Criminal Charges Against Trump / Trump Indicted / Hush Money Part II

[smartcooky]

The response will be: "This time, plenty of cops and handcuffs will be ready and waiting for them..."

..and they will be armed, together with snipers on the roof of the Capitol building.

But in reality, they won't show up. He already tried that in the New York case, and little more than a pathetic handful showed up to wave flags, hold up placards and otherwise... do nothing.

 

[acbytesla]

This is a man who had fake Time covers of himself made up, framed, and hung prominently in his offices and personal spaces. His primary motivation in life is impressing people.

I see no evidence that he sold or even (intentionally) conveyed any of this information to foreign countries, or ever planned to. In my opinion, Trump kept them for no other reason than to do what he was caught on tape doing: showing them off to other people to try and impress them and/or win arguments.

This is, at a fundamental level, no different from that ANG analyst who leaked classified docs to his Discord buddies purely to prove that he had access to them.

You very well may be right. But just because there isn't evidence of it doesn't mean Trump didn't do it. There are hundreds of documents missing including documents Trump bragged about having.

Obviously Trump constantly feels a deep seeded need to show off. But boxes and boxes just sat in various places throughout Mar a Lago and Trump didn’t appear to be looking at them. Which makes whatever reasoning he had to deliberately keep them when they were subpoenaed truly bizarre.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Trump is like most of his followers, he makes no mental distinction between freedom and a childish "You can't tell me what to do" ism.

Trump (probably) didn't give a **** about or even understand what was in 99% of those documents, he just didn't like being told he couldn't have them and show them off.

 

[Checkmite]

There's an interesting (to me) bit on pages 21/22, a description by Attorney 1 of Trump's conversation with him at one point:

[Attorney], he was great, he did a great job. You know what? He said, he said that it - that it was him. That he was the one who deleted all of her emails, the 30,000 emails, because they basically dealt with her scheduling and her going to the gym and her having beauty appointments. And he was great. And he, so she didn't get in any trouble because he said that he was the one who deleted them.

Note that [Attorney] within the quote is not referring to Trump Attorney 1 (the one giving this statement); it's the name of Hillary Clinton's attorney. It's unclear from this quote whether Trump personally believes Clinton's attorney was lying; but whether or not, Trump explicitly believes it was a good thing for the lawyer to have done in Clinton's case, and was pretty clearly suggesting that his own attorney (Trump Attorney 1) should do the same thing and destroy the classified documents, and that as long as the attorney testified that he was the one who did it, Trump would avoid any trouble for it.

 

[lobosrul5]

You very well may be right. But just because there isn't evidence of it doesn't mean Trump didn't do it. There are hundreds of documents missing including documents Trump bragged about having.

Obviously Trump constantly feels a deep seeded need to show off. But boxes and boxes just sat in various places throughout Mar a Lago and Trump didn’t appear to be looking at them. Which makes whatever reasoning he had to deliberately keep them when they were subpoenaed truly bizarre.

He didn't give them back when asked because he didn't think he should have to. And acquiescing to an order is "losing" to him. I think it really probably is that simple. There's no reason he'd keep boxes of them at his house for espionage purposes... they could've been scanned in or photographed while he was still POTUS.

I know its hard to wrap ones head around just how childish a 76 year old former President can be. <-- I don't mean that as an insult towards you, or as sarcasm

 

[Myriad]

I'm considering the radical hypothesis that Trump took and then attempted to hold onto the documents because he wanted the documents. Not as "souvenirs" or because of orneriness but because he thought he could use them politically in some way, perhaps to embarrass someone he dislikes who's mentioned in them.

I doubt his motives will be particularly relevant to any court case, so we will likely never know.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Trump is like most of his followers, he makes no mental distinction between freedom and a childish "You can't tell me what to do" ism.

Trump (probably) didn't give a **** about or even understand what was in 99% of those documents, he just didn't like being told he couldn't have them and show them off.

No "probably" about it. He never understood or cared about this stuff even when he was president. He was the simpleton Jabba they had to keep informed about momentous world events with 10-simple-words one-simple-picture daily briefings. His bigger concerns were what deep-fried fast food he could order for lunch for free.

 

[lobosrul5]

I'm considering the radical hypothesis that Trump took and then attempted to hold onto the documents because he wanted the documents. Not as "souvenirs" or because of orneriness but because he thought he could use them politically in some way, perhaps to embarrass someone he dislikes who's mentioned in them.

I doubt his motives will be particularly relevant to any court case, so we will likely never know.

I dunno, the descriptors of the documents mostly appear to be things that wouldn't embarrass a person. Nuclear capabilities etc? Who will be embarrassed?

 

[Norman Alexander]

I'm considering the radical hypothesis that Trump took and then attempted to hold onto the documents because he wanted the documents. Not as "souvenirs" or because of orneriness but because he thought he could use them politically in some way, perhaps to embarrass someone he dislikes who's mentioned in them.

I doubt his motives will be particularly relevant to any court case, so we will likely never know.

Stuff he could sell.

 

[jimbob]

I have moved some of the more recent posts about the specific indictment about documents to this thread in USA politics.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=366542

Posted By: jimbob

 

[dirtywick]

every single thing he does is to try and make more money

 

[acbytesla]

There's no reason he'd keep boxes of them at his house for espionage purposes.. they could've been scanned in or photographed while he was still POTUS.

I know its hard to wrap ones head around just how childish a 76 year old former President can be. <-- I don't mean that as an insult towards you, or as sarcasm

We DON'T know this. There are reasons to believe that there are still many missing documents. What happened to them?

I'm not saying that Trump was selling intelligence to foreign countries. Yes, all of this with the documents may just because he is childish. I have no doubt that this likely is a major reason for this stupidity.

But we simply do not know. Trump seemed to sell everything as President.

 

[arthwollipot]

The case has been assigned to Judge Eileen Cannon, the Trump appointee who previously revealed herself as a MAGA dimwit.

How does that happen?

I'm pretty sure it was deliberate.

The case is so clear that they appoint a Trumpist to oversee it so that when she finally delivers the inevitable guilty verdict they can't complain that it was a biased and partisan court.

eta: Arghh ... it's rolling cover so they'll disappear down the page. No doubt they'll be available in many places

Oh the memes are flying thick and fast on social media right now.

 

[The Don]

I'm pretty sure it was deliberate.

The case is so clear that they appoint a Trumpist to oversee it so that when she finally delivers the inevitable guilty verdict they can't complain that it was a biased and partisan court.

I think I can see a couple flaws in that line of reasoning if it's the rationale behind the appointment.

She could influence the case (by determining what evidence is accepted and so on) so that a guilty verdict isn't forthcoming.

If a guilty verdict is forthcoming, the GOP will insist that she was a deep state operative all along.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Can a judge ever overrule a jury verdict?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Can a judge ever overrule a jury verdict?

yes

 

[Aridas]

I could well be wrong, but doesn't the lack of a minimum sentence allow for the judge to engage in slap on the wrist shenanigans even if the verdict is guilty on all counts and the jury recommendation is maximum sentence?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can a judge ever overrule a jury verdict?

Maybe there is a silver lining here (wishful thinking, I know). If Cannon does something as corrupt as she tried last time, she could be exposed and kicked off the bench. She was straight out of the Federalist Society and that looks bad by itself, IMO.

It wasn't just favorable rulings, she "misrepresented" (AKA lied about) some of the documents as part of her rulings.

Salon: “The more we learn, the worse things look”: Court error exposes judge's "obvious" Trump sympathy

Judge Aileen Cannon's descriptions of potentially privileged documents are in stark contrast with the actual docs

 

[The Don]

Maybe there is a silver lining here (wishful thinking, I know). If Cannon does something as corrupt as she tried last time, she could be exposed and kicked off the bench. She was straight out of the Federalist Society and that looks bad by itself, IMO.

She could, but she almost certainly won't because it would set an uncomfortable precedent.

 

[smartcooky]

Can a judge ever overrule a jury verdict?

yes

This is called "Judgement Notwithstanding Verdict" and is only appropriate if the judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict.

With the skyscraper-high stack of evidence against The Fat Orange Turd, Cannon would need to be on unshakably firm ground to make such a determination. Of course, the prosecution can appeal such a judgement, and it would certainly be overturned by the 11th circuit.

I doubt that even Cannon would try to pull a stunt like that, but if even she did, it would be a nailed-on career ender for her - she would likely spend the rest of her judicial career adjudicating the Federal equivalent of parking tickets and jaywalking charges.

However, I do not even think it would get that far. The DoJ already have legal grounds for recusing her from the case, given her corrupt and illegal attempts to delay the case earlier, actions that got her a right-royal botty-smacking from the 11th circuit.