Lock him up! Former PotUS Trump indicted

[Coughdrop addict]

Source? Your wapo article alleges some lawyer advised Trump to seek a plea deal and he declined, not that one was on the table. Given the night and day difference in response to Trump keeping classified docs at his house vs Biden keeping some at his, it’s no wonder he’s not interested in cooperating with political prosecution.

Please. You know exactly why his case was totally different than Biden. He turned them over when the docs were discovered, and BEFORE the government asked for them. Trump refused to comply with the government's request, and then lied that he turned over everything.

Biden didn’t sign multiple certification statements saying that there was not anymore documents present, Trump did. Then after signing the statement they found on security footage that he moved said documents. Biden's documents did not contain top military secrets, Trump's did. He didn’t give back documents torn in pieces, Trump did. NARA asked for records in May 21 and didn’t receive them till Jan 22, and some of them are STILL unaccounted for.

Who do you think you’re kidding? Yourself?

You think 2 years probation is worse than 10 years in jail? And the latter is just the standard sentence for one of the charges dropped/reclassed to a lesser offense in the plea deal.

Do you not understand what a plea deal is?

https://www.newsweek.com/legal-exper...a-deal-1808014

Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, who represented Trump during his first impeachment, said during an episode of his podcast that Hunter Biden's sentence is "just about right." He said that non-prison sentences, including probation or a diversion program, are "fair."

"That's what most people would get for filing taxes late, even though technically it could be called a felony, almost nobody's ever prosecuted for a felony for filing their taxes late, in fact, many people are not prosecuted at all for filing their taxes late, they're just given fines."

Can explain why Trump's prosecutor offered such a sweet deal? It's not like Hunter got to make demands, this is a plea a Trump appointee offered. Is Trump in on it?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Do you not understand what a plea deal is?

Given that you’ve now offered two sources that say nothing about Trump being offered a plea deal by prosecutors, I doubt you do.

He turned them over when the docs were discovered, and BEFORE the government asked for them. Biden didn’t sign multiple certification statements saying that there was not anymore documents present, Trump did. Then after signing the statement they found on security footage that he moved said documents. Biden's documents did not contain top military secrets, Trump's did. He didn’t give back documents torn in pieces, Trump did. NARA asked for records in May 21 and didn’t receive them till Jan 22, and some of them are STILL unaccounted for.

Biden denied knowing anything about the years of docs in his private office and his house, how they got there or what was in them. His attorneys turned them over after they “found” them because they were “filed in the wrong place (lol).” He also falsely claimed there was “nothing in there” despite allegedly not knowing anything about what was, and the “nothing” actually contained highly classified/top secret intelligence. The difference in treatment implies the opposite of what you initially claimed.

[Coughdrop addict]

Given that you’ve now offered two sources that say nothing about Trump being offered a plea deal by prosecutors, I doubt you do.

Because I was speaking about Hunter Biden's deal, not Trump.

I'll ask again, why do you think the Trump's Judge offered such a deal? Is Trump in on it?

Unlike Trump, Joe Biden did not break any laws. Intent matters. Biden didn't have an intent to break the law. Trump did. He actively obstructed, avoided and flouted the law. That is why he got indicted. And even then Trump is being treated like royalty:

-He was never handcuffed.

-He never had a mug shot.

-He wasn’t fingerprinted.

-He wasn't fitted with an ankle bracelet.

-He wasn't jailed to await trial.

-He didn’t have to pay any bail.

-They didn't even take his passport.

Other people that are arrested and charged with crimes far less serious than espionage are either electronically tagged and made to sit at home, kept in jail until their trial starts, or have to put down large amounts of cash bail. None of that applies to Donald Trump because of the R next to his name.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Other people that are arrested and charged with crimes far less serious than espionage are either electronically tagged and made to sit at home, kept in jail until their trial starts, or have to put down large amounts of cash bail. None of that applies to Donald Trump because of the R next to his name.

Meanwhile, back on Earth, the FBI publicly stated Hillary Clinton broke laws relating to the handling of classified info, and, in that same press conference, declined to press charges. The fact Trump was indicted at all already highlights the opposite of what you’ve intended, yet again.

Because I was speaking about Hunter Biden's deal, not Trump.

You claimed Trump was offered a plea deal and refuses to accept it because of his “narcissism.” I asked for a source. Nothing you’ve provided says anything like what you claimed.

I'll ask again, why do you think the Trump's Judge offered such a deal? Is Trump in on it?

Trump didn’t offer Hunter Biden a plea deal.

Unlike Trump, Joe Biden did not break any laws. Intent matters. Biden didn't have an intent to break the law. Trump did. He actively obstructed, avoided and flouted the law. That is why he got indicted. And even then Trump is being treated like royalty:

Lol. 70% of independents understand the charges against Trump are politically motivated. Democrats are only fooling themselves with this drivel. You’ve managed to say the quiet part out loud, though. We can agree Trump is on trial because he is bad, while Clinton and Biden aren’t/weren’t because they are good.

[Coughdrop addict]

I know you want to believe these lies so you'll have something to be righteously outraged about. But eventually you will have to face reality.

There's a reason why Trump was indicted and Hillary Clinton was not. To get an indictment, there are strict rules about types of evidence that are admissible in a court of law. "I hate her!" isn't evidence. Neither is "She makes me cry!"

Meanwhile Trump was found to posses the documents, made sworn statements he didn't have them, was on camera having them moved, and has admitted to all of this multiple times.

So Trump will go to jail and Hillary, Hunter, and Joe, and everyone else Republicans have nothing on but their childish resentment...will not.

Hopefully you now understand how facts and the legal system work.

70% of independents understand the charges against Trump are politically motivated.

Are these the same "independents" that think Trump is a pious Christian and a genius businessman?

In reality, independents see Republican outrage at Trump facing justice as the tirades of children who think the presidency is their toy instead of the highest office of this nation. That's why the voted for the adults in 2020. War, trade, the economy, and foreign affairs are not toys for children to play with.

[alhoon]

Meanwhile, back on Earth, the FBI publicly stated Hillary Clinton broke laws relating to the handling of classified info, and, in that same press conference, declined to press charges. The fact Trump was indicted at all already highlights the opposite of what you’ve intended, yet again.

And why 4 years of Trump's appointed judges trying to lock her up didn't produce anything at all?

[Lord Thesaurian]

And why 4 years of Trump's appointed judges trying to lock her up didn't produce anything at all?

Ask the FBI? Not sure what this comment is supposed to mean.

[The spartan]

And why 4 years of Trump's appointed judges trying to lock her up didn't produce anything at all?

Because they didn't have any proof of intent to withhold the documents, in Clinton's case. The same is not true of LT's glorious God-Emperor who, if the indictment is to be believed, explicitly stated that he knows he should not have the documents but did have them and didn't intend to give them back. They aren't really all that similar of cases, but LT is convinced the law is "one sided" if it goes after somebody he supports. Why the FBI, being directed by a man appointed by Trump, would be part of the "Deep State" out to get him; nobody knows. Maybe Trump is just that horrendously bad at picking FBI directors?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Because they didn't have any proof of intent to withhold the documents, in Clinton's case. The same is not true of LT's glorious God-Emperor who, if the indictment is to be believed, explicitly stated that he knows he should not have the documents but did have them and didn't intend to give them back

As interested as I’d be to know where anyone gets the idea that 70% of independent voters are Trump supporters, Trump repeatedly asserted his belief he had the legal right to possess and disclose what he did to whom he did. He’s almost certainly wrong, but Clinton accumulated thousands of unsecured records containing classified and top secret intelligence exchanged by email. Yet the DOJ decided she didn’t “intentionally mishandle” them, indicating what said voters already know, rather than some kind of “fact check” distinction.

[The spartan]

As interested as I’d be to know where anyone gets the idea that 70% of independent voters are Trump supporters, Trump repeatedly asserted his belief he had the legal right to possess and disclose what he did to whom he did. He’s almost certainly wrong, but Clinton accumulated thousands of unsecured records containing classified and top secret intelligence exchanged by email. Yet the DOJ decided she didn’t “intentionally mishandle” them, indicating what said voters already know, rather than some kind of “fact check” distinction.

It quotes him saying "as president I could have declassified it," and "now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."

“Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this,” the indictment quotes him as saying, citing an audio recording. He also said he could have declassified the document but “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret,” according to the indictment.

There is no such equivalent in Clinton's case. I know you are malding, but the law is the law. I know it seems mean and scary when it doesn't work they way you want, but the whole point of the law is that it doesn't care what you want. 70% of independent voters don't decide the law either. Keep flailing, though.

[Lord Thesaurian]

There is no such equivalent in Clinton's case. I know you are malding, but the law is the law. I know it seems mean and scary when it doesn't work they way you want, but the whole point of the law is that it doesn't care what you want. 70% of independent voters don't decide the law either. Keep flailing, though.

This from the political faction that tells school children the entire country, its laws and institutions are inherently biased because things don’t always work out the way they want. Per your own quotes, there’s no conclusive evidence Trump intended to break the law and he denied having improperly disclosed anything during the incident. The FBI concluded “there is evidence Clinton and her colleagues knowingly mishandled highly classified information,” which potentially violated multiple federal statutes (felonies), and that “in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity” would normally face punitive action. The same accusation comprises the majority of the 38 counts listed in Trump’s indictment.

Nauta’s claim he was unaware of the status of classified documents he handled on Trump’s behalf mirrors Clinton’s repeated insistence she was never in possession of any classified material. While that means conspiracy and obstruction charges for Nauta and Trump, it meant a lack intent for Clinton and her colleagues.

There’s your equivalence, no deep state conspiracy required. What’s understood by the vast majority of people, the unwashed masses who recognize that Trump is both facing political prosecution and is also probably guilty, is he’s being treated like “a person who engaged in this activity” and not someone to whom the DOJ would rather publicly give the benefit of the doubt.

[Kyriakos]

Imo the worst in all of this isn't Trump with his Trumpiness in being as reckless as possible, but that now you run a very obvious risk of soft-banning candidates in the year leading up to a general election.
It should never have gotten to this stage.

[Coughdrop addict]

There is no such equivalent in Clinton's case. I know you are malding, but the law is the law. I know it seems mean and scary when it doesn't work they way you want, but the whole point of the law is that it doesn't care what you want. 70% of independent voters don't decide the law either. Keep flailing, though.

I think many Republicans are just frightened and confused because they assumed investigations into Trump would be baseless partisan witch hunts like their investigations of anyone who slights them. They almost never get past the investigation phase to laying out actual charges, because they know the things they make up will not stand in a court of law.

So when they see Trump actually charged with real life crimes, and facing time in real life prison, they start to get scared. "Hey come on guys. You're playing too rough. This isn't fun anymore."

It's starting to dawn on them that unlike their partisan games, this is dead serious.

[Kyriakos]

I thought the attempt to find Trump legally responsible for the "coup" was also dead serious, but it sort of lead to nothing.
I am sure that if this one ends up disabling him from running, the precedent will lead to worse things to come.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Imo the worst in all of this isn't Trump with his Trumpiness in being as reckless as possible, but that now you run a very obvious risk of soft-banning candidates in the year leading up to a general election.

It should never have gotten to this stage.

I think it’s more of a realization that we’ve been at that stage for longer than we might like to admit. After all, if you’re Hillary Clinton you can blame your server admin for using BleachBit to destroy thousands of pieces of evidence after you get a Congressional subpoena and you denied there was anything in there, and the FBI will decide you were “extremely careless” but not “grossly negligent” because the latter would be a possible felony. But if you’re Donald Trump, carelessness and false statements become evidence of conspiracy and obstruction. At that point, the years long campaign to arrest and jail your political nemesis by any means necessary isn’t much more of a stretch. This stuff is pretty normal in Latin America, so inevitably things have begun to move in a similar direction here.

[The spartan]

This from the political faction that tells school children the entire country.

What in the holy are you talking about? This is absolute, unrelated nonsense.

Per your own quotes, there’s no conclusive evidence Trump intended to break the law and he denied having improperly disclosed anything during the incident. The FBI concluded “there is evidence Clinton and her colleagues knowingly mishandled highly classified information,” which potentially violated multiple federal statutes (felonies), and that “in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity” would normally face punitive action. The same accusation comprises the majority of the 38 counts listed in Trump’s indictment.

The "conclusiveness" of the evidence is something settled in court, obviously. What else do you think a criminal court is for? In the quote, however, Trump appears to know he is showing classified material and knows he no longer is allowed to unclassify it. There is no such quote in Clinton's case. The FBI never concluded that Clinton had any intent to show or withhold classified information. It's not the same, you are just scrambling to get heat off the bogey of the God-Emperor.

There’s your equivalence, no deep state conspiracy required.

You literally require the narrative that the FBI, being directed by a Trump appointee, is operating under the political purview of the Democratic party rather than the rule of law. That's not a deep state conspiracy? You expect the majority of people to believe that?

[Lord Thesaurian]

The "conclusiveness" of the evidence is something settled in court, obviously. What else do you think a criminal court is for? In the quote, however, Trump appears to know he is showing classified material and knows he no longer is allowed to unclassify it. There is no such quote in Clinton's case. The FBI never concluded that Clinton had any intent to show or withhold classified information. It's not the same, you are just scrambling to get heat off the bogey of the God-Emperor.

The “conclusiveness” of the evidence is determined in court, unless law enforcement decides in advance you’re a cool gal and shouldn’t face charges. Again, highlighting the double standard isn’t a fact check just because the newspaper said so. Trump isn’t facing dozens of charges for a hot mic, he’s facing dozens of charges on a similar basis which the FBI previously considered innocent mistakes. To quote again: “Any reasonable person should have known” that exchanging and discussing classified intel over unsecured email with your colleagues, repeatedly denying you ever did so, and having your server admin do a “routine” deletion of subpoenaed evidence is wrong. Yet Clinton is apparently an unreasonable and extremely careless but lovable goofball. Trump is a criminal mastermind. Projecting your own bias doesn’t really work when the majority of people can clearly see what’s going on.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You literally require the narrative that the FBI, being directed by a Trump appointee, is operating under the political purview of the Democratic party rather than the rule of law. That's not a deep state conspiracy? You expect the majority of people to believe that?

I don’t require any narrative nor do I need to convince people of anything. You seem to, however.

[alhoon]

Ask the FBI? Not sure what this comment is supposed to mean.

This comment means that Trump was saying BS and that Hillary didn't do anything illegal.

It's starting to dawn on them that unlike their partisan games, this is dead serious.

Weeell... not really. Trump is an ex-president and holds 25% of the electorate at the palm of his hand.
At most, he will get house arrest. That is if Biden doesn't pardon him just like Nixon was pardoned. And if Biden wants to avoid pushing the USA much closer to civil war, he would do that.
Because if Trump is convicted and Biden pardons him, then Trump is humiliated. And that's worse than a few years of house arrest.

In other news:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-cons...124757041.html
" The Trump-appointed judge overseeing the Mar-a-Lago documents case signaled that she will hold his trial in a court likely to have a conservative jury pool, according to The New York Times. "

How nice of the judge to admit she wants a biased jury.

[irontaino]

Weeell... not really. Trump is an ex-president and holds 25% of the electorate at the palm of his hand.
At most, he will get house arrest. That is if Biden doesn't pardon him just like Nixon was pardoned. And if Biden wants to avoid pushing the USA much closer to civil war, he would do that.
Because if Trump is convicted and Biden pardons him, then Trump is humiliated. And that's worse than a few years of house arrest.

Even if he weren't a former president, he's rich. At best, he'd do some time in some country club prison. The law doesn't apply when you're rich though.

In other news:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-cons...124757041.html
" The Trump-appointed judge overseeing the Mar-a-Lago documents case signaled that she will hold his trial in a court likely to have a conservative jury pool, according to The New York Times. "

How nice of the judge to admit she wants a biased jury.

Nothing like a clear conflict of interest to set the mood.

[Lord Thesaurian]

This comment means that Trump was saying BS and that Hillary didn't do anything illegal.

Still not sure what you mean. Durham confirmed to Congress that the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign was invalid and produced “troubling violations of law and policy,” including “individuals who clearly expressed a personal bias” against Trump, based on phony evidence hand crafted by the Clinton campaign to create a scandal alleging collusion with Russian intelligence. So like I said, you’ll have to ask the FBI/DOJ why it is they came to starkly different conclusions regarding whether to prosecute their intelligence source, versus the subject of their botched Russiagate investigation who is running for President again, for mishandling classified info.