Trump warns of 'problems' like 'we've never seen' if he's indicted

[BS Filter]

Without making the fuss Trump is making. For election sake.

Oh, the Million dollars he has made off of it, so far !!!!

Jealous.

 

[BS Filter]

The last line of the vid..she says that she wees it as a literal call to arms. I'm not really seeing a call to violence there. More of a wake-up call, I think.

"Literal call to arms" can mean only one thing. Violence. I do see the possibility that she hasn't got a fucking clue that what she said is actually promoting violence. She's a very stupid creature.

 

[Indeependent]

There’s a law about keeping sensitive national defense information in your closet.

There’s a law about complying with grand jury subpoenas.

There’s a law about lying to the DoJ.

This is such a stupid scandal, I really can’t believe anyone doesn’t see how poorly this reflects on Trump’s judgement. There’s just no reason we need to be having the argument because there’s no reason Trump should even be wanting to keep these documents.

And Trump didn't break one of those laws.

 

[BS Filter]

There’s a law about keeping sensitive national defense information in your closet.

There’s a law about complying with grand jury subpoenas.

There’s a law about lying to the DoJ.

This is such a stupid scandal, I really can’t believe anyone doesn’t see how poorly this reflects on Trump’s judgement. There’s just no reason we need to be having the argument because there’s no reason Trump should even be wanting to keep these documents.

There's a law about illegal immigration. Why aren't democrats enforcing it?

 

[Marener]

And Trump didn't break one of those laws.

There’s good reason to believe he broke all of them.

Trump was served a grand jury subpoena that required him to turn over any document with classification markings.

His lawyers handed over a few dozen documents and said that was all.

But it wasn’t and the FBI found a hundred more in their search.

That’s a big problem for Trump because it sure looks like he was obstructing the grand jury.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Timeline

2021​

Jan. 18 Crews from a Miami news station spot at least two moving trucks at Mar-a-Lago that investigators said in court documents contained documents transported from the White House.

Jan. 20 Mr. Trump makes a rushed and chaotic exitfrom the White House and Joe Biden is sworn in as president.

May 6 The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) begins approaching the former president’s team requesting missing presidential records. In the course of 2021, the archives and the Trump team had an extensive exchange about the disposition of the records from the former president’s White House.

Late December NARA is informed of 12 boxes ready for retrieval at Mar-a-Lago.

2022​

Jan. 18 NARA retrieves 15 boxes of documentsfrom Mar-a-Lago that the agency believes contain classified national-security information.

Feb. 9 NARA refers the matter to the Justice Department. The FBI opens a criminal investigation into how classified documents became stored at Mar-a-Lago after Mr. Trump left the White House.

Feb. 18 The chief administrator for NARA reports the matter to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Mr. Trump issues a statement saying: “The National Archives did not ‘find’ anything, they were given, upon request, Presidential Records in an ordinary and routine process to ensure the preservation of my legacy and in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.”

April 29 NARA tells Mr. Trump’s legal team it intends to provide the documents to the FBI, revealing in a letter that officials found over 100 documents with classification markings, comprising more than 700 pages. Mr. Trump’s lawyers cite executive-privilege concerns in requesting an extension, which the agency denies.

May 10 NARA tells Mr. Trump’s lawyer it will provide the FBI with access to the records as early as May 12.

May 11 The Justice Department issues a grand jury subpoena to Mr. Trump’s team seeking all classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and tells Mr. Trump’s lawyers they can comply by relinquishing the material at the premises along with a sworn statement that they had turned over all the requested records.

May 16-18 FBI agents review the 15 boxes and find classified documents in 14 of them, including 184 marked classified, 67 marked confidential, 92 marked secret, and 25 marked top secret. Some of the information was derived from clandestine human intelligence sources, the FBI says.

May 22 Ex-White House aide Kash Patel asserts in a news report that Mr. Trump had declassified the documents found at his home, offering the first glimpse into a possible defense.

May 25 Mr. Trump’s attorney Evan Corcoran writes a letter to a top Justice Department official laying out arguments for why Mr. Trump didn’t violate any criminal laws. The letter said Mr. Trump had absolute authority to declassify classified information during his presidency. “Any attempt to impose criminal liability on a President or a former President that involves his actions with respect to documents marked classified would implicate grave constitutional separation-of-powers issues,” Mr. Corcoran wrote in the letter.

June 2 Mr. Corcoran requests FBI agents meet him the following day at Mar-a-Lago to pick up the documents they sought.

June 3 Three agents and Jay Bratt, chief of the Justice Department’s counterintelligence and export control section, arrive at Mar-a-Lago to collectthe documents. Mr. Corcoran turns over an accordion folder containing 38 more documents marked as classified, including 17 described as top secret, 16 marked as secret, and five more marked as confidential. The former president stopped by, shook hands, and said: “I appreciate the job you’re doing,” adding: “Anything you need, let us know,” according to a person familiar with the exchange. A custodian of Mr. Trump’s records, Christina Bobb, gives agents a letter she signed saying that Mr. Trump’s team had conducted a “diligent search” after receiving the subpoena and that the documents turned over in the folder represented “any and all responsive documents.” According to the Justice Department, Mr. Corcoran said all the records from the White House were in the storage room, that no other records were in any other location and that all available boxes were searched. But the department said he wouldn’t let the agents look in the remaining boxes in the storage room to confirm no more classified documents were in them.

June 8 Mr. Bratt sends a letter to Mr. Trump’s lawyers telling them to secure the storage room and all boxes moved from the White House “until further notice.” He notes that Mar-a-Lago doesn’t have a secure location for the storage of classified information and that documents there “have not been handled in an appropriate manner or stored in an appropriate location.”

June 9 Mr. Trump’s team acknowledges receipt of the letter.

June 22 The Trump Organization, Mr. Trump’s family business, receives a subpoena for surveillance footage from cameras at Mar-a-Lago. That footage is turned over, according to an official.

Aug. 5 FBI agents obtain a warrant to search Mar-a-Lago, signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart. The warrant cites an investigation into violations of the Espionage Act, a presidential-records law, and obstruction of justice. Investigators say they developed evidence that shows that “government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation.”

Aug. 8 FBI agents search Mar-a-Lago, seizing 33 boxes, containers, and other evidence containing more than 100 classified records, including information classified at the highest levels.

 

[konradv]

I recognize your problem...you are a racist who loves cheap slave labor.
It's probably within your wage.

You always recognize the other guy’s problem!

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Given how many years your fascist cult has been training you to lie, you really have no excuse for sucking so badly at it.

And I don't see why you're so hysterical. Sure, your favorite source of the fascist azzjelly that you crave will be gone, but new fascist leaders will step up and provide it to you.

Again, get an original thought.

 

[Lastamender]

ALL of the Republican Judges and the Supreme Court Judges are criminals.

And you do have evidence of it.

And you are hiding it from us, why?

No, but anyone in our system of government can be intimidated or bribed.

 

[hjmick]

Well..a threat eh? Somehow I'm not worried...although I do want to re-up my popcorn supply! Trump's faction simply doesn't have the horses...and the Govt. is just aching to make an example or two.

Protests are cool...and speech, and non-violent civil disobedience. But violence will lead to a smashing..and rather than the spark to ignite a civil War..you will see a fizzle.

I note with interest that the threat is about Trump simply being indicted..not convicted or anything. Which is to say..Trump's position is that the law cannot even have the temerity to call him to account--never mind convict him. I believe that this is because Trump knows he is guilty and he knows that a trial would convict him. So for him, an indictment signals 'the end'.

I laughed at the obvious 'dog whistle' that the last sentence is~

MSN

www.msn.com

Florida Flies 2 Planeloads of Migrants to Martha’s Vineyard
Former President Donald Trump said Thursday the nation would face "problems ... the likes of which perhaps we’ve never seen" if he is indicted over his handling of classified documents after leaving office, an apparent suggestion that such a move by the Justice Department could spark violence from Trump's supporters.
“If a thing like that happened, I would have no prohibition against running,” former President Donald Trump said.
The former president said an indictment wouldn’t stop him from running for the White House again and repeatedly said Americans “would not stand” for his prosecution.
“If a thing like that happened, I would have no prohibition against running,” Trump said in an interview with conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt. “I think if it happened, I think you’d have problems in this country the likes of which perhaps we’ve never seen before. I don’t think the people of the United States would stand for it.”
Hewitt asked Trump what he meant by “problems.”
“I think they’d have big problems. Big problems. I just don’t think they’d stand for it. They will not sit still and stand for this ultimate of hoaxes,” Trump said.
It’s not the first time Republicans have hinted at potential civil unrest if the DOJ indicts Trump. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham made headlines last month when he said there would be “riots in the street” if “there is a prosecution of Donald Trump for mishandling classified information.” Graham’s comments were slammed as “irresponsible” and “shameful.” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, without naming the South Carolina senator, said these comments from “extreme Republicans” were “dangerous.”
Hewitt appeared to see Trump’s comments as a nod toward potential unrest, asking the former president how he would respond when the “legacy media” accuses him of inciting violence.

“That’s not inciting. I’m just saying what my opinion is,” Trump said. “I don’t think the people of this country would stand for it.”

Bring it...

 

[Lastamender]

When was the last time you were involved in a court case?
You need evidence, as in affidavits long before you get an evidentiary hearing. You have to prove your case to the satisfaction of the judge that you have a case. Not the other way around.

A civil evidentiary hearing could be held to request or prohibit the introduction of specific evidence during the trial. Evidentiary hearings may also occur when one party asks the court to find the opposing party in contempt of a preexisting judicial order. For example, civil parties may have entered into a stipulated agreement or consent decree.

When hearings are dismissed you are denied that chance. What part of that you having trouble with?

 

[dudmuck]

And Trump didn't break one of those laws.

The Mar-a-Lago search warrant refers to potential violations of three specific sections of Title 18, which details federal criminal law. These specific sections include:

• Section 793: This provision concerns the handling, control, or misuse of national security information. Based on the Espionage Act of 1917, which has been updated on multiple occasions, the law prohibits the unauthorized holding of “national defense” information that would harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary as well as the withholding of that information from federal officers entitled to receive it. This provision is important in countering specious arguments about whether the documents were declassified. (see below) According to the FBI inventory, agents confiscated 27 boxes of material—some of which contained highly classified documents. As a private citizen, Trump was unauthorized to have these documents. Conviction on this charge carries with it the possibility of 10 years in prison.
• Section 1519: This section concerns obstruction of justice and carries with it the possibility of 20 years in prison for anyone who destroys, conceals, or falsifies any record with the intent to impede or obstruct a federal investigation or administrative action. Trump’s penchant for destroying official documents has been widely reported. His failure to return requested documents and his concealing of presidential records, including highly sensitive documents, from NARA and the DOJ puts him at risk of obstruction charges.
• Section 2071: This section concerns the willful and unlawful removal of government records with the intent to conceal or destroy such records. A violation carries with it the possibility of three years in prison. In addition to the potential prison term, conviction under this provision would disqualify an individual “from holding any office under the United States.” Based on the available information, Trump not only took and carried away official records and documents but also concealed them from NARA and the FBI.

 

[Lastamender]

Do you understand what standing means in a court of law? Trump lost the election. He said before the election that if he lost, it was rigged. In 2016 he claimed that 3 to 5 million illegals voted. For 40 years Trump has whined that he's a victim.

He claims that he's been mistreated and victimized for 40 years and he's expressed his obsessive desire for revenge. Don't you understand how sick this guy is? He sabotaged his presidency and his reelection.

That has nothing to do with getting an evidentiary hearing.

 

[Lastamender]

How much of that have you done already?

0.

 

[Sixties Fan]

When hearings are dismissed you are denied that chance. What part of that you having trouble with?

The elections lawsuit pushed by President Donald Trump and dismissed Friday by the U.S. Supreme Court was filled with claims that failed to withstand basic scrutiny.

The high court on Friday threw out a complaint filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that directly attacked four other states that President-elect Joe Biden won: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Widely expected by legal experts to fail, the lawsuit still drew the support of 18 Republican attorneys general and 126 Republican members of Congress, including House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy.

Together, Trump and his allies argued that the high court should set aside all four states’ votes, allowing Republican-led state legislatures to swing the election to the president. That would have been something that has never occurred in U.S. history.

THE LAWSUIT CLAIMS: Texas has a right “to demand that all other States abide by the constitutionally set rules in appointing presidential electors to the electoral college.” It says other states are harmed when one state “violates federal law to affect the outcome of a presidential election.”

THE FACTS: The Supreme Court dismissed the case on this issue. It said in a brief order that Texas “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

Legal experts said Texas had no right to bring the case in the first place because it doesn’t get a say in how other states run their elections and has not suffered any real harm. And even if it did have a legitimate case, it was brought too late, experts say.

“Texas does not have standing in federal court to vindicate the voting rights of other states’ voters — much less standing to undercut the rights of those voters,” Lisa Marshall Manheim, a professor at the University of Washington Law School, wrote in an opinion piece for The Washington Post.

Some Texas Republicans agreed. U.S. Rep. Chip Roy tweeted he would not join the case because “I believe the case itself represents a dangerous violation of federalism & sets a precedent to have one state asking federal courts to police the voting procedures of other states.”

EXPLAINER: Dismissed election case pushed debunked claims

The elections lawsuit pushed by President Donald Trump and dismissed Friday by the U.S. Supreme Court was filled with claims that failed to withstand basic scrutiny.

apnews.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

That has nothing to do with getting an evidentiary hearing.

The lawsuits argued that states and counties violated election laws, playing into Trump's political strategy to discredit the results of the 2020 election. The House impeached him a second time in January, charging him with inciting an insurrection, and the Senate acquitted him on February 13.

Republicans filed the lawsuits in local, state, and federal courts in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania — all states that Biden won. They also filed direct appeals to the Supreme Court, all of which also failed.

The Trump campaign initially had a single win, when a Pennsylvania judge ruled on November 12 that first-time voters were supposed to confirm their IDs with county boards of election by November 9, rather than November 12. The decision opened the door to disqualify the ballots of people who didn't verify their IDs in time. But the state Supreme Court later overturned that decision.

Here's what happened with all of Trump's election lawsuits.

Direct appeals to the Supreme Court — 3 losses​

• Several Republican politicians, led by Rep. Mike Kelly, asked the US Supreme Court to block the certification of Pennsylvania's election results. The court turned down the case.
• Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin in the US Supreme Court seeking to overturn their election results. The Supreme Court rejected the case.
• The Trump campaign asked the US Supreme Court to overturn three decisions from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court over various technical rules regarding absentee and mail-in ballots. The court rejected the case on February 22, declaring it moot.

Pennsylvania — 13 losses​

• The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit asking a state appeals court to reject the Pennsylvania secretary of state's announcement that registered voters had until November 12 to provide proof of identity for mail-in ballots. Republicans believe the deadline should be November 9. This is the one case that Trump won, before the state Supreme Court overturned the lower court decision.
• In a wide-ranging federal lawsuit, the Trump campaign sued over alleged irregularities in the way ballots were counted throughout the state. They've argued that 14,000 votes should be thrown out. The campaign submitted a revised version of the lawsuit days later that retracted many of its original allegations. A judge threw out the case, saying Trump's lawyers presented the court "with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpaid in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence." An appeal of the case also failed.
• Another federal lawsuit brought by Republicans sought to delay the deadline for ballot requests. The judge rejected it.
• A third federal lawsuit sought to stop the Montgomery County Board of Elections from allowing voters to "cure" their ballots — a process that allows people to fix clerical errors on their ballots to make sure their votes count. Republicans abandoned the lawsuit and withdrew from the case.
• The campaign sued in yet another federal case to stop Philadelphia County from counting votes without Republicans present. The judge dismissed the case after Trump's lawyers said Republican election watchers were, in fact, present.
• In another Montgomery County case, this one filed in a local court, Trump's lawyers sought to stop the county from counting mail-in ballots. The lawyers withdrew from the case.
• A lawsuit in Bucks County filed by Republican congressional candidate Kathy Barnette on Election Day made a technical challenge on the county's method of organizing ballots before counting them. She withdrew the case two days later and lost the election.
• The Trump campaign appealed that Bucks County case soon afterward, but a judge rejected it and pointed out in his rulingthat fraud wasn't an issue.
• In a state court, Republicans challenged an instruction from the Secretary of State's office regarding provisional ballots. A state appellate court judge dismissed the request but ordered the secretary of state to segregate provisional ballots in case their validity becomes contested.
• Local Republicans sought to stop Northampton County from revealing the identities of people whose ballots were canceled and lost the case.
• A group of Pennsylvania Republicans lost at the state Supreme Court with a lawsuit trying to invalidate absentee voting after the voting period already ended, and trying to block the certification of election results.
• Another group of Republicans filed a similar lawsuit and lost.
• The Trump campaign filed a motion to intervene in a Supreme Court case brought by Republicans that centers on the deadline by which Pennsylvania officials are allowed to receive ballots. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ruled that officials could receive ballots until November 6 as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Republicans appealed the decision to the high court, which was deadlocked at 4-4 because Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate, leaving the lower court's ruling in place. The Supreme Court signaled it could hear the case again but has not granted the request to intervene.

Nevada — 4 losses​

• The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit requesting that ballots stop being counted in the state over concerns about signature-matching technology and election observers' claims that they weren't being allowed to watch ballots being processed closely enough. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the request.
• The Trump campaign and the RNC filed a lawsuit in state court asking to stop ballot counting in Clark County — a heavily Democratic area — until GOP officials could observe the process. A district judge rejected the request on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not have evidence to back up their allegations. Republicans appealed the case to the Nevada Supreme Court, which said on November 5 that the campaign and Republican officials had reached a settlement that allowed expanded ballot observation. They later withdrew the case.
• A group of Republicans dropped a lawsuit in Clark County challenging mail-in ballots, including those sent by members of the military.
• The Trump campaign filed a different lawsuit in Carson City District Court alleging multiple irregularities that the campaign claimed, without providing specific evidence, would be enough to overturn the election results in Nevada and flip the state to Trump. It failed.

(full article online)

Trump and his allies filed more than 40 lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results. All of them failed.

Since Donald Trump lost in November 2020, Republicans have filed dozens of lawsuits challenging the presidential election results. They've won zero.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Indeependent]

The Mar-a-Lago search warrant refers to potential violations of three specific sections of Title 18, which details federal criminal law. These specific sections include:

• Section 793: This provision concerns the handling, control, or misuse of national security information. Based on the Espionage Act of 1917, which has been updated on multiple occasions, the law prohibits the unauthorized holding of “national defense” information that would harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary as well as the withholding of that information from federal officers entitled to receive it. This provision is important in countering specious arguments about whether the documents were declassified. (see below) According to the FBI inventory, agents confiscated 27 boxes of material—some of which contained highly classified documents. As a private citizen, Trump was unauthorized to have these documents. Conviction on this charge carries with it the possibility of 10 years in prison.
• Section 1519: This section concerns obstruction of justice and carries with it the possibility of 20 years in prison for anyone who destroys, conceals, or falsifies any record with the intent to impede or obstruct a federal investigation or administrative action. Trump’s penchant for destroying official documents has been widely reported. His failure to return requested documents and his concealing of presidential records, including highly sensitive documents, from NARA and the DOJ puts him at risk of obstruction charges.
• Section 2071: This section concerns the willful and unlawful removal of government records with the intent to conceal or destroy such records. A violation carries with it the possibility of three years in prison. In addition to the potential prison term, conviction under this provision would disqualify an individual “from holding any office under the United States.” Based on the available information, Trump not only took and carried away official records and documents but also concealed them from NARA and the FBI.

See Post 272 and got to Law School.

 

[Lastamender]

The elections lawsuit pushed by President Donald Trump and dismissed Friday by the U.S. Supreme Court was filled with claims that failed to withstand basic scrutiny.

The high court on Friday threw out a complaint filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that directly attacked four other states that President-elect Joe Biden won: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Widely expected by legal experts to fail, the lawsuit still drew the support of 18 Republican attorneys general and 126 Republican members of Congress, including House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy.

Together, Trump and his allies argued that the high court should set aside all four states’ votes, allowing Republican-led state legislatures to swing the election to the president. That would have been something that has never occurred in U.S. history.

THE LAWSUIT CLAIMS: Texas has a right “to demand that all other States abide by the constitutionally set rules in appointing presidential electors to the electoral college.” It says other states are harmed when one state “violates federal law to affect the outcome of a presidential election.”

THE FACTS: The Supreme Court dismissed the case on this issue. It said in a brief order that Texas “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

Legal experts said Texas had no right to bring the case in the first place because it doesn’t get a say in how other states run their elections and has not suffered any real harm. And even if it did have a legitimate case, it was brought too late, experts say.

“Texas does not have standing in federal court to vindicate the voting rights of other states’ voters — much less standing to undercut the rights of those voters,” Lisa Marshall Manheim, a professor at the University of Washington Law School, wrote in an opinion piece for The Washington Post.

Some Texas Republicans agreed. U.S. Rep. Chip Roy tweeted he would not join the case because “I believe the case itself represents a dangerous violation of federalism & sets a precedent to have one state asking federal courts to police the voting procedures of other states.”

EXPLAINER: Dismissed election case pushed debunked claims

The elections lawsuit pushed by President Donald Trump and dismissed Friday by the U.S. Supreme Court was filled with claims that failed to withstand basic scrutiny.

apnews.com

They did not take the case because Trump had the same case Bush had and would have won.

 

[Sixties Fan]

They did not take the case because Trump had the same case Bush had and would have won.

Your knowledge of law is VS that of the courts, and Supreme Court which dealt with all these lawsuits???

 

[Indeependent]

Your knowledge of law is VS that of the courts, and Supreme Court which dealt with all these lawsuits???

And we are certain that when a court's final opinion varies from yours, you think that court is made up of idiots.