How Would You Defend Trump?

[Rebound]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I think Trump's only real hope is in The Presidential Records Act and the ample precidents set to support it over the decades.

To me...this should be an open and shut case.

We will see.

To Repeat:

Trump has not been charged with violating the Presidential Records Act.

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, Rebound said:

To Repeat:

Trump has not been charged with violating the Presidential Records Act.

Bravo goof. They charged him with espionage. Enjoy proving that one.

You goofy, TDS-ridden sods need to get over your hatred. It's just gotta be unhealthy. 

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Not the same. 
Law says: “willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it”

Then Biden, Clinton and many others would also be at fault. 

They would need to demonstrate he was ordered to return the documents. 

I don't know. Smells like a hit piece to me.

9 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

They charged him with espionage.

The fact some are frothing at the mouth with their perceived "gotcha!" moment, ignores his rights and the fact they need to prove this without any shade of a doubt.

[Guest]

Trump is a horrible person at times, there is zero doubt about it.

But as an American, he is as far as anyone is concerned, innocent. One must prove his guilt.

This will be a long, and painstaking process. I don't see how this stops him from winning an election seeing its only 5 months away.

If he can sell the political hit piece well enough, you have just gotten him millions of more votes and donations.

While he is a horrible president, I love how he infuriates the far left.

[CdnFox]

56 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I disagree.

it's not really debatable.  For it to be precedent a court would have had to rule on it. That has never happened.

Quote

But even if precedent can't hold up, then you hit them with consistency. If Trump is being hauled in then so must George Bush, HRC, Hussein Obama, the hair sniffer and any other high level political figure who brought classified docs home. 

That's a tough row to hoe.  They'e arguing what trump did is different.   And much of the charges are - nobody is suggesting obama knowingly and willingly distributed classified documents to unauthorized people, they've got trump on tape doing that apparently.

Obama and biden use the "oh i forgot those" excuse for not returning documents and that was fine - hillary used the 'didn't know they were classified' excuse and that SHOULDN'T have been fine but was accepted.  Trump is on tape saying he KNOWS he has them after he should have returned them AND saying he KNOWS he DID NOT declassify them and they're still classified. So those defenses are out the window for him.

 

Quote

What law? How is what Trump did any different than Hussein Obama, HRC, or crazy Biden?  

Well a few laws - he failed to return them when asked even tho he knew he still had them

He is also guilty of obstruction if what they're saying turns out to be true.

He is also guilty of knowingly distributing classified documents to unauthorized people if what they say turns out to be true.

None of the others were suspected of any of those things, with the possible exception of hillary.  And hillery was let off the hook because she was going to run for president and you can't lock up your political rivals.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

You’re partly right. Good analysis.  Please read the law I quoted in the post above, especially the bold part:

WILLFULLY RETAINS AND FAILS TO DELIVER IT.

In the Biden and Clinton cases, prosecution would depend on determining that they WILLFULLY retained classified information AND failed to return it to the government once they realized they had it. I don’t see any way you could prove that in their cases, but you can prove it in Trump’s. He was served with a warrant to return the documents and instead he orders his people to hide them and he lied to his lawyers about it. That is clearly WILLFUL and it is clearly FAILURE TO DELIVER. 

Sure, i'm aware.  You could argue you didn't remember  you had 'those ones' or the like - or as in hillary's case " i didn't know THOSE ones were classified" or that you meant THOSE ones...

there's some precedent for allowing ignorance to be an excuse. Hey - i THOUGHT i turned over all the relevant documents and i didnt' think  i had any more.  It shouldn't really be a defense because it can be argued if you took it you knew you had it  and not keeping track of what classified docs you took is bad, but they let it slide.

But - apparently they have him on tape saying he knows he has them and knows they're still classified.  So unlike the others, that completely eliminates the " i didn't do it intentionally' defense if they indeed have that and it's admissible .

[Rebound]

44 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Bravo goof. They charged him with espionage. Enjoy proving that one.

You goofy, TDS-ridden sods need to get over your hatred. It's just gotta be unhealthy. 

I think that if you read section E of the Espionage Act, you will see that he violated it. 

Of all the responses in this thread, yours is meaningless. Read the indictment for yourself. It lays out the argument very clearly:

Trump knew he had classified documents. He told others that he had them and he showed these documents to people not authorized to see them. He knew that they were still classified them and that, since he was no longer President, Trump himself said to these people that he knew he could not declassify them. 

Trump was given a Federal Grand Jury subpoena to turn over all documents in his possession which had Classified markings. He had his staff move about half of his documents to a different location, and then send his attorney to obtain all of the Classified marked documents from one of the two locations. 

Trump is charged with violating this Federal Law 18, 793(3), among others:

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation...  willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it."

11 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

I am going to defend him now wow, look at that, did not see that one coming, but a ⬆️ trending material is going around which is fake. 

CLAIM: An image shows former President Donald Trump dancing with a teenage girl at a party at Jeffrey Epstein’s private island.

ASSESSMENT: False. Trump’s campaign and an expert on synthetic images say the image isn’t real. The visual has the telltale signs of one made using programs powered by generative artificial intelligence.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-epstein-desantis-AI-127662597528

This thread is about the Mar-a-Lago documents case. 

[Rebound]

49 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Then Biden, Clinton and many others would also be at fault. 

They would need to demonstrate he was ordered to return the documents. 

I don't know. Smells like a hit piece to me.

The fact some are frothing at the mouth with their perceived "gotcha!" moment, ignores his rights and the fact they need to prove this without any shade of a doubt.

You cannot win a case by saying that somebody else in an unrelated case under different circumstances was not prosecuted. That is not how the law works. If your client is charged with murder, do you tell the judge, "Hey, so-and-so got away with murder, so my client cannot be charged?"  It is irrelevant. 

Never mind that Biden and Clinton were different facts. There was no court order willfully ignored; they cooperated fully. "Willfulness" is a requirement in the law.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I think that if you read section E of the Espionage Act, you will see that he violated it. 

Of all the responses in this thread, yours is meaningless. Read the indictment for yourself. It lays out the argument very clearly:

Trump knew he had classified documents. He told others that he had them and he showed these documents to people not authorized to see them. He knew that they were still classified them and that, since he was no longer President, Trump himself said to these people that he knew he could not declassify them. 

Trump was given a Federal Grand Jury subpoena to turn over all documents in his possession which had Classified markings. He had his staff move about half of his documents to a different location, and then send his attorney to obtain all of the Classified marked documents from one of the two locations. 

Trump is charged with violating this Federal Law 18, 793(3), among others:

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation...  willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it."

Even there he could have danced around the boxes being moved thing. Even by the evidence they claim they have in the indictment there were a lot of personal and other things being moved around at the same time - and he could easily claim that he gave instruction and his people messed up, or that he though he ordered them to move personal boxes but there was confusion etc and he'd probably get away with it -  BUT there's the lawyers statement.   If he can't figure out how to get that dismissed or found to be privileged conversation  then he's going to have a problem

[Rebound]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Even there he could have danced around the boxes being moved thing. Even by the evidence they claim they have in the indictment there were a lot of personal and other things being moved around at the same time - and he could easily claim that he gave instruction and his people messed up, or that he though he ordered them to move personal boxes but there was confusion etc and he'd probably get away with it -  BUT there's the lawyers statement.   If he can't figure out how to get that dismissed or found to be privileged conversation  then he's going to have a problem

That is a reasonable response. I agree that their very first defense will be to object to every piece of evidence, particularly evidence from his lawyer.

But, you'll recall that Trump's lawyers signed an affidavit attesting that Trump had turned over all documents in his possession with Classified markings, and when a search warrant was later served, Classified-marked documents were found not only in his possession, but even in his desk drawer, along with his passports. 

Federal Judge Beryl Howell ruled last March that the Justice Department proved that there was sufficient evidence to establish that Trump committed a crime through his attorneys. Because, either the attorney deliberately lied, or the attorney was lied to. I think Trump's lawyers will still try to have this evidence suppressed, and if Judge Cannon suppresses it, the Justice Department will appeal her decision and the decision will be overturned. 

[Nationalist]

29 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I think that if you read section E of the Espionage Act, you will see that he violated it. 

Of all the responses in this thread, yours is meaningless. Read the indictment for yourself. It lays out the argument very clearly:

Trump knew he had classified documents. He told others that he had them and he showed these documents to people not authorized to see them. He knew that they were still classified them and that, since he was no longer President, Trump himself said to these people that he knew he could not declassify them. 

Trump was given a Federal Grand Jury subpoena to turn over all documents in his possession which had Classified markings. He had his staff move about half of his documents to a different location, and then send his attorney to obtain all of the Classified marked documents from one of the two locations. 

Trump is charged with violating this Federal Law 18, 793(3), among others:

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation...  willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it."

This thread is about the Mar-a-Lago documents case. 

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html

Here's the one that sinks your dingy...

Quote

Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.

This whole "espionage" this is BS. Those are the former President's records.!

Edited June 19, 2023 by Nationalist

[Rebound]

39 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html

Here's the one that sinks your dingy...

This whole "espionage" this is BS. Those are the former President's records.!

You mention how the PRA applies to the records of the incumbent President. Trump is not the incumbent President, he is a former President. The records of an incumbent President are not public property because they were created before the person was elected. 

You can read the full act instead of a summery here: https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

§ 2202. Ownership of Presidential records

The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Rebound

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

There was no court order willfully ignored; they cooperated fully

If they can prove that Trump did not cooperate, that's one thing. But it must be proven.

If his lawyers can prove he did nothing to impede anything, then he has a solid alibi.

Everything we are working with so far, is hearsay.

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

That is not how the law works.

He could use it to cast doubt. The very reason they are being so careful when charging him.

If you have evidence that casts doubts and proves that he wasn't fairly tried, I don't understand how this doesn't benefit him in court.

OJ Simpson benefitted from doubt being cast. He also played politics.

[Rebound]

16 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

If they can prove that Trump did not cooperate, that's one thing. But it must be proven.

If his lawyers can prove he did nothing to impede anything, then he has a solid alibi.

Everything we are working with so far, is hearsay.

He could use it to cast doubt. The very reason they are being so careful when charging him.

If you have evidence that casts doubts and proves that he wasn't fairly tried, I don't understand how this doesn't benefit him in court.

OJ Simpson benefitted from doubt being cast. He also played politics.

It is not hearsay evidence at all. The case is incredibly solid.  
 

The basics are this:

1) NARA asked for return of documents. 
2) Documents were returned which included documents with Classified markings.

3) This lead to FBI investigation.  They presumably interviewed Secret Service agents and others.  
4) Grand Jury convened, resulted in a court-ordered DEMAND for remaining Classified documents.  
5) Trump lawyer returns Classified documents and signs letter stating that all documents were returned. 

6) FBI interviews witnesses and learns that not all documents were returned.  This is where the Obstruction charges and conspiracy charges arise.  
7) FBI gets search warrant and retrieves a bunch of classified documents from Mar-a-Lago.  THESE are the documents Trump was charged for. 
 

If you look at the indictment it is very clear.  He’s facing up to several hundred years in prison, although, because there was no deliberate act of espionage (publishing them or selling them to Russia, for instance), the maximum penalties are very unlikely to apply. 
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf

Edited June 19, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

That is a reasonable response. I agree that their very first defense will be to object to every piece of evidence, particularly evidence from his lawyer.

But, you'll recall that Trump's lawyers signed an affidavit attesting that Trump had turned over all documents in his possession with Classified markings, and when a search warrant was later served, Classified-marked documents were found not only in his possession, but even in his desk drawer, along with his passports. 

Federal Judge Beryl Howell ruled last March that the Justice Department proved that there was sufficient evidence to establish that Trump committed a crime through his attorneys. Because, either the attorney deliberately lied, or the attorney was lied to. I think Trump's lawyers will still try to have this evidence suppressed, and if Judge Cannon suppresses it, the Justice Department will appeal her decision and the decision will be overturned. 

the judge said there was enough evidence that the case should proceed and can't be dismissed - but that's not the same as saying the evidence must be admitted or finds him guilty.

As noted the charges clearly indicate that the lawyers acted in good faith all the way along trying to return the docs and wanting to verify the contents of the boxes themselves.  And that there were delays and confusion.

And as i understand it trump wasn't present when they did the verification. (could be wrong but that was my read).

so it would still be super easy to say in all the confusion the boxes got separated, i thought they were all togetther,  the lawyers looked through the ones there and thought they had them all, i thought they'd seen tehm all but turns out some where missing. And i haven't looked in my desk since i lost the election.

He doesn't have to prove taht's what happened, only that it could have. But - you get conspiracy when you bring in the lawyers testimony - IF that's allowed.

He's in trouble but there are paths out

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Rebound said:

It is not hearsay evidence at all. The case is incredibly solid.  
 

The basics are this:

1) NARA asked for return of documents. 
2) Documents were returned which included documents with Classified markings.

3) This lead to FBI investigation.  They presumably interviewed Secret Service agents and others.  
4) Grand Jury convened, resulted in a court-ordered DEMAND for remaining Classified documents.  
5) Trump lawyer returns Classified documents and signs letter stating that all documents were returned. 

6) FBI interviews witnesses and learns that not all documents were returned.  This is where the Obstruction charges and conspiracy charges arise.  
7) FBI gets search warrant and retrieves a bunch of classified documents from Mar-a-Lago.  THESE are the documents Trump was charged for. 
 

If you look at the indictment it is very clear.  He’s facing up to several hundred years in prison, although, because there was no deliberate act of espionage (publishing them or selling them to Russia, for instance), the maximum penalties are very unlikely to apply. 
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf

there's a lot of places in that story where if paperwork wasn't done right or assumptions were made it could be grounds for challenging the warrant - and then a ot of the case goes out the window.

This is going to be pretty intense i suspect long before it sees the inside of a court

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

If they can prove that Trump did not cooperate, that's one thing. But it must be proven.

If his lawyers can prove he did nothing to impede anything, then he has a solid alibi.

Everything we are working with so far, is hearsay.

 

They supposedly have a tape of him talking to the writer, his former lawyer is giving evidence against him and has provided a tape as well, and they have texts of him ordering people to move the boxes.

It's not exactly over - but the case against him is strong if they have the evidence they claim they do and it's allowed into court.  There's no two ways about it here, he's in trouble. Without those tapes of him basically admitting his guilt then this gets a lot easier but they are pretty devastating if they're allowed to be admitted.

[Rebound]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

there's a lot of places in that story where if paperwork wasn't done right or assumptions were made it could be grounds for challenging the warrant - and then a ot of the case goes out the window.

This is going to be pretty intense i suspect long before it sees the inside of a court

The Justice Department lawyers knew they had to have a rock solid case, so it’s very likely they brought their A team to make sure all the procedures were followed correctly. 
 

But, again, you’re right, they will investigate and question every detail in an effort to discredit.  There are two problems:

1) It’s not like Trump can do his usual smear job to his excited base. This is a courtroom. 
2) Unlike other Trump cases where he spends until the other side backs down, the Justice Department won’t back down. They will see this through. 

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, Rebound said:

It is not hearsay evidence at all. The case is incredibly solid.  
 

BTW - side note:  You realize that There is a good chance that this will not be over before the next election. Which means it is possible that Trump may become president Before he is sent to jail. We could literally see the first case in history of someone becoming president and then pardoning themselves as they take office  

Or better yet being found guilty, elected, and pardoning himself from jail LOL

" Oh did I do something wrong? Well pardon me! "    roflmao!

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

You mention how the PRA applies to the records of the incumbent President. Trump is not the incumbent President, he is a former President. The records of an incumbent President are not public property because they were created before the person was elected. 

You can read the full act instead of a summery here: https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html

§ 2202. Ownership of Presidential records

The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

Trump was the incumbent when he left office.

[Rebound]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They supposedly have a tape of him talking to the writer, his former lawyer is giving evidence against him and has provided a tape as well, and they have texts of him ordering people to move the boxes.

It's not exactly over - but the case against him is strong if they have the evidence they claim they do and it's allowed into court.  There's no two ways about it here, he's in trouble. Without those tapes of him basically admitting his guilt then this gets a lot easier but they are pretty devastating if they're allowed to be admitted.

Those tapes are evidence of his Conspiracy to Obstruction of Justice charges.  
 

Your suggestion of “Oh, I was confused and I didn’t know the classified documents I took were sitting in my desk drawer” isn’t going to work, as far as him having the documents.  Just substitute the word “drugs” for “documents” and you’ll see why it’s so far-fetched.  He had contraband. He knew he had contraband. He was court ordered to return the contraband. He, and not his servants, not his lawyers.  He had a long time to return the contraband.  
 

I think one aspect is that this material wasn’t merely “Classified.”  It was the super-super secret stuff which could hurt us badly if leaked to Russia. 

[Rebound]

Just now, Nationalist said:

Trump was the incumbent when he left office.

No, the “incumbent” President is the guy who got elected but hasn’t yet taken the oath of office.  Once you take oath of office, you are no longer incumbent. Once you leave office, you are not incumbent, you are the former President. Look it up in w dictionary or something. Or stop relying on news media that tells you these lies.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The Justice Department lawyers knew they had to have a rock solid case, so it’s very likely they brought their A team to make sure all the procedures were followed correctly. 
 

But, again, you’re right, they will investigate and question every detail in an effort to discredit.  There are two problems:

1) It’s not like Trump can do his usual smear job to his excited base. This is a courtroom. 

 

That's not really a problem. If anything given the sensitivity of the case there's an excellent chance that the judge will be very open to his side of things if there are any Discrepancies or irregularities whatsoever with the warrants or how they came to apply for them. And God knows we've seen the FBI screw up before.

 

Quote

2) Unlike other Trump cases where he spends until the other side backs down, the Justice Department won’t back down. They will see this through. 

Again however they are going to be held to an extremely high standard. And let's be clear, some of this critical evidence may not ever make it to the courtroom. There's a very real chance the warrant gets squashed and they never hear about the boxes. Then there is the conspiracy stuff but if that turns out to be lawyers privilege that goes away too before it ever sees a court. Which just leaves the Improper distribution of classified materials, which is a very serious charge but it will be argued that many many people have leaked information to the Press before and that it wasn't a serious breach.

It will be interesting to see. Basically the prosecutors have three rounds in their gun. We will have to see if Trump can dodge them all or not

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, Rebound said:

No, the “incumbent” President is the guy who got elected but hasn’t yet taken the oath of office.  Once you take oath of office, you are no longer incumbent. Once you leave office, you are not incumbent, you are the former President. Look it up in w dictionary or something. Or stop relying on news media that tells you these lies.

Google "incumbent".

Quote

The incumbent is the current holder of an office or position, usually in relation to an election. In an election for president, the incumbent is the person holding or acting in the office of president before the election, whether seeking re-election or not.

 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Those tapes are evidence of his Conspiracy to Obstruction of Justice charges.  
 

True but also evidence of the third charge as well.   the first proves he knew that he had the boxes still and that they were classified, not just personal momentos. So it weakens his 'moved by accident' story.  And the second shows he was actively working out how to best hide the boxes -  remember you can't have an obstruction charge without there being some sort of underlying crime.  If he accidentally moved teh boxes then there's no obstruction.

if ALL they are left with is the final charge of not returning the boxes when ordered then that's much tougher to pull off

7 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Your suggestion of “Oh, I was confused and I didn’t know the classified documents I took were sitting in my desk drawer” isn’t going to work, as far as him having the documents.  Just substitute the word “drugs” for “documents” and you’ll see why it’s so far-fetched

Well that's not accurate.  If it was then biden would be in real trouble. 

What they're going to stick him with is INTENTIONALLY not turning the docs over.  And if you just forgot they were there then that's not 'intentional' no matter what kind of car you store them with