The Indictment

[1blackman1]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...648653.3.0.pdf

Anyone interested can read for themselves. I’ll just say it differs from anything the Trumpys and Trump have said. The details are amazing.

[1blackman1]

Those photos. Lol.

The best one is the one with docs from other countries spilled across the floor. How stupid is the dude that takes care of that stuff. I think his name is Donald or Donnie. Maybe Trump is his last name.

This is too funny. Republicans will likely not even read it at all.

[1blackman1]

The convo with the lawyers. That’s simply amazingly dumb. The stable genius is dumb as fuck. He asked them to facilitate him committing more crimes and thought they’d do it. No wonder they keep quitting.

[1blackman1]

This is a well written document. They have all the goods on Trump. He simply is an idiot. I know you Trumpys won’t read it but you really should. He doesn’t have any good defenses to his actions.

[1blackman1]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/...nt-is-damning/

Damning according to the national review. They are left wing media though so I’m sure they are biased against Trump.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...648653.3.0.pdf

Anyone interested can read for themselves. I’ll just say it differs from anything the Trumpys and Trump have said. The details are amazing.

I read the indictment. Regrettably I have to admit I should not argue with you about legal issues.

If politics weren't a consideration, most Americans would believe that the alleged actions and behavior in the indictment merit jail time. Not necessarily the possession of the documents, but rather the cover up. If the allegations are true, and it sounds like they are, Trump was moving boxes around to deceive his attorneys, the FBI and the DOJ, and retaining the top secret, secret and classified documents he wanted to keep. He undoubtedly committed perjury.

It was interesting reading about his questions for his attorneys, perhaps more like suggestions, that they tell the FBI they don't have the documents. And, more so, his nonverbal cue to Attorney 1 to pluck any problematic documents out of whatever was being turned over to the FBI and DOJ. I read Michael Cohen's book, Disloyal, and it described similar behavior. Trump wouldn't out and out tell Cohen to do something that might result in civil or criminal liability for Trump. Instead he'd make suggestions or communicate with head nods and the like. From that Cohen knew what to do.

It doesn't sound like mens rea will be a defense, unless you can successfully argue that Trump is so narcissistic that he didn't realize he was committing crimes. Based on his past comments, he knew keeping documents of the sort he had was illegal. But, being a narcissist, the same rules that apply to other people don't apply to him. I don't imagine that's a winning strategy.

Trump's facing up to 100 years in jail, if you add the maximum penalties together. And his poor assistant and Navy veteran Waltine Nauta's looking at 90 years.

So based just on what I've read, if I were a member of the jury, would I vote to convict? I really don't know. I suspect I wouldn't, for these offenses, if I figured he were going to spend years behind bars. Anyway I guess I'm an agnostic on this now.

[Bighawg11]

Trump can't shut his mouth. His chances of slipping out of the noose are decent if he could.



Normal people? This is a slam dunk conviction. But Trump isn't "normal people" - he will spend enormous amounts of money to contest, extend, delay, or cajole his way out of it.



And, those that already adore him won't be impacted. They adore him because he violates so many social norms. What is one more? Those that already shudder at the mention of his name are already preparing themselves for disappointment - he may be convicted, but the sentence will be a shadow of what normal people would get.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...648653.3.0.pdf

Anyone interested can read for themselves. I’ll just say it differs from anything the Trumpys and Trump have said. The details are amazing.

Originally Posted by Tiny

It was interesting reading about his questions for his attorneys, perhaps more like suggestions, that they tell the FBI they don't have the documents. And, more so, his nonverbal cue to Attorney 1 to pluck any problematic documents out of whatever was being turned over to the FBI and DOJ. I read Michael Cohen's book, Disloyal, and it described similar behavior. Trump wouldn't out and out tell Cohen to do something that might result in civil or criminal liability for Trump. Instead he'd make suggestions or communicate with head nods and the like. From that Cohen knew what to do.

Blackman, a CNN legal analyst this morning was questioning the propriety of including Trump's lawyer's comments in the indictment. She didn't appear to be partisan. The comments for me were perhaps the most damning part of the document.

Anyway, was she wrong? In the legal issues threads, Shyster Jon, an attorney, advises us never to answer questions posed by the police. Does that extend to our attorneys now to, to some extent? That is, should people watch what they say to their attorneys, because it could be used against them in a court of law?

[1blackman1]

The judge and the 11th Circuit would have to articulate why Trump wasn’t using actions to involve the lawyer or the lawyers advise in a criminal scheme.

The DC district court and the DC Circuit court addressed this so it’s a hard hill to climb to exclude that information.

[Jackie S]

Trumps best defense might be that due to the Governments past behavior toward him, (lying and simply making shit up for close to six years), he didn’t trust any of them with anything that pertained to him.

He would have a pretty good case in front of the right kind of jury.

[cc314]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Trumps best defense might be that due to the Governments past behavior toward him, (lying and simply making shit up for close to six years), he didn’t trust any of them with anything that pertained to him.

He would have a pretty good case in front of the right kind of jury.

The Defendant currently has the "right kind" of judge for the current federal charges, so we'll see.


Can you provide some examples (maybe just the big ones) of the lying and made up shit? 6 years is a lot to cover, and I'd rather work off your list than make one of my own. If you can't provide specific examples, with credible sources, it's more of an over-used talking point than anything else.

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by cc314

The Defendant currently has the "right kind" of judge for the current federal charges, so we'll see.


Can you provide some examples (maybe just the big ones) of the lying and made up shit? 6 years is a lot to cover, and I'd rather work off your list than make one of my own. If you can't provide specific examples, with credible sources, it's more of an over-used talking point than anything else.

... I can do it.

But let's not attempt to hi-jack this thread.
You can start another thread and I'll surely
give you a lot of examples.

#### Salty

[cc314]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... I can do it.

But let's not attempt to hi-jack this thread.
You can start another thread and I'll surely
give you a lot of examples.

#### Salty

The trial relates to the indictment. The person I asked the question brought up a possible defense (6 years of lies and made up shit) for the trial (which relates to the indictment, the title of the thread). No hijacking here.



I'll save both of you some time and keep it general...


Boo hoo. The Defendant has been (allegedly) profiled for 6 years. Some of us on this board can beat that by decades (and without any indictments too). Sorry, but the current indictment isn't about the Defendant's past grievances. The Defendant is presumed innocent and currently has a friendly judge. We shall see what we shall see.

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by cc314

The trial relates to the indictment. The person I asked the question brought up a possible defense (6 years of lies and made up shit) for the trial (which relates to the indictment, the title of the thread). No hijacking here.



I'll save both of you some time and keep it general...


Boo hoo. The Defendant has been (allegedly) profiled for 6 years. Some of us on this board can beat that by decades (and without any indictments too). Sorry, but the current indictment isn't about the Defendant's past grievances. The Defendant is presumed innocent and currently has a friendly judge. We shall see what we shall see.

... OK ... If you say so, mate...

You're the fellow who asked to see examples.
And I was ready to show you some.

#### Salty