June 17, 20232 yr Popular Post House Republicans coming to former President Trump’s defense in the Mar-a-Lago documents care are turning their attention to the possibility of using congressional funding and oversight authority against the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) on Monday called to defund special counsel Jack Smith and his office — which is handling the Trump documents case — through the appropriations process. “This is a weaponized government attempt to take down the top political enemy and leading presidential candidate of the United States, Donald J. Trump. We cannot allow the government to be weaponized for political purposes,” Greene said on the House floor.
June 17, 20232 yr Popular Post Alternatively they could come up with a legislative program to help ordinary Americans rather than helping the crook who is going to take them down with him. Nah, they won’t do that. Strap yourself to Trump, just do it.
June 17, 20232 yr Popular Post What happened to the "Law and Order" party? Or is only the "Law and Order" party for the poor and minorities?
June 17, 20232 yr Popular Post I'm a bit baffled. They complain about the government being weaponized for political purposes (no evidence) and so they want to weaponize their power over funding of law enforcement to intervene in and drop a court case for their own political purposes? What's the professional term of this kind of twisted logic? Hypocrisy? Projecting?
June 17, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, eisfeld said: I'm a bit baffled. They complain about the government being weaponized for political purposes (no evidence) and so they want to weaponize their power over funding of law enforcement to intervene in and drop a court case for their own political purposes? What's the professional term of this kind of twisted logic? Hypocrisy? Projecting? It’s the Republican accusation confession thing.
June 17, 20232 yr Jack and the dishonest(illegal leaks)Doj/fbi would do wonders for the agencies trust with a large swath of Americans if he postponed his political persecution of the leading presidential candidate , by waiting till after the 2024 election .imop Whats the rush! They waited all this time to start with political persecution (according to the Gop)with the election process. Imop Let the election go without controversy Imop https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/16/six-reasons-dojs-legal-case-against-trump-is-seriously-flawed/
June 17, 20232 yr Popular Post 11 minutes ago, riclag said: Jack and the dishonest(illegal leaks)Doj/fbi would do wonders for the agencies trust with a large swath of Americans if he postponed his political persecution of the leading presidential candidate , by waiting till after the 2024 election .imop Whats the rush! They waited all this time to start with political persecution (according to the Gop)with the election process. Imop Let the election go without controversy Imop https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/16/six-reasons-dojs-legal-case-against-trump-is-seriously-flawed/ Jack be nimble, Jack be quick.
June 17, 20232 yr Popular Post 21 minutes ago, riclag said: Jack and the dishonest(illegal leaks)Doj/fbi would do wonders for the agencies trust with a large swath of Americans if he postponed his political persecution of the leading presidential candidate , by waiting till after the 2024 election .imop Whats the rush! They waited all this time to start with political persecution (according to the Gop)with the election process. Imop Let the election go without controversy Imop Biden has been nowhere near this. Cut the conspiracy theories unless you can link to evidence other than mere accusations..
June 17, 20232 yr Popular Post 7 minutes ago, riclag said: Jack and the dishonest(illegal leaks)Doj/fbi would do wonders for the agencies trust with a large swath of Americans if he postponed his political persecution of the leading presidential candidate , by waiting till after the 2024 election .imop Whats the rush! They waited all this time to start with political persecution (according to the Gop)with the election process. Imop Let the election go without controversy Imop https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/16/six-reasons-dojs-legal-case-against-trump-is-seriously-flawed/ What’s political about stealing top secret information sharing it with people who don’t have A a need to know B no clearance and god knows who else.Not to mention obstruction of justice nor many attempts to retrieve the documents,nor the haphazard storage of said documents that ain’t political brother that at the very least it A against the lawB gross dereliction of responsibility especially by a former president C it borders on high treason no sir the DOJ has no choice except to prosecute trump who broke the law he’s now trolling and grifting money from the many rubes who believe the New York trust fund baby no sir it ain’t political it is a just case and I hope he does time in the penitentiary over it
June 17, 20232 yr Popular Post 1 minute ago, Tug said: What’s political about stealing top secret information sharing it with people who don’t have A a need to know B no clearance and god knows who else.Not to mention obstruction of justice nor many attempts to retrieve the documents,nor the haphazard storage of said documents that ain’t political brother that at the very least it A against the lawB gross dereliction of responsibility especially by a former president C it borders on high treason no sir the DOJ has no choice except to prosecute trump who broke the law he’s now trolling and grifting money from the many rubes who believe the New York trust fund baby no sir it ain’t political it is a just case and I hope he does time in the penitentiary over it He will. The worst offenses havn't been charged yet. Somehow the right wing think a dozen or so seditious conspiracy charges or useful idiots who all claimed Trump told them to do it won't land home at the top.
June 17, 20232 yr Popular Post In a legal filing made late Friday, attorneys working for special counsel Jack Smith notified the court that information they will be handing over to Donald Trump's attorneys as part of the discovery process will contain some information on "ongoing investigations" that could lead to new charges. According to a report from Alan Feuer of the New York Times, those documents also contain information about "uncharged individuals.” Now that the former president has been arraigned in a Florida courtroom on 37 federal counts that include alleged violations of the Espionage Act, prosecutors are pressing forward with normal court procedures and the notice given on Friday puts Trump's lawyers on notice that there is likely more to come. https://www.rawstory.com/jack-smith-trump-2661459240/
June 17, 20232 yr Popular Post 2 hours ago, riclag said: Jack and the dishonest(illegal leaks)Doj/fbi would do wonders for the agencies trust with a large swath of Americans if he postponed his political persecution of the leading presidential candidate , by waiting till after the 2024 election .imop Whats the rush! They waited all this time to start with political persecution (according to the Gop)with the election process. Imop Let the election go without controversy Imop You don't think the voters deserve to know if Trump is guilty of these serious allegations before deciding if he should be president? Should everyone who runs for president be exempt from prosecution or just Trump? And wouldn't that mean that if he wins we'll never know the truth regarding the alleged crimes because he just pardons himself? Does not sound like fair and just at all. PS: what's with all these "imop" after nearly every sentence in your posts? I couldn't find the meaning of that word/abbrevation.
June 17, 20232 yr Popular Post 3 hours ago, riclag said: Jack and the dishonest(illegal leaks)Doj/fbi would do wonders for the agencies trust with a large swath of Americans if he postponed his political persecution of the leading presidential candidate , by waiting till after the 2024 election .imop Whats the rush! They waited all this time to start with political persecution (according to the Gop)with the election process. Imop Let the election go without controversy Imop So much to unpack here: Do illegal leaks make an organization illegal? Does that mean the Trump Presidency was illegal? The investigation started more than two years before the election. The charges were filed more than 18 months before the election. Do you want all criminal investigations and charges to be put on hold whenever the subject of the investigation or charges announces a run for the Presidency? Do any other political offices qualify for this exemption from the law? Why do you think suspending the investigation will allow the election to go without controversy? Shouldn't voters know before the election if Trump is a thief and national security risk?
June 17, 20232 yr Popular Post The party that loves to scream "lock em up" controlled the DOJ for four years with attorney generals who were trump flunkies and came up with not enough evidence of crime to present to a grand jury to vote for a single indictment now doesn't much like the idea that orange jesus has been indicted and may well get locked up. Why no indictments under trump? Uh duh could it be that real evidence has to be presented to a grand jury of regular citizens who has to review the evidence and agree that a crime was probable....but since they had no real evidence they knew that they would look like political hacks and fools if the grand jury refused to indict. Screaming lock em up or conspiracy theories does not count as evidence. Jack Smith did not indict Trump but he sure presented some serious real evidence, much of which was provided by trump himself, that after review a grand jury believed to be true and then did indict.
June 17, 20232 yr Popular Post 4 hours ago, Tug said: What’s political about stealing top secret information sharing it with people who don’t have A a need to know B no clearance and god knows who else. Re: the events above as noted in items 34. and 35. of the indictment: Attorneys for Trump informed the Justice Department that they've not been able to locate a classified document related to Iran sought by investigators that was discussed during a recorded meeting, two people with knowledge of the case confirmed to CBS News. One person said it's not clear if the document with the "plan of attack" exists, or if Trump was misidentifying something to those assembled for the meeting, but said prosecutors have the tape. Sometimes aides and visitors weren't even sure if what Trump was talking about on national security or military matters was true or if documents Trump mentioned existed, sources recalled. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-indictment-documents-mark-milley-mar-a-lago/
June 17, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said: Re: the events above as noted in items 34. and 35. of the indictment: Attorneys for Trump informed the Justice Department that they've not been able to locate a classified document related to Iran sought by investigators that was discussed during a recorded meeting, two people with knowledge of the case confirmed to CBS News. One person said it's not clear if the document with the "plan of attack" exists, or if Trump was misidentifying something to those assembled for the meeting, but said prosecutors have the tape. Sometimes aides and visitors weren't even sure if what Trump was talking about on national security or military matters was true or if documents Trump mentioned existed, sources recalled. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-indictment-documents-mark-milley-mar-a-lago/ You may be right, as it would obviously not be the first time Trump talked B.S. However, it has nothing to do with the fact that the investigation may be political or not.
June 17, 20232 yr 23 minutes ago, candide said: You may be right, as it would obviously not be the first time Trump talked B.S. However, it has nothing to do with the fact that the investigation may be political or not. I was responding to this from K. Tug above: "What’s political about stealing top secret information sharing it with people who don’t have A a need to know B no clearance and god knows who else." As to your "You may be right, as it would obviously not be the first time Trump talked B.S." BS is one thing; putting 2 incidents that may well turn out to be blowing smoke and using it as a proof of "state of mind" in a federal indictment which may later turn out to be not as described is something else.
June 18, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said: I was responding to this from K. Tug above: "What’s political about stealing top secret information sharing it with people who don’t have A a need to know B no clearance and god knows who else." As to your "You may be right, as it would obviously not be the first time Trump talked B.S." BS is one thing; putting 2 incidents that may well turn out to be blowing smoke and using it as a proof of "state of mind" in a federal indictment which may later turn out to be not as described is something else. His only defense on that particular part of his case is he’s going to say he lied about it but he may be to far into his narcissistic illness to do it who knows it’s certainly in character to brag about something
June 18, 20232 yr 7 hours ago, ozimoron said: In a legal filing made late Friday, attorneys working for special counsel Jack Smith notified the court that information they will be handing over to Donald Trump's attorneys as part of the discovery process will contain some information on "ongoing investigations" that could lead to new charges. According to a report from Alan Feuer of the New York Times, those documents also contain information about "uncharged individuals.” Now that the former president has been arraigned in a Florida courtroom on 37 federal counts that include alleged violations of the Espionage Act, prosecutors are pressing forward with normal court procedures and the notice given on Friday puts Trump's lawyers on notice that there is likely more to come. https://www.rawstory.com/jack-smith-trump-2661459240/ Potentially new charges but also potentially new persons charged.
June 18, 20232 yr 18 minutes ago, Tug said: His only defense on that particular part of his case is he’s going to say he lied about it but he may be to far into his narcissistic illness to do it who knows it’s certainly in character to brag about something Trump doesn't have to say anything. All the prosecution has to do to prove Trump knew that one or more documents still in his possession post-presidency was still classified is produce the two documents as described in items 33 -35 of the indictment.
June 18, 20232 yr Trump is not trying to mount any kind of defense. He seems to be employing 2 tactics. 1, delay; and 2, seek the public realm and get as many as possible to believe this is unjustified and political.
June 18, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said: I was responding to this from K. Tug above: "What’s political about stealing top secret information sharing it with people who don’t have A a need to know B no clearance and god knows who else." As to your "You may be right, as it would obviously not be the first time Trump talked B.S." BS is one thing; putting 2 incidents that may well turn out to be blowing smoke and using it as a proof of "state of mind" in a federal indictment which may later turn out to be not as described is something else. We will see but so far i don't think jack smith is much the type to "blow smoke".....as for blowing smoke i think any rational person knows who is the king of BS in these matters.
June 18, 20232 yr The documents are described in the indictment. If the prosecution can produce them at trial, that is one thing. If it turns out that they don't exist -- as Gen. Milley is on record that he never wrote a document as described in the indictment, that is something else. "The document Trump references was not produced by Milley, CNN was told." https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/31/politics/trump-tape-classified-document-iran-milley/index.html
June 18, 20232 yr 12 hours ago, Tug said: What’s political about stealing top secret information sharing it with people who don’t have A a need to know B no clearance and god knows who else.Not to mention obstruction of justice nor many attempts to retrieve the documents,nor the haphazard storage of said documents that ain’t political brother that at the very least it A against the lawB gross dereliction of responsibility especially by a former president C it borders on high treason no sir the DOJ has no choice except to prosecute trump who broke the law he’s now trolling and grifting money from the many rubes who believe the New York trust fund baby no sir it ain’t political it is a just case and I hope he does time in the penitentiary over it Thats a made up accusation by the far left “ stole”. You got proof he stole documents that he considered his! “Based on the documents I’ve read and his actions I’ve read about, I believe Trump viewed his “boxes” as his personal records under the PRA. There are statements he made, quoted in the indictment, that support that view. If Trump considered the contents of these boxes to be of purely personal interest, hence his designation of them as personal records, did he knowingly retain NDI”? from my op source
June 18, 20232 yr 8 hours ago, jerrymahoney said: Re: the events above as noted in items 34. and 35. of the indictment: Attorneys for Trump informed the Justice Department that they've not been able to locate a classified document related to Iran sought by investigators that was discussed during a recorded meeting, two people with knowledge of the case confirmed to CBS News. One person said it's not clear if the document with the "plan of attack" exists, or if Trump was misidentifying something to those assembled for the meeting, but said prosecutors have the tape. Sometimes aides and visitors weren't even sure if what Trump was talking about on national security or military matters was true or if documents Trump mentioned existed, sources recalled. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-indictment-documents-mark-milley-mar-a-lago/ Do you suppose the Government might have a record of what documents Trump received and which documents he did not return?
June 18, 20232 yr Let’s none of us forget the concerns over Trump mishandling and/or leaking national security and intelligence information are nothing new: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/02/16/trump-reportedly-kept-in-dark-about-intelligence-due-to-leak-concerns.html
June 18, 20232 yr 15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: Do you suppose the Government might have a record of what documents Trump received and which documents he did not return? Even if they did, the Government would not have an inventory record for documents that Trump has described to various persons but do not exist: Attorneys for Trump informed the Justice Department that they've not been able to locate a classified document related to Iran sought by investigators that was discussed during a recorded meeting, two people with knowledge of the case confirmed to CBS News. One person said it's not clear if the document with the "plan of attack" exists, or if Trump was misidentifying something to those assembled for the meeting, but said prosecutors have the tape. Sometimes aides and visitors weren't even sure if what Trump was talking about on national security or military matters was true or if documents Trump mentioned existed, sources recalled. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-indictment-documents-mark-milley-mar-a-lago/
June 18, 20232 yr Popular Post 24 minutes ago, riclag said: Thats a made up accusation by the far left “ stole”. You got proof he stole documents that he considered his! “Based on the documents I’ve read and his actions I’ve read about, I believe Trump viewed his “boxes” as his personal records under the PRA. There are statements he made, quoted in the indictment, that support that view. If Trump considered the contents of these boxes to be of purely personal interest, hence his designation of them as personal records, did he knowingly retain NDI”? from my op source He was informed he had classified and top secret documents. He later claimed they were planted. He then made statements, on record, that reveal he knew he was in possession of classified documents. He made efforts to conceal the documents. He conspired with his lawyers to return some documents in a bid to keep others, and they gave testimony on the matter. He conspired with his lawyers to submit false statements regarding the classified documents, and they gave testimony on the matter.
June 18, 20232 yr 4 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said: Even if they did, it would not have an inventory record for documents that Trump has described to various persons but do not exist: Attorneys for Trump informed the Justice Department that they've not been able to locate a classified document related to Iran sought by investigators that was discussed during a recorded meeting, two people with knowledge of the case confirmed to CBS News. One person said it's not clear if the document with the "plan of attack" exists, or if Trump was misidentifying something to those assembled for the meeting, but said prosecutors have the tape. Sometimes aides and visitors weren't even sure if what Trump was talking about on national security or military matters was true or if documents Trump mentioned existed, sources recalled. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-indictment-documents-mark-milley-mar-a-lago/ Note to Jack Smith. Add disposing of classified documents to the charges. I’m sure most people don’t know if a classified map is indeed a classified map. But it’s not their understanding of what information they were shown that is the crime. Trump was showing people classified information Clutch at straws.
June 18, 20232 yr Popular Post 35 minutes ago, riclag said: Thats a made up accusation by the far left “ stole”. You got proof he stole documents that he considered his! “Based on the documents I’ve read and his actions I’ve read about, I believe Trump viewed his “boxes” as his personal records under the PRA. There are statements he made, quoted in the indictment, that support that view. If Trump considered the contents of these boxes to be of purely personal interest, hence his designation of them as personal records, did he knowingly retain NDI”? from my op source If Trump willfully removed documents from a place where they were legally required to be kept them he stole them. It's long been proved that it wasn't inadvertent in Trump's case as it was inadvertent in Biden's case. Mens Rea is a fundamental legal precept that goes to intention.
Create an account or sign in to comment