• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Merged So what's next for Trump?

To denote when two or more threads have been merged
Hopefully just a thought exercise…

What if this Trumpsucking judge just summarily dismisses the case? Can someone else un-dismiss it once it has been dismissed?
A more interesting exercise, to me, is investigating the questions "Who decided to assign this case to Cannon?"
And, given the history, what were their rationales and motivations?
Tom
The last case that got assigned to her was an obvious case of judge-shopping. They found one that was willing to overlook just about anything, so they went with her again. But yeah...who got this handed to that judicial fawning sycophant?
 
Hopefully just a thought exercise…

What if this Trumpsucking judge just summarily dismisses the case? Can someone else un-dismiss it once it has been dismissed?

Good question. If she just dismissed it, then it could be reopened. If she dismissed it with prejudice, it could not. I don't know what would happen if she used some Trumped up excuse to dismiss it with prejudice. She isn't going to be impeached by Congress. That's for sure. So she can probably do pretty much anything she wants and get away with it. It would stink, but Americans have gotten used to the smell.
Can you dismiss with prejudice before the trial starts?
 
Can you dismiss with prejudice before the trial starts?

I honestly don't know. And I don't know whether such a dismissal can be appealed for failure to meet the criteria for dismissal with prejudice. She could also commit serious mistakes dismissing some of the charges summarily and misleading the jury. I suppose that there are a lot of things she could do maliciously to help Trump, but I'm not sure she would go to such extremes. I think it is more likely that she made mistakes in her previous handling of the documents case because she is incompetent and unqualified for her position. She was confirmed over tepid resistance from Democrats, some of whom actually voted to confirm her.
 
Can you dismiss with prejudice before the trial starts?

I honestly don't know. And I don't know whether such a dismissal can be appealed for failure to meet the criteria for dismissal with prejudice. She could also commit serious mistakes dismissing some of the charges summarily and misleading the jury. I suppose that there are a lot of things she could do maliciously to help Trump, but I'm not sure she would go to such extremes. I think it is more likely that she made mistakes in her previous handling of the documents case because she is incompetent and unqualified for her position. She was confirmed over tepid resistance from Democrats, some of whom actually voted to confirm her.

It's almost unbelievable that we actually have to be concerned about Judges who would just dismiss a case due to their own politics. It's how far things have fallen.
 
Read the full Trump indictment on mishandling of classified documents | PBS NewsHour
noting
Photos from Trump indictment show boxes of classified documents stored in Mar-a-Lago shower, ballroom | PBS NewsHour
Prosecutors noted that “tens of thousands of members and guests” visited the “active social club” of Mar-a-Lago between the end of Trump’s presidency in January 2021 through the August 2022 search. They argued that “nonetheless” Trump stored documents “in a ballroom, a bathroom and shower, and office space, his bedroom, and a storage room.”
One of the documents was marked "SECRET/REL TO USA, FVEY” -- FVEY = Five Eyes, the UK, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the five big Anglo nations.

Yes, stacks of boxes of documents in a bathroom.
 
The Trump Classified Documents Indictment, Annotated - The New York Times
The indictment has 37 counts (NYT's text):
  • 31 counts - Related to withholding national defense information - One count against Mr. Trump for each document he was alleged to have kept in his possession.
  • 5 counts - Related to concealing possession of classified documents - Among them are counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice and withholding documents and records, levied against both Mr. Trump and an aide, Walt Nauta.
  • 2 counts - False statements - Related to statements to the F.B.I. by Mr. Trump and an aide, Walt Nauta.
Among the NYT's annotations,
The indictment emphasizes how many people were wandering in and out of Mr. Trump’s estate in Florida, implying that improperly storing classified documents there risked their disclosure.

The indictment uses Mr. Trump’s words from the 2016 campaign, attacking his rival, Hillary Clinton, over her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, to show he understood the importance of protecting classified information.

...
The indictment inserts this anecdote, apparently about personal emails on Mrs. Clinton’s private server that her lawyer had destroyed, without comment. The insinuation may be that Mr. Trump was implying, without directly asking, his lawyer to destroy classified documents he found problematic.

...
Here is another instance presented as Mr. Trump asking, without directly asking, for Mr. Corcoran to destroy classified documents rather than turn them over to the government.

The lawyer who signed a statement stating that a diligent search had been conducted and that all known classified information had been returned to the government was Christina Bobb, who was serving as the formal custodian of records for Mr. Trump’s office. The indictment makes clear she did not know the statements in the attestation were false.

...
The indictment lists 31 documents, each of which is the subject of a separate count of Espionage Act violation.

Mr. Trump has been charged with violating a law that makes it a crime to corruptly impede an official proceeding. The penalty is up to 20 years per offense.
Seems like Trump could spend the rest of his life in jail. These are not some stray documents, like with Mike Pence and Joe Biden, these were deliberately moved to his adopted home, and a *lot* of them were moved there.
 
Donald Trump on 'lock her up' chant: 'Now we don't care' | CNN Politics - Updated 7:36 AM EST, Sat December 10, 2016
The chant “lock her up” became a common occurrence at Trump’s rallies while he was running for president. During the presidential campaign, Trump pledged to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton for her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. Despite the fact that FBI director James Comey recommended over the summer against criminal charges for Clinton for the server use, Trump told Clinton during a debate that if he were president, “you’d be in jail.”

However, once Trump became President-elect, he said he wouldn’t recommend prosecution of Clinton, whom he told New York Times reporters has “suffered greatly.”

He also said the idea of prosecuting Clinton is “just not something I feel very strongly about.”

How 'Lock Her Up' just blew up | CNN Politics - 10:52 AM EST, Fri January 10, 2020

Trump says he agrees ‘100 percent’ with ‘lock her up’ chants about Clinton | The Hill - 10/16/20 3:22 PM ET
Trump decried the Russia investigation as “the greatest hoax and the greatest political crime in the history of our country.” He has previously claimed that Clinton, former President Obama and others committed treason or should be arrested for their involvement in the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

The president has fixated on Clinton even in the closing weeks of the 2020 campaign, attempting to excite his base by using many of the same rhetorical devices that helped carry him to the White House in 2016.

“Lock her up” chants remain a staple of the president’s rallies, and the phrase has been shouted about Clinton, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

He is now caught for doing what he claimed Hillary Clinton was guilty of.
 
Trump once led chants of ‘lock her up’. Now he’s been indicted on seven counts | Lloyd Green | The Guardian
Irony abounds. As a first-time candidate, he led chants of “lock her up”. From the White House, he sought jail for his political opponents. Now on his third bid for the presidency, Trump must contend with an array of pending federal and state prosecutions and investigations.

For the first time ever, the leading contender for a major party’s presidential nomination will be running while under the cloud of indictment and possible imprisonment. In October, he faces a civil fraud trial in New York. Then in March 2024, he will be tried as a criminal defendant on charges related to hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels.
Indictment Brings Trump Story Full Circle - The New York Times - "The former president assailed Hillary Clinton for her handling of sensitive information. Now, the same issue threatens his chances of reclaiming the presidency."
 
Former President Donald Trump's second indictment, annotated - CNN
None of this should be surprising to anyone who has paid much attention to Trump. He’s a collector of keepsakes and other things that cross his desk. As president, classified material crossed his desk. He kept it in boxes along with the rest of his mementos.

But the nonspecific details we’re given about his keepsakes is quite interesting: classified details about the US nuclear program, plans for attacks and more.

...
Trump tried to obstruct the investigation. The government thinks it can prove Trump intentionally tried to interfere with the investigation by having material moved.

...
Trump often complains that other presidents who kept classified documents are not targeted for prosecution. That’s not completely true since there is a special counsel also investigating President Joe Biden.

More importantly, those officials do not generally seek to hide the material. The National Archives tried repeatedly to get documents back from Trump. The government says despite repeated attempts to get the documents, Trump failed to turn all of them over before the FBI seized them.
Stuff on how to build nuclear bombs? I think that his friend Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia might like that info.
 
More.
It’s worth mentioning that the US system for classifying material is so complicated that it should probably be revisited.

Even sitting intelligence officials have admitted the problem of overclassification is a national security risk.

There are, however, legitimate secrets. Plans of attack and specifics on nuclear weapons would seem to fall into that category.

Intelligence briefings. During his presidency, Trump had little interest in keeping up with daily intelligence briefings, and a CIA report detailed that the Intelligence Community struggled to keep him briefed.

...
Photos of Trump’s boxes out in the open. This is something incredible. Here are Trump’s boxes of mementos, which include classified material, literally displayed on a stage in a ballroom where events were held. The documents were in the location for months, according to the indictment.
Then this.
A suspicious flood. It’s not mentioned in the indictment, but CNN recently reported that a Mar-a-Lago employee drained the resort’s swimming pool last October and ended up flooding a room where computer servers containing surveillance video logs were kept.
Something like the 18 1/2 minutes of erased tape on one of Richard Nixon's White House tapes. I'm old enough to remember Watergate.
Laughter. Trump appeared to be joking around in the recording as he discussed the Iran war plans that he said refuted a story in The New Yorker about Milley.

“I just found, isn’t this amazing? This totally wins my case, you know.”
 
Inside Trump's indictment: What the charges mean in classified documents case : NPR

  • Willful retention of national defense information: This charge, covering counts 1-31, only applies to Trump and is for allegedly storing 31 such documents at Mar-a-Lago.
  • Conspiracy to obstruct justice: Trump and Nauta, along with others, are charged with conspiring to keep those documents from the grand jury.
  • Withholding a document or a record: Trump and Nauta are accused of misleading one of their attorneys by moving boxes of classified documents so the attorney could not find or introduce them to the grand jury.
  • Corruptly concealing a document or record: This pertains to the Trump and Nauta's alleged attempts to hide the boxes of classified documents from the attorney.
  • Concealing a document in a federal investigation: They are accused of hiding Trump's continued possession of those documents at Mar-a-Lago from the FBI and causing a false certificate to be submitted to the FBI.
  • Scheme to conceal: This is for the allegation that Trump and Nauta hid Trump's continued possession of those materials from the FBI and the grand jury.
  • False statements and representations: This count concerns statements that Trump allegedly caused another one of his attorneys to make to the FBI and grand jury in early June regarding the results of the search at Mar-a-Lago.
  • False statements and representations: This final count accuses Nauta of giving false answers during a voluntary interview with the FBI in late May.
 
Why were all these boxes even available for him to take with him anyway? Is the White House typically where the government keeps all its classified documents?
 
Why were all these boxes even available for him to take with him anyway? Is the White House typically where the government keeps all its classified documents?
He's the President, and I think that he ordered his underlings to collect them for him. Those documents were likely kept in intelligence-agency office buildings and the like.

Will some of Trump's underlings pledge cooperation in exchange for reduced sentences?

11 revelations from the Trump classified documents indictment - NBC News
  1. Trump hid classified documents in a bathroom
  2. Trump revealed classified documents to an author
  3. Trump admitted that he didn't declassify the documents, and that they were still 'secret'
  4. Trump could easily have received a waiver to possess classified documents
  5. Trump told someone not to stand too close a classified map
  6. Trump's documents contained national security secrets
  7. Staffers freaked out as classified documents needed to be moved repeatedly
  8. Classified documents came from a number of federal agencies
  9. Trump suggested his lawyers should not 'play ball' with the grand jury subpoena
  10. Trump made a ‘funny’ ‘plucking’ motion
  11. Trump wanted his lawyers to takes notes from Hillary Clinton’s attorney
 
Last March, a New York grand jury indicted Donald Trump for covering up hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels.

Emotional Lindsey Graham Begs Fox Viewers to Give Money to Trump - March 30, 2023 - Yahoo News
peaking to Sean Hannity on a night where commentary on Fox News has verged on the apocalyptic as a result of the indictment by a Manhattan grand jury, Graham, historically one of Trump’s most talkative defenders in the Senate, once more gave a performance that is sure to keep him in Trump’s good graces.

Declaring that the motivating factor in the indictment is “hatred,” Graham argued that Democrats “fear Trump at the ballot box.”

“They’re trying to drain him dry. He’s spent more money on lawyers than most people spent on campaigns,” said Graham.

...
Go tonight. Give the president some money to fight this bullshit!” he begged.

“To those who are listening tonight: If you believe Trump is being treated poorly and wrongly, stand up and help the man,” Graham added later, before recommending that their prayers would be welcomed as well.

“Thank you,” an appreciative Hannity said while his studio audience applauded.
Trump indictment reaction by Ted Cruz; Senator calls out justice system - March 30, 2023 - Austin American-Statesman

Ted Cruz on Twitter: "The Democrat Party’s hatred for Donald Trump knows no bounds. The “substance” of this political persecution is utter garbage.
This is completely unprecedented and is a catastrophic escalation in the weaponization of the justice system." / Twitter


Greg Abbott on Twitter: "Weaponization of our courts for political grievances is an abhorrent abuse of power.
The George Soros-supported NYC DA is only furthering the radical liberal agenda to have elections determined at the jury box rather than the ballot box.
America deserves better." / Twitter


Some Texas state legislators:

Rep. August Pfluger on Twitter: "The indictment against President Trump by a radical Manhattan DA is a joke. We cannot allow this weaponization of our justice system to stand." / Twitter

Dustin Burrows on Twitter: "Trump’s indictment reflect methods Stalin and his Communist Party used to destroy their political opponents.
"Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime"
Lavrentiy Beria
Stalin’s Secret Police Chief" / Twitter


Ronny Jackson on Twitter: "The hateful Deep State wants this country to BURN. Today they didn’t just indict President Trump, they attacked EVERY ONE of his supporters. We’re not going to back down. We will NEVER stop supporting Trump!!" / Twitter
 
After Trump’s indictment, the “lock her up” brigade feigns horror over “political prosecution” | Media Matters for America
Donald Trump’s media allies are denouncing Thursday's federal criminal indictment of the former president as a politically-motivated persecution that marks the end of the American republic. Their frenzied demagoguery flies in the face of everything we know about the probe of Trump’s conduct – as well as their own behavior during the 2016 presidential campaign and his subsequent presidency, when they constantly demanded the investigation and imprisonment of Trump’s political enemies.
Fox News responds to federal Trump indictment with unhinged demagoguery | Media Matters for America
But on Fox, host Jesse Watters announced the news by saying that “the president, former, calls it the boxes hoax” and suggesting that the indictment was an attempt to distract attention from the House GOP’s investigations of President Joe Biden.

...
Trump lawyer Alina Habba called it evidence that we live in a “sick world” with “a two-tier system of justice,” citing the lack of legal punishment for Biden, his son Hunter, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

Former Trump aide Stephen Miller claimed that “history will record today as the day that we ceased to be a democratic republic and we became a people ruled by an unelected government bureaucracy.”

Former Trump acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker called it “a really sad day for our country” and “the stuff of banana republics.”

For right-wing activist Ned Ryun, it was “late-stage republic behavior. When you use the legal system as a weapon against political opponents, you’ve abandoned the rule of law.”
It's fun watching right-wingers double over in pain because of what their hero is being subjected to.
 
Clinton's emails.
Benghazi.
Whitewater. 5 years and $47 million dollars.
Threats to start witch hunts on Biden, the FBI, U.S. Attorney General.

Weaponizing the law against political foes? Yeah, GOP standard practice.
Kharma is a mean little bitch, shitheads!
 
Trump lawyer Alina Habba called it evidence that we live in a “sick world” with “a two-tier system of justice,”

Yeah, we have always had that two-tier system of justice, in which those who did something illegal are punished far more frequently, and far more harshly, than those who did not.

:rolleyesa:
 
Why were all these boxes even available for him to take with him anyway? Is the White House typically where the government keeps all its classified documents?
I'd be amazed if the White House doesn't have a SCIF installed somewhere.
 
And now? I'm downright...

terrified

Imagine, though, that Cannon does preside over this case. She has infinite tools at her disposal to thwart the prosecution at nearly every turn. Big swings, like tossing out the whole case—a very real possibility in her courtroom of chaos—can be appealed and overturned. But at every step, there are opportunities for sabotage. Cannon can try to rig voir dire to help the defense stack the jury with Trump supporters. She can exclude evidence and testimony that’s especially damning to Trump. She can disqualify witnesses who are favorable to the prosecution. She can sustain the defense’s frivolous objections and overrule the prosecution’s meritorious ones. She can direct a verdict of acquittal to render the jury superfluous. She can declare a mistrial prematurely for any number of reasons, including lengthy juror deliberations, and stretch out various deadlines to run out the clock. Many of these procedural moves could not be appealed until the proceedings have drawn to a close; appeals courts do not referee every little dispute in a jury trial as they happen. Cannon will be in control.
 
Back
Top Bottom