Republicans Are Outraged Donald Trump Isn't Above The Law

[LeftofLeft]

Dude I didn't realize that besides the insurrection, stormy daniels, calls to georgia and ukraine, company tax fraud, foundation shut down, university a scam. And there are more that I'm forgetting. But I didn't even realize he's also involved in a rape case

Trump is no different than Harvey Weinstein. Only Trump is above the law. Both abused their power.

Donald Trump Loses Final Bid To Keep Key Evidence Out Of Rape Trial​

Trump Loses Final Bid To Keep Key Evidence Out Of Rape Trial

Key witnesses will be allowed to testify and misogynistic remarks Trump made about women in 2005 can be played for a jury, a judge ruled.

www.huffpost.com

So Trump is even on trial for Rape???

I was referring to the matter at hand in the eyes of the Law, illegal use of campaign funds.

 

[sealybobo]

I was referring to the matter at hand in the eyes of the Law, illegal use of campaign funds.

Not the biggest crime you can go down for but it'll do. Like Capone.

 

[PeanutGallery]

There was no raid. A search warrant doesn't presume a raid at all. In fact, they treated Trump with kid gloves, and they wore casual clothes, no jackets with "FBI" plastered everywhere, none of that,



Mishandling of documents that belong to the government do not depend on any classification regime, per the Espionage Act (when it was enacted, there was no regime). Today, classification would be considered as a supplemental fact, but even if they were declassified, it would be the damage assessments by the DNI, that carried weight in any indictment. If they were declassified, and the docs earned a high score as being damaging to US National Security assessed by the DNI, that would put whoever took the documents from there secure locations in legal jeopardy.

Additionally, it is my understanding that the DOJ doesn't indict members of the executive branch merely for possessing classified or any government documents, as long as they cooperate fully and return the documents. But, they should be investigated, damage assessments shouldn't be ignored, and that is occurring under Garland. However, unfortunately for Trump, when he refused to cooperate, return documents, even go so far as to claim, in public, that the documents were his, and make absurd statements taht he could 'declassify with his mind', that will not bode well for him should he be indicted, and if he is indicted on a documents/Espionage charge, the primary charge will be Obstruction, but for that fact, there would be no Espionage mishandling of docs charge. This is why, if anyone has legal Jeopardy, it is not Pence or Biden, it is Trump.

But, let's clear up something regarding classification, even though it's not relevant in any weighty fashion, to an Espionage charge, this idea that a president can wave his hand and declassify documents, en masse, without memorializing each document, recording them down in cooperation and consultation with the issuing authority, is not correct. Note that there is nothing in the constitution about classification of documents. There are executive orders, none of which Trump repealed, that direct how documents should be declassified. Additionally, none of this applies to 'restricted data' classifications, those are nuclear secrets and only the issuing authority can change classification on those, per the Atomic Energy Act, and I believe Trump was in possession of some restricted data documents. Trump has legal exposure, much more so than Biden or Pence does, but, whether or not Garland will seek and indictment, that's another story altogether.

I will provide you with substantiation on the above, points, if you want. Let me know.

See: The Executive Order 13526, issued by President Barack Obama in 2009, which provides the framework for the classification and declassification of national security information. The order sets forth the criteria for classifying information, the standards for protecting classified information, and the procedures for reviewing and declassifying information.

Lots of info, but it totally misses one key point. It's been seven months since the FBI came in. The DOJ STILL hasn't found anything worth charging Trump for violating the Espionage Act or the other criminal charges (records-related obstruction charge & mishandling public records). The obstruction charge may be laughable if CNN is correct. On June 2, Trump invites FBI officials to Mar-a-lago. They show up on the 3rd with a subpoena for some documents and they take them when they leave. June 8, federal investigators send Trump's attorneys a letter to further secure the basement area they were at on the 3rd. Then later on in the month, federal investigators ask for video footage from Mar-a-lago, and the Trump attorneys send the footage. So, what happened between June 24th and the search warrant date of August 8th that shows obstruction? They could've taken all the documents while they were down there in early June or came back with a new subpoena with more documents listed on it. Also, if the federal investigators were so concerned about mishandling public records & the Espionage Act, why would they send a letter to Trump's attorney asking to further secure the room? Does that seem like a rational action of someone who's worried about a potential violation of the Espionage Act?

As far as EO 13526, all those people listed as who has to ok for something to be declassified work for the President. I don't see where it's written where the POTUS has to go through that process. Outside of the Atomic Energy Act and few exceptions, the President doesn't need permission to classify or declassify anything. Outside of the exceptions, who has the authority to tell the POTUS that they can't declassify or classify something?

 

[Mac1958]

He could be arrested on 5th Ave., and not lose any support.

He has the flock conditioned: No matter what, he's always the victim. Always.

He's the victimiest victimy victim in the history of historical histories!

 

[Rumpole]

I'm not arguing that Trump should run .. I'm arguing that the media focus on pending indictments will only build additional support for Trump. Biden beat Trump in 2020 primarily because it wasn't a traditional campaign model, and Biden will actually have to do things besides sit in his basement reading teleprompters.

I agree the Republican party needs some new blood and perspective, and looking forward to seeing the upcoming primaries.

I'm sympathetic with your view, especially on the Bragg hush money indictment, it will be perceived as chickenshit, but for 1/6 crimes, which is to say, he and his crime buddies conspiring to overturn the election in a grandiose attempt to force a contested election where they knew they had a majority in the state delegations, thus assuring a Trump victory, an immense, historical, highly illegal scheme,, I don't care about the politics, that crime cannot go unprosecuted.

 

[Rumpole]

Lots of info, but it totally misses one key point. It's been seven months since the FBI came in. The DOJ STILL hasn't found anything worth charging Trump for violating the Espionage Act or the other criminal charges (records-related obstruction charge & mishandling public records). The obstruction charge may be laughable if CNN is correct. On June 2, Trump invites FBI officials to Mar-a-lago. They show up on the 3rd with a subpoena for some documents and they take them when they leave. June 8, federal investigators send Trump's attorneys a letter to further secure the basement area they were at on the 3rd. Then later on in the month, federal investigators ask for video footage from Mar-a-lago, and the Trump attorneys send the footage. So, what happened between June 24th and the search warrant date of August 8th that shows obstruction? They could've taken all the documents while they were down there in early June or came back with a new subpoena with more documents listed on it. Also, if the federal investigators were so concerned about mishandling public records & the Espionage Act, why would they send a letter to Trump's attorney asking to further secure the room? Does that seem like a rational action of someone who's worried about a potential violation of the Espionage Act?

As far as EO 13526, all those people listed as who has to ok for something to be declassified work for the President. I don't see where it's written where the POTUS has to go through that process. Outside of the Atomic Energy Act and few exceptions, the President doesn't need permission to classify or declassify anything. Outside of the exceptions, who has the authority to tell the POTUS that they can't declassify or classify something?

I doubt Garland will seek indictments on documents. If anything, it will be related to Jan 6.

 

[jotathought]

I'm sympathetic with your view, especially on the Bragg hush money indictment, it will be perceived as chickenshit, but for 1/6 crimes, which is to say, he and his crime buddies conspiring to overturn the election in a grandiose attempt to force a contested election where they knew they had a majority in the state delegations, thus assuring a Trump victory, an immense, historical, highly illegal scheme,, I don't care about the politics, that crime cannot go unprosecuted.

We'll just agree to disagree that 1/6 was "an insurrection" (said in dramatic voice) and worse than September 11, 2001 and December 7, 1941.

 

[Rambunctious]

Show me some hard evidence of their crimes, and I will believe you.

I just follow the evidence. I'm not going to support a Democratic politician just because they are a democrat.

We have way more evidence of crimes in the Biden and Clinton crime families than with Trump... Bragg is making a mockery of charging Trump... his little game of holding a grand jury for something that is no longer within the statute of limitations is going to make a joke out of the Georgia case and the federal Mar A Lago case... so Trump could not be happier....

 

[Rumpole]

Funny how they are framing it as "hush money" when it's usually called a nondisclosure agreement.

People like slang, didn't you get the memo? Doesn't 'hush money' roll off the tongue better than 'non disclosure agreement'?

Sheesh, I'd a thought that was a no brainer.

 

[Rumpole]

We'll just agree to disagree that 1/6 was "an insurrection" (said in dramatic voice) and worse than September 11, 2001 and December 7, 1941.

Well, don't disagree yet, because.....

I mentioned nothing about 1/6 being an insurrection, and I don't believe garland will press charges on insurrection charges.

Recall that I wrote;

Trump, et al. conspired to overturn the election in a grandiose attempt to force a contested election where they knew they had a majority in the state delegations, thus assuring a Trump victory, an immense, historical, highly illegal scheme

That's criminal election fraud, fraud against the United STates.

Nothing to do with 'insurrection". If anything, the riots thwarted his scheme, as the 100 or so who were going to object (at the Joint Session), most of them didn't because of the riot and so the scheme failed.

There are a lot more details about this scheme, let me know if you don't already know, and want more information.

 

[Rumpole]

We have way more evidence of crimes in the Biden and Clinton crime families than with Trump...

You have nothing.

Bragg is making a mockery of charging Trump... his little game of holding a grand jury for something that is no longer within the statute of limitations is going to make a joke out of the Georgia case and the federal Mar A Lago case... so Trump could not be happier....

I agree that Bragg shouldn't indict. Fani, yes, Letitia, Yes, Garland, Yes.

But, Bragg, not for hush money, but for Finance crimes related to the Trump org indictment.

 

[jotathought]

Well, don't disagree yet, because.....

I mentioned nothing about 1/6 being an insurrection, and I don't believe garland will press charges on insurrection charges.

Recall that I wrote;

Trump, et al. conspired to overturn the election in a grandiose attempt to force a contested election where they knew they had a majority in the state delegations, thus assuring a Trump victory, an immense, historical, highly illegal scheme

That's criminal election fraud, fraud against the United STates.

Nothing to do with 'insurrection". If anything, the riots thwarted his scheme, as the 100 or so who were going to object (at the Joint Session), most of them didn't because of the riot and so the scheme failed.

There are a lot more details about this scheme, let me know if you don't already know, and want more information.

sigh .. if it's "illegal, criminal election fraud...." where are the indictments? Trump may be indicted for trivial charges on "hush money," yet, these more serious charges are .. where?

 

[Rumpole]

Dude I didn't realize that besides the insurrection, stormy daniels, calls to georgia and ukraine, company tax fraud, foundation shut down, university a scam. And there are more that I'm forgetting. But I didn't even realize he's also involved in a rape case

Trump is no different than Harvey Weinstein. Only Trump is above the law. Both abused their power.

Donald Trump Loses Final Bid To Keep Key Evidence Out Of Rape Trial​

Trump Loses Final Bid To Keep Key Evidence Out Of Rape Trial

Key witnesses will be allowed to testify and misogynistic remarks Trump made about women in 2005 can be played for a jury, a judge ruled.

www.huffpost.com

So Trump is even on trial for Rape???

It's a civil 'rape damages/defamation' case, something like that, Not criminal.

 

[Godboy]

Don't get excited. As far as I can tell Trump is above the law. Had I taken a bunch of classified documents to a motel room I would probably still be in the brig.

Thats because you arent a president.

 

[PeanutGallery]

I doubt Garland will seek indictments on documents. If anything, it will be related to Jan 6.

That has also been passed over to the special prosecutor. Liberals want to point at the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers as examples of Jan 6th, but they actually, IMO, help Trump. People from those two groups were found guilty of seditious conspiracy. Meaning, they were planning on having something happen at the Capitol on the 6th. So far, it looks to be independent from anything Trump did or said. BTW, it's now been over 26 months since it happened. Again, why haven't the DOJ charge Trump with anything? Either Garland's completely incompetent, or the situation is that Garland, or people advising him, don't feel like he can get a conviction. Federal prosecutors kind of pride themselves on having a very high percentage of conviction rate.

 

[Rambunctious]

You have nothing.


I agree that Bragg shouldn't indict. Fani, yes, Letitia, Yes, Garland, Yes.

But, Bragg, not for hush money, but for Finance crimes related to the Trump org indictment.

Your side has nothing... wait till Biden has to face a dem challenger...

 

[sealybobo]

It's a civil 'rape damages/defamation' case, something like that, Not criminal.

Oh excuse me. Is that all Trump's Rape Case is about?

 

[Rumpole]

That has also been passed over to the special prosecutor. Liberals want to point at the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers as examples of Jan 6th, but they actually, IMO, help Trump. People from those two groups were found guilty of seditious conspiracy. Meaning, they were planning on having something happen at the Capitol on the 6th. So far, it looks to be independent from anything Trump did or said.

If an investigation were to reveal that the President and a group of Senators and Congresspersons conspired to object to electoral votes with the specific intent to delay the joint session, to bring enough chaos so as to force a contested election, and that they knew at the outset they had a two-state majority in the state's delegations, this would be a serious breach of the law and democratic norms.

If a delay can force the VP to declare that no party had the required 270 electoral votes, then the vote goes ot the House, where, as mentioned, Republicans have two state advantage in the state delegations. The Trump scheme, drafted by Eastman with input from Navarro (who referred to it as the 'Greenbay Sweep'), had several paths all of which would delay the Joint Session with the ultimate objective of either, depriving 270 votes at the joint session, or delaying the Joint Session by remanding the electoral votes back to the states, which would have, as I understand it, created a constitutional crisis, is that the ECA does not authorize such a move. However, Pence refused to go along with that part of the scheme, and continued to count the votes as the constitution required. Still, the objections in the Joint Session cold have still achieved the objective, but then the riot happened, and that through a wrench in the scheme.

If the evidence of such a conspiracy were strong enough, it could lead to criminal charges against the individuals involved, including the President. Depending on the severity of the wrongdoing, it could also lead to calls for impeachment and removal from office.

Additionally, such a conspiracy could have far-reaching consequences for American democracy, potentially undermining public trust in the electoral process and leading to greater political polarization. It would be important for the authorities to investigate thoroughly and impartially, and for appropriate legal and political consequences to follow if wrongdoing is found.

This is precisely why Garland appointed Jack Smith to investigate the soft coup, to see if there was enough evidence for it. As for 'insurrection, if anything is proven along those lines, it will probably be along the lines of 'giving comfort to' a seditious conspiracy, which doesn't require direct command line direction, as I understand the law, and I'm just a layman.

It wasn't merely folks objecting to votes, it was conspirators forwarding a scheme to intentionally overturn the election with the specific objective of throwing the vote to the house, where Trump and his conspirators knew they had a two state majority in the state delegations.

Now, we know that

147 Republican lawmakers still objected to the election results after the Capitol attack

Congress has certified President-elect Joe Biden as the winner of the election — but some Republicans still objected.

www.vox.com

...six Republicans in the Senate and 121 in the House backed objections to certifying Arizona’s electoral outcome, while seven Senate Republicans and 138 House Republicans supported an objection to certifying Pennsylvania’s electoral outcome.
[...]
The lawmakers who upheld these objections, however, did so even though they were unfounded, won’t be going anywhere, and further amplify lies about a rigged election. Neither objection obtained a majority of votes in either chamber, and both failed.

With that failure, and Pence refusing to remand the votes back to the states, Trump's scheme to overturn the election and retain power failed. However. he and his conspirators committed a number of acts in furtherance of the scheme, so they might be in legal trouble.

BTW, it's now been over 26 months since it happened. Again, why haven't the DOJ charge Trump with anything? Either Garland's completely incompetent, or the situation is that Garland, or people advising him, don't feel like he can get a conviction. Federal prosecutors kind of pride themselves on having a very high percentage of conviction rate.

Garland went the bottom up route, and more than 950 persons were indicted and there are many more being pursued, and apparently they took up much of the oxygen. Now Jack Smith, as Special Counsel, has taken over the investigation and I do not know what he is doing to objectively assess why it is taking so long. We don't have the facts, so jumping to weighty conclusions like 'incompetence', is hardly in order given that we do not know how complex and difficult their tasks are.

 

[Rumpole]

Your side has nothing... wait till Biden has to face a dem challenger...

Whatever.

 

[Rumpole]

Oh excuse me. Is that all Trump's Rape Case is about?

Why don't you google it? You'll do better than query folks on this forum.