The United States v Donald J. Trump

[Hazir]

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



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.



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.

Thank you for repeating the facts. None of them are relevant to my point. Which is that when you start employing the legal system in order to get back at your political opponents what you get is short term gains and immensely bigger long term losses.

The present polarization of American politics can be traced right back to forcing Nixon out of the White House.

I shouldn't be surprised though that left leaning people never get that their extremist approach typically just leads to breaking down the system. Jede Konsequenz führt zum Teufel.

As for Biden's innocence : AFAIK intent doesn't even matter for these cases.

[Steely Glint]

Frankly, if the facts of the case 'aren't relevant' to your point, then what's even the relevance of your point?

The legal system isn't being used to get back at 'my' political opponents, it's being used to go after someone who committed series of extremely serious crimes related to national security and repeatedly lied to the courts and FBI. Failure to do this leads to political elites feeling (correctly) that they are above the law, allowing them to commit further crimes and corruption with impunity, which then spreads through the entire government. This is what leads to the break down of the system.

The present polarisation of US politics cannot be traced right back to Nixon, that's simply incorrect.

[Hazir]

Frankly, if the facts of the case 'aren't relevant' to your point, then what's even the relevance of your point?

The legal system isn't being used to get back at 'my' political opponents, it's being used to go after someone who committed series of extremely serious crimes related to national security and repeatedly lied to the courts and FBI. Failure to do this leads to political elites feeling (correctly) that they are above the law, allowing them to commit further crimes and corruption with impunity, which then spreads through the entire government. This is what leads to the break down of the system.

The present polarisation of US politics cannot be traced right back to Nixon, that's simply incorrect.

The legal system is not just being used, it's abused. Because nobody can find a way to pry voters away from that despicable man. But whatever works against him will work against any subsequent president as well. And what's more, will be used.

If you don't see the watershed in American politics after Nixon being forced out for not being likable enough for Liberals, well that's on you.

As far as how ridiculous your hammering on Trump being a criminal for what he did; in your own country similar rules prevent Boris Johnson de Pfeffel from taking his own diaries. And what's even nicer is how you are following that great American tradition of calling people criminals for doing something you don't like : like migrating without the right paperwork. There the use of the word criminal was absolutely effective in dehumanizing illegal immigrants to the point where Mexican became synonymous with rapist murderer. Some lesson to follow.

[Aimless]

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.

Please give some recent examples of democratic federations like the US that have become autocratic as a result of a corrupt president being held legally accountable for crimes they've committed. I think you may be confusing cause and effect. It is when you show the people that a corrupt leader can violate the law with impunity that you set an axe to the roots of a democratic nation's legal system.

The present polarization of American politics can be traced right back to forcing Nixon out of the White House.

Yes—it would've been better if he had been prosecuted and convicted. Instead, crooks and authoritarians learned that the rule of law was something that happened to other people, and that they could get away with crimes.

As for Biden's innocence : AFAIK intent doesn't even matter for these cases.

For obstruction? It absolutely does.

Nixon being forced out for not being likable enough for Liberals

u wot m8

[Steely Glint]

The legal system is not just being used, it's abused. Because nobody can find a way to pry voters away from that despicable man. But whatever works against him will work against any subsequent president as well. And what's more, will be used.

Ok, so: you don't believe the facts of the case are relevant, but you still believe the legal system is being abused to go after Trump. The only way I can make sense of what you're saying is that you believe there is literally nothing any head of state, former head of state or even high profile political figure can do that should result in legal action being taken against them. Is that a fair summation of what you think? If not, can you tell us where the line is? What does a prime minister, president etc, need to do for it to be legitimate to prosecute them, in your eyes?

If you don't see the watershed in American politics after Nixon being forced out for not being likable enough for Liberals, well that's on you.

He was forced out for his involvement in the burglary of DNC headquarters and subsequent attempts to cover up, which were things they he did.

[LittleFuzzy]

The legal system is not just being used, it's abused. Because nobody can find a way to pry voters away from that despicable man. But whatever works against him will work against any subsequent president as well. And what's more, will be used.

If you don't see the watershed in American politics after Nixon being forced out for not being likable enough for Liberals, well that's on you.

As far as how ridiculous your hammering on Trump being a criminal for what he did; in your own country similar rules prevent Boris Johnson de Pfeffel from taking his own diaries. And what's even nicer is how you are following that great American tradition of calling people criminals for doing something you don't like : like migrating without the right paperwork. There the use of the word criminal was absolutely effective in dehumanizing illegal immigrants to the point where Mexican became synonymous with rapist murderer. Some lesson to follow.

Nixon wasn't forced out for not being likable enough for Liberals. It was bipartisan. It took a while for the Republicans to get behind doing so but they did at the end (and the GOP in Congress had almost unanimously supported the original inquiry as well). The moderates in the party were unwilling to tolerate the habit of corruption that was slowly revealed and the rest weren't willing to buck the public groundswell against that pattern of behavior either. But the historical lesson/attitude learned by the the Republicans might trace to there. Either via inaccurate revisionism or just the knowledge that it did require bipartisan support for Nixon to be forced out meaning as long as they stand firm they ought to be able to keep someone around. And in the intervening years they very much acquired an interest in "balancing" that scale by forcing out a Democratic President

[Hazir]

Nixon wasn't forced out for not being likable enough for Liberals. It was bipartisan. It took a while for the Republicans to get behind doing so but they did at the end (and the GOP in Congress had almost unanimously supported the original inquiry as well). The moderates in the party were unwilling to tolerate the habit of corruption that was slowly revealed and the rest weren't willing to buck the public groundswell against that pattern of behavior either. But the historical lesson/attitude learned by the the Republicans might trace to there. Either via inaccurate revisionism or just the knowledge that it did require bipartisan support for Nixon to be forced out meaning as long as they stand firm they ought to be able to keep someone around. And in the intervening years they very much acquired an interest in "balancing" that scale by forcing out a Democratic President

Ah. And how's that going to work with a Republican former President being thrown in prison for what looks like trumped up charges?

Not to mention the damage to the credibility of the legal system regardless of the outcome of the case?

[Hazir]

Please give some recent examples of democratic federations like the US that have become autocratic as a result of a corrupt president being held legally accountable for crimes they've committed. I think you may be confusing cause and effect. It is when you show the people that a corrupt leader can violate the law with impunity that you set an axe to the roots of a democratic nation's legal system.



Yes—it would've been better if he had been prosecuted and convicted. Instead, crooks and authoritarians learned that the rule of law was something that happened to other people, and that they could get away with crimes.



For obstruction? It absolutely does.



u wot m8

You may think there's a gotcha in your points, but all that's needed for a democratic system to die is it's participants no longer believing in its functioning. And the United States of America is much closer to that point than anyone should be comfortable with.

[Hazir]

Ok, so: you don't believe the facts of the case are relevant, but you still believe the legal system is being abused to go after Trump. The only way I can make sense of what you're saying is that you believe there is literally nothing any head of state, former head of state or even high profile political figure can do that should result in legal action being taken against them. Is that a fair summation of what you think? If not, can you tell us where the line is? What does a prime minister, president etc, need to do for it to be legitimate to prosecute them, in your eyes?



He was forced out for his involvement in the burglary of DNC headquarters and subsequent attempts to cover up, which were things they he did.

Claiming that I believe there's nothing a President could do should lead to a prosecution in response to my claim that the law is wrong if it makes such trivial transgressions punishable is quite a stretch.

Also, if I am to believe that Watergate was the most egregious thing ever was responsible for and the only reason Nixon was chased out of the WH, you better not expect that to happen as long as I'm still breathing.

[Steely Glint]

Claiming that I believe there's nothing a President could do should lead to a prosecution in response to my claim that the law is wrong if it makes such trivial transgressions punishable is quite a stretch.

You keep saying it's trivial, we keep telling you it's not. The last person (non-president) to be convicted of a similar crime was sent to prison for nearly four years.

So, if you I'd like specify what level of criminality a former president should be let off with? Something that typically carries sentences in the range of 3 to 5 years is clearly not enough for you, so what is it? 6? 7? 10?

Also, if I am to believe that Watergate was the most egregious thing ever was responsible for and the only reason Nixon was chased out of the WH, you better not expect that to happen as long as I'm still breathing.

Being wrong is entirely your prerogative. However, there's this thing called 'reality' and it is what it is irrespective of what you believe.

[Being]

I think the question we need to ask Hazir is, did someone hack your forum account?

[Hazir]

I think the question we need to ask Hazir is, did someone hack your forum account?

Don't worry about my account, worry about your Republic. I have serious doubts it can survive a second Trump presidency.

[Hazir]

You keep saying it's trivial, we keep telling you it's not. The last person (non-president) to be convicted of a similar crime was sent to prison for nearly four years.

So, if you I'd like specify what level of criminality a former president should be let off with? Something that typically carries sentences in the range of 3 to 5 years is clearly not enough for you, so what is it? 6? 7? 10?



Being wrong is entirely your prerogative. However, there's this thing called 'reality' and it is what it is irrespective of what you believe.

There is no position comparable to that of the President of the United States when it comes to secrets of any level. You can maintain the illusion that working in the administration is the same as being the personification of the administration, but it's not. And that makes every reasoning on the basis that the rules are the same for the President synthetic. The damage to result from this case is unpredictable, but I am not so blind that I think that the satisfaction of seeing Trump in Orange overalls is worth risking it.

[Steely Glint]

Fascinating metaphysics at play here. I have questions.

a) What the hell does 'personification of the administrator' mean?
b) The indictment refers to things that took place after he left office so even if the law doesn't apply to the president, which it does, but if it didn't then surely that immunity can't continue after a president leaves office?
c) He's also been indicted for obstruction of justice, lying to the federal government and withholding & concealing documents used an official proceeding - does being a former president convey immunity to those as well?
d) Trump's aid Walt Nauta has also been indicted along side Trump for the above charges (but not holding on to the classified material, as this was Trump alone), does Trump's 'personification of the administration' immunity extended to other people who are indicted for the same actions as Trump, or should just Nauta be charged alone?

[Hazir]

The President is the executive. That shouldn't be so hard to understand. Which also means that being the President and serving at the pleasure of the President are not the same and logically actually shouldn't be covered by the same regulatory framework. For all I know the whole indictment isn't even constitutionally sound. Nothing tells me that impeachment isn't the actual route for what Trump is accused of.

You say it all happened after he left office. The only thing we are certain of is that he didn't declare nor surrender documents. We don't know how and when the documents got there. But an educated guess would tell us that the documents left government premises before Biden took his oath of office. That would mean the transfer was legal regardless of the statutory framework. Trump did it by the room full. But if this leads anywhere close to conviction, next time that will no longer matter. Any slip of memory combined with a search warrant will lead to 'criminal former Presidents' going to jail.

Walt Nauta isn't a former President. And I am not talking about immunity, I am talking about an intrinsically flawed set of rules being applied BECAUSE TRUMP WAS PRESIDENT.

If the White House wants to address this problem it should make better rules about how to deal with the paperwork of an outgoing President and the paperwork of the outgoing President alone. For his underlings the Law will have to do. Which makes sense because without the Executive having people working for them, there wouldn't be any need for espionage or secrecy acts.

Unless of course you want to defend the President committing an act of espionage would not fit the definition of the reasons for impeachment and conviction by the Senate.

[Steely Glint]

You say it all happened after he left office. The only thing we are certain of is that he didn't declare nor surrender documents. We don't know how and when the documents got there. But an educated guess would tell us that the documents left government premises before Biden took his oath of office.

Instead of making "educated" guesses, why not try reading?

At 12:00 p.m. on January 20, 2021, TRUMP ceased to be president. As he departed the White House, TRUMP caused scores of boxes, many of which contained classified documents, to be transported to The Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, where he maintained his residence. TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain those classified documents.

[Hazir]

The President is the President until his successor tales his oath of office. Once that moment has passed the former President has no say whatsoever about removing anything from government premises, including the White House. Now, you tell me who can go into the White House, not working for, or at the invitation of the President? You think an educated guess is not possible about the chances of Trump removing anything from the White House after the Oath of Office?

Just for fun, go to Washington DC and visit the White House, then tell us how likely you think it is a person without authorization can walk in and walk out a significant number of boxes or even one box. The White House by the way is worth a visit

And if this still happened, then someone of the Biden White House actually committed a crime.

Anyway, enjoy your ecstasy over this indictment. Let's wait and see if you are still so happy after it's all said and done.

[Aimless]

I think the question we need to ask Hazir is, did someone hack your forum account?

His account hasn't been hacked, he's just incapable of understanding the difference between innocent mishandling of documents and criminal obstruction of justice. Because he's having another debate, with people who aren't present here in the thread.

[Hazir]

His account hasn't been hacked, he's just incapable of understanding the difference between innocent mishandling of documents and criminal obstruction of justice. Because he's having another debate, with people who aren't present here in the thread.

Not having a different debate, just telling you that this all isn't as great and good as you think it is. Not even if it gives Liberals the satisfaction of seeing Trump being put behind bars.

[Steely Glint]

The President is the President until his successor tales his oath of office. Once that moment has passed the former President has no say whatsoever about removing anything from government premises, including the White House. Now, you tell me who can go into the White House, not working for, or at the invitation of the President? You think an educated guess is not possible about the chances of Trump removing anything from the White House after the Oath of Office?

Just for fun, go to Washington DC and visit the White House, then tell us how likely you think it is a person without authorization can walk in and walk out a significant number of boxes or even one box. The White House by the way is worth a visit

And if this still happened, then someone of the Biden White House actually committed a crime.

Anyway, enjoy your ecstasy over this indictment. Let's wait and see if you are still so happy after it's all said and done.

To be honest, I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say here, but I think you're saying that when Trump ordered the boxes moved to Mar-a-Largo, he was still technically president? But the president leaves the white house after a new one is sworn in.

So, uh, he wasn't.

[Hazir]

And yet, anything done right up till the new President has been sworn in is legal. Right up till that moment. The first line of defense will be that what was legal didn't become illegal automatically. Not with the USA executive having the habit of giving former Presidents security briefings until Biden decided to stop this with Trump. Don't be surprised if this comes up in the next 2 to 3 years. It also works great in the narrative of this being a premeditated witch hunt.

[Steely Glint]

But, since Trump moved the boxes as he was leaving the white house, and he didn't leave the white house until after Biden was sworn in, he moved the boxes after he stopped being president which he was not authorised to do.

And, even if we concede that point and say he was still technically president when he asked for the boxes to be moved it still doesn't help his case in the slightest: he still should have returned them when asked to do so since this was over a year later and it was long past the point where he had any business having those documents. So he's still on the hook for holding documents he wasn't authorised to, he's still on the hook for showing them to people weren't authorised to see them, he's still on the hook for conspiring with what's his face to conceal the documents and he's still on the hook for obstruction of justice.

[Hazir]

So the case is actually about obstruction of justice in a case where the first line of defense will be there was no reasonable cause for a suspicion of the law having been broken. Again, no matter how smart the DoJ people are, this is going to look awful and the damage is going to be immense.

And in case you wonder; I wasn't joking when I questioned the constitutionality of holding the President accountable under the Espionage act. Do we really need a judge to test the Trump doctrine that he actually could de-classify documents at will?

[Steely Glint]

So the case is actually about obstruction of justice in a case where the first line of defense will be there was no reasonable cause for a suspicion of the law having been broken. Again, no matter how smart the DoJ people are, this is going to look awful and the damage is going to be immense.

This is all taking place about a year after Trump has left office. At this point, there is no reasonable grounds to say that Trump had any possible legal right to retain the classified documents. He is taking actions designed to both conceal the fact that he had any classified documents at all, and then later, trying to conceal the extent of the documents he had by returning a fraction of them and then saying 'yup, that's all of them'. It's pretty open and shut case here, justice had the shit obstructed out of it.

Also he lied to the Feds. Always a bad plan, they hate that. Earnest people, Poli Sci majors in good suits. They don't like shenanigans.

And in case you wonder; I wasn't joking when I questioned the constitutionality of holding the President accountable under the Espionage act. Do we really need a judge to test the Trump doctrine that he actually could de-classify documents at will?

The idea that a former president can declassify documents over a year after they left office is absurd.

[Hazir]

All this?

There is no clear indication the documents were moved out of the White House after the inauguration of Biden. The issue only started once Trump had sent some documents to a federal archive (AFAIK) which then triggered a demand for the delivery of all classified documents. If Trump had any level of seriousness this whole matter wouldn't have come out.

Trump has claimed before that declassication can be done 'at will' by the President and that his mere treatment of documents could imply declassication. Now, there's a lot to be said against that. However, Trump's 'theory' also hasn't been tested in court. And there is no way of telling what the outcome of such a test would be. Is the President really held to write down what he intends to do about the confidentiality of a paper because of what in essence is an internal policy paper about which of his workers are allowed to see which paper, but can't really cover his person in a meaningful way because there is no secret so big he's not allowed to know all details of it.

Yes I know, the law is there for everyone bladibla, but we're talking about a law here that in no meaningful way regulates what the President can or cannot make public. Trump could literally have filled out the paperwork and put the boxes on the Mall without any repercussions. At least no legal ones.

[Aimless]

Not having a different debate, just telling you that this all isn't as great and good as you think it is. Not even if it gives Liberals the satisfaction of seeing Trump being put behind bars.

You are having a different debate because what you're talking about is not even tangentially related to the case. All I see here is a lot of flailing at imaginary "liberal" opponents not actually present in the thread, over vague ideas not actually relevant to the thread. Okay, great, you're mad at some libs you met at a dinner party. Sounds like a great topic for a blog post.

So the case is actually about obstruction of justice

It would really have been helpful if you'd read what the charges are before debating them.

in a case where the first line of defense will be there was no reasonable cause for a suspicion of the law having been broken.

There was reasonable cause for suspicion that the law had been broken. After NARA discovered that a number of documents were missing, Trump's own people confirmed that they had boxes of documents that should've been turned over. This ultimately led to the discovery that not only had highly classified documents been mishandled, but Trump and his people had knowingly and actively attempted—on multiple occasions—to illegally hold on to those documents, even after it had become clear that they should've been turned over.

Notwithstanding the issue of criminality, getting those classified documents back was crucial to assessing potential risk to US security interests—including the identity and safety of HUMINT assets—and mitigating any risks that might arise from their compromise. That's without even considering the risk of US allies becoming more reluctant to share intel with the US.

The steps the DOJ has taken to investigate Trump—including subpoenas and warrants—have been approved by judges and grand juries, who have found reasonable cause to suspect specific criminal activity. When you say "the first line of defense will be there was no reasonable cause for a suspicion of the law having been broken" it just tells me you haven't read the first thing about the case you're discussing.

And in case you wonder; I wasn't joking when I questioned the constitutionality of holding the President accountable under the Espionage act. Do we really need a judge to test the Trump doctrine that he actually could de-classify documents at will?

Trump is literally on tape saying he can't declassify the documents in question because he's no longer president. That's his "doctrine".

[Steely Glint]

However, Trump's 'theory' also hasn't been tested in court. And there is no way of telling what the outcome of such a test would be.

I think we do have a pretty strong idea about what the outcome of such a test would be. From a practical standpoint, it's not really a viable system where the president can just declassify stuff without leaving any record, anywhere, that the status of a document has changed and essentially just by looking at the document and thinking, in his internal monolog, "I declassify you".

And anyway, it's moot because there's transcript of him saying a) he cannot declassify the document he is showing to a staffer because he's no longer president and b) admitting that he did not declassify the document when he was president.

Trump could literally have filled out the paperwork and put the boxes on the Mall without any repercussions.

But he didn't.

[Being]

While I disagree with Hazir on this topic, I would like to point out that GW did actual damage to the USA. Seeing that POTUS can use the US military to carry out a personal vendetta that ends up killing thousands of US citizens along with thousands of Iraqi's, and without any acknowledgement of wrong doing, must be the precedent Trump uses to set himself above the law. If we had locked up GWB for his crimes, Trump would never have happened.

[Hazir]

You are having a different debate because what you're talking about is not even tangentially related to the case. All I see here is a lot of flailing at imaginary "liberal" opponents not actually present in the thread, over vague ideas not actually relevant to the thread. Okay, great, you're mad at some libs you met at a dinner party. Sounds like a great topic for a blog post.



It would really have been helpful if you'd read what the charges are before debating them.



There was reasonable cause for suspicion that the law had been broken. After NARA discovered that a number of documents were missing, Trump's own people confirmed that they had boxes of documents that should've been turned over. This ultimately led to the discovery that not only had highly classified documents been mishandled, but Trump and his people had knowingly and actively attempted—on multiple occasions—to illegally hold on to those documents, even after it had become clear that they should've been turned over.

Notwithstanding the issue of criminality, getting those classified documents back was crucial to assessing potential risk to US security interests—including the identity and safety of HUMINT assets—and mitigating any risks that might arise from their compromise. That's without even considering the risk of US allies becoming more reluctant to share intel with the US.

The steps the DOJ has taken to investigate Trump—including subpoenas and warrants—have been approved by judges and grand juries, who have found reasonable cause to suspect specific criminal activity. When you say "the first line of defense will be there was no reasonable cause for a suspicion of the law having been broken" it just tells me you haven't read the first thing about the case you're discussing.



Trump is literally on tape saying he can't declassify the documents in question because he's no longer president. That's his "doctrine".

Actually, the first thing Trump's lawyers will do is ask the judge to dismiss the entire case. And to Trump what matters less what the outcome of this stage is, than that it actually takes place and takes a long time to decide upon.

What Trump says about what he can't do after stepping down from the Presidency says nothing about what he could do while being the President. What you don't seem to get is that this case which centers on the obstruction of justice rests on the foundation of that what Trump did before this obstruction was actually a crime. You jumped to that conclusion and go for the low hanging fruit. Trump's lawyers will not settle for just talking about the part where their client did something that could lead to a probable conviction. They will be fighting all along the way and this case will drag on for years, while looking more and more like a political hatchet job by the DoJ and extension Joe Biden. And for your information; it wouldn't be so difficult to portray it like that with the history of several governments in the past have made blatant use of the Espionage act to silence opponents.

P. S. : even at the beginning of this whole mess, the case is a lost cause for the DoJ in the public eye. A majority of Americans want this to end in a pardon. That includes a good number of people who think he's probably guilty, but also that the indictment is politically driven.

[LittleFuzzy]

His account hasn't been hacked, he's just incapable of understanding the difference between innocent mishandling of documents and criminal obstruction of justice.

There isn't a legal difference between the two. It's why prosecutorial discretion exists as a concept. And it's why I agree with Hazir that successfully pursuing this is going to have unpleasant ramifications extending well past any possible second Trump administration.