The United States v Donald J. Trump

[Aimless]

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.

Of course there's a legal difference between the two. For starters, Trump's removal of documents and his obstruction constitute separate charges in the indictment, under different statutes. Obstruction of justice is a crime against the justice system itself, and people have been convicted for obstruction of justice without committing other crimes. Govt. officials mishandle documents all the time, but obstructing an investigation of such mishandling is exceedingly rare—certainly to the extent and with the determination we've seen here.

[Being]

... 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.

Well, we have already seen that the ramifications from not punishing criminals like GWB and Boris and Erdogan and Netanyahu leads to more people like them in positions of power. The failure to even acknowledge the crimes of GWB is why we are now dealing with today's abuses of power in the form of Trump.

[LittleFuzzy]

Of course there's a legal difference between the two. For starters, Trump's removal of documents and his obstruction constitute separate charges in the indictment, under different statutes. Obstruction of justice is a crime against the justice system itself, and people have been convicted for obstruction of justice without committing other crimes. Govt. officials mishandle documents all the time, but obstructing an investigation of such mishandling is exceedingly rare—certainly to the extent and with the determination we've seen here.

Obstruction is a different issue. But the reason obstruction exists is because otherwise it's a very effective way of avoiding conviction on the merits. If, as Hazir thinks, the base action is actually legal than pursuing obstruction on it is a lot like pursuing felony murder for a cop or security guard shooting your fellow criminal to death. Thoroughly wrongheaded and a perversion of the justice system. While I disagree with Hazir's take on the legality of Trump's actions wrt the original handling of the documents, pursuing obstruction on something you often wouldn't choose to prosecute (seen with Pence and Biden already this term) presents something of a similar issue. And it does guarantee an even more poisoned well politically, after the results of Clinton's obstruction impeachment (itself an example, IMO, of obstruction being used in lieu of an actual crime being committed rather than because interference made prosecution impossible the way it was intended).

[Hazir]

Well, we have already seen that the ramifications from not punishing criminals like GWB and Boris and Erdogan and Netanyahu leads to more people like them in positions of power. The failure to even acknowledge the crimes of GWB is why we are now dealing with today's abuses of power in the form of Trump.

Interesting that you mention Erdogan As it happens the man with the best chances to defeat him in the presidential elections was ineligible because he was entangled in a case about him showing contempt for the high selection council. That is a crime under the Turkish criminal statute and can be punished with time in prison. Which also excludes a person from elected office. Even if he’s already in office.

You sure you’re comfortable with lawfare becoming the norm?

[Hazir]

Obstruction is a different issue. But the reason obstruction exists is because otherwise it's a very effective way of avoiding conviction on the merits. If, as Hazir thinks, the base action is actually legal than pursuing obstruction on it is a lot like pursuing felony murder for a cop or security guard shooting your fellow criminal to death. Thoroughly wrongheaded and a perversion of the justice system. While I disagree with Hazir's take on the legality of Trump's actions wrt the original handling of the documents, pursuing obstruction on something you often wouldn't choose to prosecute (seen with Pence and Biden already this term) presents something of a similar issue. And it does guarantee an even more poisoned well politically, after the results of Clinton's obstruction impeachment (itself an example, IMO, of obstruction being used in lieu of an actual crime being committed rather than because interference made prosecution impossible the way it was intended).

That’s not very different than what I am saying about the chilling effects of the prosecution for future politicians. My ‘ideas on the legality’ of Trump’s actions should be in in the light of him being who he is; electorally the case could easily turn into a smorgasbord of opportunities for mischief with political repercussions. One of those being a serious risk of a second Trump Presidency. I don’t say that what he did was legal, but my opponents too easily assume what he did was illegal. Last time i checked an indictment wasn’t just another word for judicial ruling. They are way too happy about the idiot seemingly having been caught redhanded, to consider the paint could be rinsed off too.

[Steely Glint]

Americans: Noooo, you can't imprison a former president just because they committed crimes, what if people who constantly lie and operate in bad faith say it's politically motivated? We need to consider the non-specific consequences i can't express or define uhwuwuwuwuwuwuwuwuwu
France, who has imprisoned three prime ministers and presidents since 2010: just ze one prezidant? zese are... how you say? zese are rookie numbers

[Hazir]

Different things aren't the same. Being annoying, excessively sloppy and consistently talking nonsense shouldn't be lightly used as a way to criminalize your political opponents. This case for example taught me that the Espionage Act has been a useful tool to silence political opponents from its inception. Trump would, if convicted, not even be the first presidential candidate to run a campaign from prison.

But sure, go ahead with a prosecution that serves your sensitivities better than actual justice. It might put away a man you couldn't put away for January 6th. The weakness of your arguments may also put him back in the White House and a colorful group of Democrat leaders in the dock. I don't know what's so a-specific about that. And once prison is the perspective of stepping down as a leaders, well, that's not a great incentive to give up power at all.

[Steely Glint]

Being annoying, excessively sloppy and consistently talking nonsense shouldn't be lightly used as a way to criminalize your political opponents

I am once again asking you to read the indictment.

[Hazir]

I am not going to gratify you. I will not read the indictment. You think it's smart to prosecute politicians you don't like for egregious sloppiness, because that's pretty much all you can pin them down with. I say it's not a smart strategy, and no amount of detail about how sloppy Trump exactly was and with whom is not going to convince me otherwise.

The narrative around this is going to be that Biden couldn't win in a honest political confrontation, so he sent his dogs at the DoJ after Trump for a technicality. But in Trump's case the vast majority aren't going to see it as a good and smart trick to get a real criminal behind bars (read Al Capone), but as a politicking to eliminate an opponent.

The presiding judge appearantly already showed her doubts about the classified nature of the documents with a classification indicator. That promises a lot of fun for the actual case. And damage to the judiciary too I'm certain.

[Steely Glint]

I will not read the indictment.

embarrassing

[Aimless]

Transformation into RandBlade complete

[Hazir]

embarrassing

In other news; I committed a crime on the 12th of May 2023. My crime was driving on a Bulgarian highway without being in possession of a valid vignette a required by Bulgarian law. This surprised me very much since an electronic vignette had been issued to me 2 days prior to the date on which I committed my crime. Upon showing the file to the controlling officer she told me that where my car had a 9 the 'other car' obviously had a 0. The fact that it was me who had paid the vignette did nothing to change her mind. I was given a fine on the spot and paid €36 with my Visa credit card.

So, I hope that rebuilds your trust in the legal system again; somewhere, some crimes are being met with the full harshness of the law.

Why won't I read the indictment? Because I have better use for my time that finding out what excites you so much about the crime Trump is going to answer for in court. Do you seriously think I doubt that man should be in jail already for the actual high crimes committed on January 6th?

[LittleFuzzy]

France, who has imprisoned three prime ministers and presidents since 2010: just ze one prezidant? zese are... how you say? zese are rookie numbers

(I wish I knew where to find the animated one literally rolling across the board)

Thank you Steely, that just made my morning.

[Being]

It has been reported that the evidence turned over to Trump's legal team includes DNA analysis of cum spots on the Kim Jong Un love letter.

[Being]

Sorry, I forgot to include the link...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zDXVw0aatQ

[Hazir]

Sorry, I forgot to include the link...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zDXVw0aatQ

Mildly funny, but also surpringly on point.

[GGT]

Hazir, you may be right that our Republic is in trouble, but it's not because of this indictment or the DoJ appearing to prosecute for political purposes. Trump was bending/breaking the law for decades, but got away with it by paying millions in fines, then went back to the con/grift by abusing the loopholes in our legal system, rinse repeat. He took it to a whole new level when he entered politics -- and used the GOP as enablers -- to abuse loopholes our political system. Right out of Nixon's playbook that If a president does it, by definition it's not illegal.

Being is right that things might have turned out differently if Nixon had been pardoned *after* he'd been indicted and/or prosecuted, but the precedent that was set (and the message that it sent) was that the Executive is above other laws, and immune. That included Agnew's plea deal, too. But how fucked up would it have been to have a criminal VP replace a criminal President? And it continued on with Reagan's administration, Iran Contra and Col. Ollie North getting his own show on Fox TV. Every administration has followed this pattern, so maybe *this* is the time for DoJ to set a new precedent? Because we all know congress is broken and still hasn't made a law requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns.

Anyway, I think you're making too many assumptions about this first indictment. Even if he's found guilty (and that's a big IF) there's more to come. Jan. 6 and the fake electors scheme is much more important because it will test all the fundamentals where laws and politics meet. Even if he's convicted of Obstruction of Justice, or Conspiracy to Defraud the US or xyz criminal act -- Trump won't spend a single day in prison. He's entitled to Secret Service protection every day for the rest of his life, and they can't be expected to suffer for his crimes.

[Hazir]

I have no problems with going after him for real crimes. I have a problem with going after him for spurious reasons, which could easily turned into weapons against politicians 'we' don't despise.

I would applaud it if they could make the attempted interference with the electoral process stick. But seeing people cheering the idea that he might get into prison for being sloppy and pompous fills me with a terrible chill.

And now it seems he's tricking his followers into paying for his legal costs.

[GGT]

I have no problems with going after him for real crimes. I have a problem with going after him for spurious reasons, which could easily turned into weapons against politicians 'we' don't despise.

I would applaud it if they could make the attempted interference with the electoral process stick. But seeing people cheering the idea that he might get into prison for being sloppy and pompous fills me with a terrible chill.

And now it seems he's tricking his followers into paying for his legal costs.

If "going after him" (Trump) for "real crimes" doesn't include misuse of classified documents, let alone a conspiracy in an attempted coup, then what does? Your concern about his followers paying for his legal costs has roots in campaign finance laws, which are shit-based and toothless.

Seriously Hazir, how do you think we should hold a pathological liar and serial grifter accountable?

[Nessus]

The United States, by tradition, doesn't, at that level. Richard Nixon, who did nothing wrong, committed actual verifiable treason but Lyndon Johnson decided not the charge him with anything since it wasn't gentlemanly. And then Nixon went on to become the president. And because those god damned Kennedies drove him nuts, well, there was the burglary into the dem offices by his cadre of morons, and he resigned, but then Ford pardoned him for everything. And what's funny in the after-math is that Nixon is blamed for Watergate as being a crook, and not him doing a treason with the Vietnam peace talks.

Of course Trump is seen as an aberration, but pretty much every US president has been involved in some sort of atrocity or another, shit Truman nuked two cities and no one batted an eye! And never mind all the "founding fathers" who personally owned slaves, geez Louise.

Trump is awful, and maybe they'll get him for his sexting crimes or whatever, but it's pretty well established that no one wants to go after the POTUS since the office is considered important and it's politically inconvenient to do anything about it; after all, most influential people in the US harbour desires of attaining that office themselves, and who wants to ruin a good, pristine office?

[EyeKhan]

Georgia v. Trump is coming up. Would love to see that piece of shit held accountable for once.

[Hazir]

If "going after him" (Trump) for "real crimes" doesn't include misuse of classified documents, let alone a conspiracy in an attempted coup, then what does? Your concern about his followers paying for his legal costs has roots in campaign finance laws, which are shit-based and toothless.

Seriously Hazir, how do you think we should hold a pathological liar and serial grifter accountable?

He's being indicted for the wrong reasons. Your own reaction to me already shows that. He's a criminal who's given a chance to make a circus of the courts.

[Loki]

He's been indicted because he committed crimes, which seems like the right reason to me.

[Hazir]

He's been indicted because he committed crimes, which seems like the right reason to me.

The only thing you've proven if he's convicted is that the American legal system can easily be manipulated into getting the desired result. We saw it already with the likes of Capone. What it mostly does is robbing the courts of their legitimacy.

And that's the positive scenario.

[Loki]

The only thing you've proven if he's convicted is that the American legal system can easily be manipulated into getting the desired result. We saw it already with the likes of Capone. What it mostly does is robbing the courts of their legitimacy.

And that's the positive scenario.

I'm not the one who decided whether someone committee crimes; that's a role for the courts. That's a role you want to remove from the courts due to inane philosophical arguments. If Trump didn't break the law, let the courts decide that.

[Dreadnaught]

Trump is awful, and maybe they'll get him for his sexting crimes

Please let this never become a reality.

[Hazir]

I'm not the one who decided whether someone committee crimes; that's a role for the courts. That's a role you want to remove from the courts due to inane philosophical arguments. If Trump didn't break the law, let the courts decide that.

You seem to have missed that the indictment is the step leading up to the court case. It's not a neutral process at any time. The best you can hope for is that the powers of the prosecutor aren't abused.

But maybe that ship has already sailed in the USA anyway.

[Loki]

You seem to have missed that the indictment is the step leading up to the court case. It's not a neutral process at any time. The best you can hope for is that the powers of the prosecutor aren't abused.

But maybe that ship has already sailed in the USA anyway.

Funny how grand jury after grand jury seems to think there's more than enough evidence to bring the cases to trial.

[Aimless]

Funny how grand jury after grand jury seems to think there's more than enough evidence to bring the cases to trial.

Yeah but they're easily manipulated by prosecutors. If prosecutors can manipulate one judge after another into signing off on search warrants etc. then some schmucks on a grand jury don't stand a chance

[Loki]

Clearly the only way to know for sure whether Trump committed any crime is to bar all prosecutors from charging him with anything.