes one “Top Secret” document, dated June 2020, “concerning nuclear capabilities of a foreign county” found at Mar-a-Lago, according to the indictment.

 

"SCIF. These documents are not supposed to be reviewed in a Secret Service-secured place, but in a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF."

 

Why did Trump lie to his own lawyers and hide boxes with documents from his own lawyers?

 

“I don't want anybody looking, I don't want anybody looking through my boxes, I really don't, I don't want you looking through my boxes,”

 

You should read the full indictment not just summaries. Here's a good copy that has notes attached to each relevant page:

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2023/06/politics/annotated-trump-indictment-dg/

 

 

 

 

Annotated by your very own CNN, of course!