Trump conviction

[lawpoke87]

I'm more than a little distressed over judge Cannon dismissing of the case against Trump, which calls into question the legality of a special counsel in any situation. It should be appealed because of just that, but may not be because it might not get five judges votes for overturning the decision on the other parts of the decision. They should be able to appeal the part of the decision that calls into question any appointment of special counsel separately, but that may not be possible???

She is checking a check in checks and balances, that will be bad for the system. Will lead to free rein by any president, republican or democrat. Essentially she is nullifying one of the main checks over the president. I can't believe the stuff she is pulling. She pulled this now, when all the attention is on the assassination attempt.

Not a fan of the legal reasoning. The end result is probably good just from a perception standpoint and where this country stands as far as division. Prosecuting and convicting Trump here after Biden was also found to have taken classified docs and was not prosecuted (on the grounds of being too old) would have created further divisiveness and added gas to those already decrying two different standards of justice.

Let’s focus on unity. Inflation. Immigration. Foreign policy. Debt. Etc. Lots of huge issues need to be addressed sooner rather than later.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Not a fan of the legal reasoning. The end result is probably good just from a perception standpoint and where this country stands as far as division. Prosecuting and convicting Trump here after Biden was also found to have taken classified docs and was not prosecuted (on the grounds of being too old) would have created further divisiveness and added gas to those already decrying two different standards of justice.

Let’s focus on unity. Inflation. Immigration. Foreign policy. Debt. Etc. Lots of huge issues need to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Yes, but doesn't that set a precedent on the view of all Special Counsels being illegal? That's what bothers me. That is way worse than the decision to dismiss the charges against Trump. Allows the decision to be used by Republicans and Democrats, if other decisions continue follow this precedent. First Clarence Thomas, the 'judge' Cannon, who next?

 

[lawpoke87]

Yes, but doesn't that set a precedent on the view of all Special Counsels being illegal? That's what bothers me. That is way worse than the decision to dismiss the charges against Trump. Allows the decision to be used by Republicans and Democrats, if other decisions continue follow this precedent. First Clarence Thomas, the 'judge' Cannon, who next?

It definitely could be interpreted as such. Which is why I didn’t like the legal reasoning. Assume the decision will be appealed.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

It definitely could be interpreted as such. Which is why I didn’t like the legal reasoning. Assume the decision will be appealed.

Some are saying they don't think they can get a 5-4 decision to overturn it, and might try to get a federal prosecutor and new judge in Florida. Instead of dealing with the appeal on the Special Counsel case, because the democrats are more concerned with Trump being prosecuted than the Special Counsel legality.

 

[lawpoke87]

Some are saying they don't think they can get a 5-4 decision to overturn it, and might try to get a federal prosecutor and new judge in Florida. Instead of dealing with the appeal on the Special Counsel case, because the democrats are more concerned with Trump being prosecuted than the Special Counsel legality.

Wish both parties would do the ole “good-good” here with Biden and Trump and send a message to future Presidents. I see nothing good coming from prosecuting one but not the other for what amount to the same crime per statute.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Wish both parties would do the ole “good-good” here with Biden and Trump and send a message to future Presidents. I see nothing good coming from prosecuting one but not the other for what amount to the same crime per statute.

I just want the appeal on the special prosecutor. That is more important than the case against Biden or Trump.

 

[TulsaRulzOSUdrools]

Yes, but doesn't that set a precedent on the view of all Special Counsels being illegal? That's what bothers me. That is way worse than the decision to dismiss the charges against Trump. Allows the decision to be used by Republicans and Democrats, if other decisions continue follow this precedent. First Clarence Thomas, the 'judge' Cannon, who next?

She pulled it out of her rear. It will be overturned on appeal, and she will be off the case. She never should have been on it in the first place. She was asked to drop the case and move it to Miami, where they are more equipped to handle cases like this because they don't have sci-fi there.

She refused to do it.

She cannot cite a SINGLE case saying the special counsel is illegal. SCOTUS has even said they were fine in the past. This is junk.

I think the general public realizes that Trump did a little more here than ole Biden did. It isn't hard to realize that. Unfortunately, for the average Trump supporter, nuance doesn't.

Would you bet money that Jack Smith is sitting on even more evidence that we don't even know about? I would.

 

[lawpoke87]

She pulled it out of her rear. It will be overturned on appeal, and she will be off the case. She never should have been on it in the first place. She was asked to drop the case and move it to Miami, where they are more equipped to handle cases like this because they don't have sci-fi there.

She refused to do it.

She cannot cite a SINGLE case saying the special counsel is illegal. SCOTUS has even said they were fine in the past. This is junk.

I think the general public realizes that Trump did a little more here than ole Biden did. It isn't hard to realize that. Unfortunately, for the average Trump supporter, nuance doesn't.

Would you bet money that Jack Smith is sitting on even more evidence that we don't even know about? I would.

Statutory elements of the crime are the statutory elements of the crime. “Doing a little more” might come into play in the sentencing phase but not in the prosecution phase. After Biden was found to have illegally possessed classified material and wasn’t charged because of his age (he’s three years older than Trump) any prosecution of Trump will give the impression of a double standard. Whether true or not. We’ve have enough division and frankly enough lawfare. Something I’m afraid Trump will continue as payback if elected. Time for this to stop on both sides.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

She pulled it out of her rear. It will be overturned on appeal, and she will be off the case. She never should have been on it in the first place. She was asked to drop the case and move it to Miami, where they are more equipped to handle cases like this because they don't have sci-fi there.

She refused to do it.

She cannot cite a SINGLE case saying the special counsel is illegal. SCOTUS has even said they were fine in the past. This is junk.

I think the general public realizes that Trump did a little more here than ole Biden did. It isn't hard to realize that. Unfortunately, for the average Trump supporter, nuance doesn't.

Would you bet money that Jack Smith is sitting on even more evidence that we don't even know about? I would.

Thanks Clarence, for your warped opinion on Presidential Immunity. Cannon kept it in her court long enough to put it past the election, even if it passes appeal. That's all Trump wanted to give her kudos.

 

[astonmartin708]

Not a fan of the legal reasoning. The end result is probably good just from a perception standpoint and where this country stands as far as division. Prosecuting and convicting Trump here after Biden was also found to have taken classified docs and was not prosecuted (on the grounds of being too old) would have created further divisiveness and added gas to those already decrying two different standards of justice.

Let’s focus on unity. Inflation. Immigration. Foreign policy. Debt. Etc. Lots of huge issues need to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Thats not why Biden wasn’t prosecuted. Trump was prosecuted because he didn’t cooperate and give the stuff back when asked repeatedly. When they found Biden’s docs he gave them back as soon as he was asked.

 

[lawpoke87]

Thats not why Biden wasn’t prosecuted. Trump was prosecuted because he didn’t cooperate and give the stuff back when asked repeatedly. When they found Biden’s docs he gave them back as soon as he was asked

Returning classifed docs one willfully retains isn’t part of the statutory element of the crime. Biden had those docs for years and years. Tried to prosecute others while he was committing the same crime. Key words “willfully retained”. To be fair I assume numerous Presidents and VPs over the year have retained or mishandled classified material. As I said above, draw the line and move on if we now want to start prosecuting politicians for this.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Thats not why Biden wasn’t prosecuted. Trump was prosecuted because he didn’t cooperate and give the stuff back when asked repeatedly. When they found Biden’s docs he gave them back as soon as he was asked.

I personally see a difference between willful, intentional, & defiant refusal to give them back, all the while lying about the fact that you have them. The court does not, and that is not the stated reason for not prosecuting Biden. It was because his memory wasn't good, and the person investigating Biden thought it would be hard to prosecute him in court, and in the public eye because of this.

If you watch Special Counsel Robert Hur's explanation, he says he does not usually go into this kind of detail about his investigations, but found that it was more likely to be necessary in this instance. Thus he explained the aforementioned rationale in great detail.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

didn't Bill Clinton pay HUSH moneyto his rape victims and lie under oath in a court about a bj?

And he is a hero in the democrat party.

different rules, ...

No Clinton didn't pay Hush money. Clinton settled a lawsuit with Paula Jones in which he was accused of exposing himself and sexual harassment. No hush money to keep an article out of the media. No falsifying documents was involved with this. Look it up, and state the facts.

 

[astonmartin708]

Returning classifed docs one willfully retains isn’t part of the statutory element of the crime. Biden had those docs for years and years. Tried to prosecute others while he was committing the same crime. Key words “willfully retained”. To be fair I assume numerous Presidents and VPs over the year have retained or mishandled classified material. As I said above, draw the line and move on if we now want to start prosecuting politicians for this.

So you’re arguing that it was okay for Trump to knowingly subvert a federal subpoena for the return of classified materials? (Which is what he did)

 

[drboobay]

Not a fan of the legal reasoning. The end result is probably good just from a perception standpoint and where this country stands as far as division. Prosecuting and convicting Trump here after Biden was also found to have taken classified docs and was not prosecuted (on the grounds of being too old) would have created further divisiveness and added gas to those already decrying two different standards of justice.

Let’s focus on unity. Inflation. Immigration. Foreign policy. Debt. Etc. Lots of huge issues need to be addressed sooner rather than later.

It is a bit of unorthodox thinking, but what if Biden were to pardon Trump on the federal charges for the sake of unity? It would certainly shake up the narrative.

 

[lawpoke87]

So you’re arguing that it was okay for Trump to knowingly subvert a federal subpoena for the return of classified materials? (Which is what he did)

Absolutely not. However to my knowledge he isn’t being charged with not returning the classified docs he’s being changed with possession and mishandling the same. Not returning when asked is not part of the elements to the crime.

 

[lawpoke87]

No Clinton didn't pay Hush money. Clinton settled a lawsuit with Paula Jones in which he was accused of exposing himself and sexual harassment. No hush money to keep an article out of the media. No falsifying documents was involved with this. Look it up, and state the facts.

A better analogy with Clinton would be lying under oath about his affair with an intern in the White House.

Speaking of Bill, what would we all give to have him running right now ?

 

[aTUfan]

A better analogy with Clinton would be lying under oath about his affair with an intern in the White House.

or hrc distroying emails, servers and devices.
or providing a false doc to the fbi, or ...

 

[Gmoney4WW]

A better analogy with Clinton would be lying under oath about his affair with an intern in the White House.

Speaking of Bill, what would we all give to have him running right now ?

You triggered aTUfan by typing Cl & breathing.

It wasn't an analogy it was a comment on a comment. He mentioned paying hush money for rapes. The closest Clinton came to paying any kind of 'hush money' for rapes, was settling with Paula Jones in open court. Get your facts straight,(aTUfan) before you go off on the Clinton family for the 89 hunerd and 53rd time.(that's probably not an exaggeration.) If he had brought up an equally malformed example of them lying, then I would have brought up your issue lawpoke.

 

[lawpoke87]

You triggered aTUfan by typing Cl & breathing.

It wasn't an analogy it was a comment on a comment. He mentioned paying hush money for rapes. The closest Clinton came to paying any kind of 'hush money' for rapes, was settling with Paula Jones in open court. Get your facts straight,(aTUfan) before you go off on the Clinton family for the 89 hunerd and 53rd time.(that's probably not an exaggeration.) If he had brought up an equally malformed example of them lying, then I would have brought up your issue.

In all my time on this board, I don’t believe I’ve ever responded directly to aTUfan. Pretty damn proud of that btw.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

In all my time on this board, I don’t believe I’ve ever responded directly to aTUfan. Pretty damn proud of that btw.

I get my kicks in a disturbed way!!! 😁

 

[astonmartin708]

Absolutely not. However to my knowledge he isn’t being charged with not returning the classified docs he’s being changed with possession and mishandling the same. Not returning when asked is not part of the elements to the crime.

He is being charged with 31 counts of willfully retaining and 5 counts of obstructing justice

 

[lawpoke87]

He is being charged with 31 counts of willfully retaining and 5 counts of obstructing justice

I would fully back the 5 counts of obstructing justice as Biden complied with returning the docs when they were discovered. There is a difference there

 

[lawpoke87]

The 31 counts would be hard to prove in court, and might not be true. That is why the special counsel decided to drop all charges. I would be fine with 5 counts and most of the charges against Trump.

The willfully retaining charges is where this goes off the rails for me. Hur found Biden willfully retained classified docs. How can you charge Trump for the same offense. The obstruction charges should be fair game.

In a side note, my guess is that Presidents and VPs have been retaining classified docs for decades. Whether purposely or carelessly. Anyone disagree?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

The willfully retaining charges is where this goes off the rails for me. Hur found Biden willfully retained classified docs. How can you charge Trump for the same offense. The obstruction charges should be fair game.

He didn't find that he could prove them in today's present situation though. That's why he dropped the case, even though he would probably have been able to prove obstruction charges. Trump on the other hand could have most, if not all charges proven.

 

[astonmartin708]

The willfully retaining charges is where this goes off the rails for me. Hur found Biden willfully retained classified docs. How can you charge Trump for the same offense. The obstruction charges should be fair game.

In a side note, my guess is that Presidents and VPs have been retaining classified docs for decades. Whether purposely or carelessly. Anyone disagree?

I'm hoping whoever the next non-geriatric administration is, has an exit plan that includes not keeping confidential docs, or at least turning them over to the Library of Congress / DOD as appropriate.