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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[LittleFuzzy]

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

Different goalpost. What did I reply to?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.