The United States v Donald J. Trump

[GGT]

My first reaction was, "It's about damn time!" and Jack Smith deserves a medal!

But before the indictment was even unsealed or read, McCarthy and most Republicans falsely framed it as Biden prosecuting his political foe, a weaponized DoJ and FBI, and feigned support for Trump with whataboutism.

Now I have questions about how long the trial will take, if the judge will let Team Trump drag it out too long, and how far (R) sycophants will go to elect their Cult Leader/Mob Boss in 2024? Also, how the hell can anyone still support the GOP with Trump as its leader, whether he's convicted or not?

Etc...

[Lewkowski]

DOJ is certainly biased but just because it doesn't prosecuting political allies doesn't mean we should let others off the hook. Based on what I've read it looks like Trump is guilty.

[Aimless]

The entire GOP has fallen in line behind the clementine criminal, with some legislators making barely-veiled threats of violence against prosecutors as well as the president. Impossible to overstate just how fucking stupid and pathetic American conservatives are. Utter cretins.

[Loki]

DOJ is certainly biased but just because it doesn't prosecuting political allies doesn't mean we should let others off the hook. Based on what I've read it looks like Trump is guilty.

Have you considered the possibility that the GOP attracts far more grifters and grifters are more likely to break the law, both because they're not smart enough to use legal loopholes and because they have zero respect for the law?

[Wraith]

He just indicated that he believes that the famously right-wing DoJ doesn't prosecute Democrats because they're political allies. He's clearly not too concerned with facts or reality, you're talking to the congealed expulsions of brownshirt media.

[LittleFuzzy]

He just indicated that he believes that the famously right-wing DoJ doesn't prosecute Democrats because they're political allies.

He's right to an extent, at least compared to DOJ activity under GOP administrations, just like the DOJ goes comparatively easier on Republicans under those administrations. It's generally not so much that investigations and prosecutions of their own party are suppressed or interfered with (though that DOES happen as a consequence of the regular sweep of US Federal Attorney positions with each administration, among other factors *points to Trump using the WH to stonewall investigations into him*) as that those investigations and prosecutions relating to the opposing party get extra attention and support. There would have never been an investigation against Hunter Biden if he'd been born with a different last name. As a consequence of relentless attention and resources shoved at the matter by the Trump administration and other GOP politicians, they may have uncovered two genuine misdemeanor tax offenses.

[Dreadnaught]

Keeping these documents was redonc stupid.

[Aimless]

Making excuses for it is even dumber

[Hazir]

I doubt the case will be conductive to making American politics less disfunctional.

[Loki]

It will be conducive to making conmen realize that laws apply to them, no matter how great their con.

[Hazir]

And what does it help if the country becomes ungovernable? Are you certain that Biden's closets are clean enough for him not to get in trouble? Your holier than thou attitude is fine if you never handle anything with some sort of confident nature. But I dare anyone who does to claim he never took anything anywhere where it strictly speaking should never have been. Because you will come back with a 100% fail rate.

It grates to have had a clown as president, but throw him in prison and you may find that you turned your government into a full on circus. It certainly is a guarantee to get you a practice where the real risk for a politician becomes giving up power at all.

[Aimless]

And what does it help if the country becomes ungovernable? Are you certain that Biden's closets are clean enough for him not to get in trouble? Your holier than thou attitude is fine if you never handle anything with some sort of confident nature. But I dare anyone who does to claim he never took anything anywhere where it strictly speaking should never have been. Because you will come back with a 100% fail rate.

Afaict that's not the issue—after all, Biden has also mishandled classified documents, although not nearly to the same egregious extent as Trump. The issue is everything Trump did afterwards—deliberately and knowingly exacerbating the security risks and then obstructing every attempt to mitigate those risks. He built the case against himself.

[Loki]

And what does it help if the country becomes ungovernable? Are you certain that Biden's closets are clean enough for him not to get in trouble? Your holier than thou attitude is fine if you never handle anything with some sort of confident nature. But I dare anyone who does to claim he never took anything anywhere where it strictly speaking should never have been. Because you will come back with a 100% fail rate.

It grates to have had a clown as president, but throw him in prison and you may find that you turned your government into a full on circus. It certainly is a guarantee to get you a practice where the real risk for a politician becomes giving up power at all.

If Biden broke the law, he should get punished. No one is above the law. Once you start with your pragmatism, you end up with entire classes immune to legal consequences (see NYPD and their families).

[LittleFuzzy]

No one is above the law. Once you start with your pragmatism, you end up with entire classes immune to legal consequences (see NYPD and their families).

We already did that when we decided sitting Presidents should be protected from standard prosecution. I said at the beginning I thought this one wasn't going anywhere. His mishandling was particularly egregious and buffoonish, as everything he does is, but it's fundamentally not worth pursuing particularly with how DC tends to massively over-classify material (now the investigation into his election interference is another matter).

[Loki]

We already did that when we decided sitting Presidents should be protected from standard prosecution. I said at the beginning I thought this one wasn't going anywhere. His mishandling was particularly egregious and buffoonish, as everything he does is, but it's fundamentally not worth pursuing particularly with how DC tends to massively over-classify material (now the investigation into his election interference is another matter).

Giving a sitting leader immunity isn't abnormal by international standards; giving them lifetime immunity is. Even if we over-clasisfy, it doesn't change the fact there are people in prison for much smaller violations and at least some of the documents Trump stole do seem to touch upon highly sensitive issues. More importantly, covering up the theft is itself jailworthy.

[Steely Glint]

particularly with how DC tends to massively over-classify material

Wasn't the stuff he took full of sensitive defence information and nuclear stuff? And wasn't he was waving it around in front of people like Kid Rock?

[Hazir]

If Biden broke the law, he should get punished. No one is above the law. Once you start with your pragmatism, you end up with entire classes immune to legal consequences (see NYPD and their families).

OK, good luck with that.

Don't be surprised if you get him or a worse version elected in 24.

[Hazir]

Wasn't the stuff he took full of sensitive defence information and nuclear stuff? And wasn't he was waving it around in front of people like Kid Rock?

You realize that at least in theory he knew what was in the documents? That the presence of the documents merely is the material substrate of things an ex-president could flap his mouth about? No ex-president magically forgets everything he was briefed on at the inauguration of his successor.

The outrage is synthetic at best. And much more than damage to Trump it will do damage to the system of government in the USA. This BS started when Nixon was driven out of the White House and it would not surprise me in the least if it results in near-anarchist levels of violence against politicians from both parties.

[Loki]

OK, good luck with that.

Don't be surprised if you get him or a worse version elected in 24.

The only people who are outraged are people who were going to vote for him anyway. And with multiple primary opponents going after him, don't expect a unified GOP response backing Trump.

Party of Thieves and Crooks:

Twitter Link

[Steely Glint]

You realize that at least in theory he knew what was in the documents? That the presence of the documents merely is the material substrate of things an ex-president could flap his mouth about? No ex-president magically forgets everything he was briefed on at the inauguration of his successor.

Your argument is that it doesn't matter that he took hundreds of classified documents he wasn't entitled to, and then refused to return them when asked, and later deceived the FBI in an attempt to make them think he's returned everything when he hadn't, because you believe he could recite any of them them from memory at any time to, e.g. Russian spies? That's what we're going with?

Ok, you know what? Just for a laugh, I'm going to allow it. For this discussion it is now canon that Trump has an eidetic memory. Guess what? Doesn't matter, he's still in trouble because by storing them at random locations in Mar-a-Lago, he's also exposing the damn things to anyone who happens to wander into the room in question, so all a foreign power would have to do is get someone on the cleaning staff a Mar-a-Lago and they'd instantly have access to a treasure trove of classified US material.

The outrage is synthetic at best. And much more than damage to Trump it will do damage to the system of government in the USA. This BS started when Nixon was driven out of the White House

I honestly can't wrap my head around how you could possibly have reached this conclusion, or what reality you're living in. Prosecuting politicians who commit crimes is not 'BS', it's how you avoid ending up with a country like Russia.

and it would not surprise me in the least if it results in near-anarchist levels of violence against politicians from both parties.

That's enough internet for today.

[Hazir]

Yes, i know what people write in their silly regulations and that you Americans have the crazy idea that if it's a rule, if you break it that makes you a criminal. Especially if that means you can throw a politician you don't like in prison. But no amount of rules takes away from the fact that Trump isn't so far of the material mark if he says that as President all of the administration has no secrets from him.

What you guys are doing is pretending that the rules retroactively can change any of this so the papers suddenly become a big deal. As if the information contained in it could be classified away from the person who already had full access to them. What he did was sloppy and careless. But if it sends Trump to prison, İ have to wonder why Hillary Clinton isn't doing time.

The only way your logic makes sense if you execute every President on the day they hand over power.

[Aimless]

You realize that at least in theory he knew what was in the documents? That the presence of the documents merely is the material substrate of things an ex-president could flap his mouth about? No ex-president magically forgets everything he was briefed on at the inauguration of his successor.

... frankly, this is a very powerful argument for putting him behind bars as quickly—and for as long—as possible.

[Hazir]

... frankly, this is a very powerful argument for putting him behind bars as quickly—and for as long—as possible.

Frankly it's an argument to end the Presidential term with the execution of the President.

[Aimless]

Frankly it's an argument to end the Presidential term with the execution of the President.

Sure—even more so if you're talking about untrustworthy and crooked presidents. But, since you're not making either of those arguments, I don't see what the relevance is of Trump potentially remembering things. It has no real bearing on the separate—and more compelling—interest to uphold the rule of law (and, of course, to deter extremely dangerous authoritarian behavior involving the capture and self-serving exploitation of the justice system).

The charges against Trump reflect wide-ranging criminal behavior that risks undermining core functions of the US system of government. Even if they stem from mishandling of documents, the exact contents of the documents themselves aren't particularly relevant.

[Steely Glint]

Yes, i know what people write in their silly regulations and that you Americans have the crazy idea that if it's a rule, if you break it that makes you a criminal.

That's what the word 'criminal' means? Someone who breaks the law. Sorry, what's the issue here?

What you guys are doing is pretending that the rules retroactively can change any of this so the papers suddenly become a big deal.

The espionage age act, which Trump is being charged under, is from 1917, i.e over a century old. So, not really sure how that is retroactive.

As if the information contained in it could be classified away from the person who already had full access to them.

Yes, but, according to what actually happened, rather than whatever the fuck you think happened, when he stopped being president, he moved them out of the White House to Mar-a-Lago, which he was not allowed to do because after he stopped being president, he no longer has the right to have possession of the documents. When he did this, he stored the documents in non-secure locations where all kinds of random people could access them, including a bathroom, a ballroom, a shower and the floor.

He then showed the documents to at least two people not authorised to see them, which he's also not allowed to do.

He was then subpoenaed by the grand jury to return all classified documents. He then asked his attorney to lie to the grand jury and say he did not have the documents he in fact had and he also suggested to his attorney that he hide or destroy the classified documents he had. He directed an employee to hide documents from his lawyers attempting to comply with the subpoena, and eventually returned some of the documents (38 of ~200) in an attempt to make it seem as though he had complied with the subpoena even though he hadn't, all of which is very illegal. I would go as far as to say it's super-illegal, but I'll defer to people with more knowledge of the American legal system on that one.

[LittleFuzzy]

Giving a sitting leader immunity isn't abnormal by international standards;

Different goalpost. What did I reply to?

[LittleFuzzy]

Wasn't the stuff he took full of sensitive defence information and nuclear stuff? And wasn't he was waving it around in front of people like Kid Rock?

It's impossible for us to say how sensitive it really was, since we can't see it. It's also meaningless, legally, because from a courtroom perspective the definition of that would be its classification. And I already said his mishandling was particularly egregious and buffoonish, That's also not legally relevant. There's no additional statutory violation for reckless disregard or clownish blowhard antics with mishandling classified materials.

Hazir is being hyperbolic but the basic premise holds. We're talking about a base crime which basically every President is going to be committing, by accident if not on purpose. They can't avoid it entirely even if they try. We've already seen it demonstrated Biden did it when vacating as VP. And that's a problem. It wasn't an accident and it was far more of a security risk with Trump but there we get into the elasticity of opinion and judgement calls and that's a really shitty territory for prosecutions with heavy political elements or similar room for bias. A just legal system needs popular support and to maintain that support it needs to be more than fair, it needs to appear fair and just as well, erring on the side of letting the guilty go unpunished over unfairly/unjusty prosecuting the innocent. We all recognize the truth of Trump's actions but not even Lewk actually approves of him so. . . The recording of him acknowledging a document was still classified and still waving it around helps but since the base act is gonna get committed by everyone in that office at some point I just question the wisdom here.

Maybe it will blow over as just some incidental thing and won't develop into a poisonous and partisan pattern like patronage did. Maybe even if it does, just getting rid of Trump is worth that pain for a couple of terms or even decades. And maybe it will help secure support for him in his next run. I'm a cautious guy though and I just don't think it's worth the likely consequences.

[Aimless]

He was given every opportunity to just sort it out without committing crimes that'd see him indicted. I doubt he would've been indicted, had he not gone to such extraordinarily crimey-wimey lengths to obstruct the DOJ.

[Steely Glint]

It's impossible for us to say how sensitive it really was, since we can't see it. It's also meaningless, legally, because from a courtroom perspective the definition of that would be its classification.

Luckily, we do know the classification of the documents as well as something of their contents from the indictment, which I am beginning to think you haven't actually read.

https://www.scribd.com/document/6518...Nauta-23-80101

The text mentions the following:

On December 7, 2021,NAUTA found several of TRUMP’s boxes fallen and their contents spilled onto the floor of the Storage Room, including a document marked “SECRET//RELTO USA, FVEY,” which denoted that the information in the document was releasable only to the Five Eyes intelligence alliance

Specifically, as the FBI later determined, the boxes contained 197 documents with classification markings, of which 98 were marked “SECRET,” 30 were marked “TOP SECRET,” and the remainder were marked “CONFIDENTIAL.” Some of those documents also contained SCI and SAP markings

During the execution of the warrant at The Mar-a-Lago Club, the FBI seized 102 documents with classification markings in TRUMP’s office and the Storage Room, as follows:
TRUMP’s Office 27 of which Top Secret (6), Secret (18), Confidential (3)
Storage Room 75 of which Top Secret (11) Secret (36) Confidential (28)

And then on page 28 there's list of documents with a summery of their contents, a large number of which were marked TOP SECRET, NOFORN, SPECIAL HANDLING etc and relating to topics such as nuclear weapons, foreign and domestic military capabilities, intelligence briefings and other highly sensitive material.

Hazir is being hyperbolic but the basic premise holds. We're talking about a base crime which basically every President is going to be committing, by accident if not on purpose.

Every president steals a motherlode of classified material on their last day in office, and then lies to the FBI, or directs others to lie to the FBI, about it on several occasions? Every president asks their lawyer to hide the classified documents they're holding after a subpoena from the grand jury and then, when they refuse, has someone else hide a portion of those documents from that lawyer, so they can't comply with the subpoena? Big if true.

They can't avoid it entirely even if they try. We've already seen it demonstrated Biden did it when vacating as VP. And that's a problem. It wasn't an accident and it was far more of a security risk with Trump but there we get into the elasticity of opinion and judgement calls and that's a really shitty territory for prosecutions with heavy political elements or similar room for bias.

When Biden (and Pence) did it, it was an accident and it appears they didn't know they still had them, and the both immediately returned the documents, and when Trump did it not only was it not an accident, he went to extraordinary lengths to conceal the fact he had them and to avoid returning them, can you explain what the ambiguity is here? Because I'm not seeing it.

This is like the difference between accidentally walking out of a shop with a pack of chewing gum you didn't pay for then immediately returning to the shop to pay for it while apologizing profusely and smashing through the window in a huge truck and ransacking the place, then threatening witnesses into keeping quiet. And you're like "hmm, i dunno guys, the base act is the same here, so can we really prosecute? some of the stupidest people on earth might get mad and kick over some bins".

A just legal system needs popular support and to maintain that support it needs to be more than fair, it needs to appear fair and just as well, erring on the side of letting the guilty go unpunished over unfairly/unjusty prosecuting the innocent. We all recognize the truth of Trump's actions but not even Lewk actually approves of him so. . . The recording of him acknowledging a document was still classified and still waving it around helps but since the base act is gonna get committed by everyone in that office at some point I just question the wisdom here.

You're asking that someone be let off for crimes that would see anyone else sent to prison until the death of the sun because they're rich, famous and a high profile politician. You have just explained yourself why the illegality of what he did is incredibly clear. This is the exact opposite of fair, or appearing fair.

[Hazir]

Sure—even more so if you're talking about untrustworthy and crooked presidents. But, since you're not making either of those arguments, I don't see what the relevance is of Trump potentially remembering things. It has no real bearing on the separate—and more compelling—interest to uphold the rule of law (and, of course, to deter extremely dangerous authoritarian behavior involving the capture and self-serving exploitation of the justice system).

The charges against Trump reflect wide-ranging criminal behavior that risks undermining core functions of the US system of government. Even if they stem from mishandling of documents, the exact contents of the documents themselves aren't particularly relevant.

So, you mean; he deserves to be in prison, I will do whatever to get him there. It may be satisfying in the short run. But what you really have done is set an axe to the roots of your legal system.

Really, people should try to learn from how these things work in actual autocratic states before trying them at home.