Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[TwiceHorn 31,528]

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Does the Trump transcript about how he "can't declassify anymore" also shoot down any possible argument about how he sincerely believed he truly won 2020 and, thus, didn't have the necessary intent to commit the crime? (Note, I'm not saying that's a winning, good, or even non-frivolous argument - I'm just trying to anticipate the kind of arguments he's going to attempt)

These crimes, unlike some other crimes with which he might be charged (namely obstruction of an official proceeding in connection with 1/6), don't require rigorous proof of some nebulous intention.

793(e) provides as follows:

(e)

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 communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

The required mental states are bolded.

1519 provides as follows, as an example of the several obstruction crimes:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Again, bolded, but there's ample evidence elsewhere of knowing concealment and the intention to impede or obstruct.

But yeah, this shows a) he was fully aware of having at least one classified document (Biden and Pence could legitimately argue that they had no such knowledge until brought to their attention) and b) that it was in classified and not for public consumption and c) that maybe he ought not have it at all.

Edited June 11, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,528]

28 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I read the entire deposition this afternoon. I looked at the middle of it Thursday, and I was surprised at how accessible it is for a layperson such as myself. Smith saying "read the deposition" should be echoed everywhere. 

The document is masterful in generating a clear narrative and weaving together the facts of the investigation and Trump's own words. There's no need for me to offer any commentary, ipse dixit.

I mainly want to convey the brilliance of those who prepared the case and then created the language in the indictment. If one reads it, one cannot but be astonished at how powerful the case is against Donald Trump.

And it's an easy interesting read.

The indictment, you mean?  

There really aren't usually depositions in criminal cases, where you get to talk to a witness on the record before they testify, known as a "discovery deposition."  That's why grand juries are so important:  they are, for the most part, the only chance the government has to put a witness under oath and get their testimony on the record before calling them as witnesses at a trial.

Sure, they can do "witness interviews" that are mostly off the record and not under oath, but under penalty of perjury before the FBI.  It's not quite the same thing.  For the longest time, incomprehensibly, the FBI categorically refused to record or video any such interviews and instead 'recorded them" by a form known as a FD-302.

[Biff Tannen 45,710]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

There's a Trumpy church at the end of my street.  I'm seriously thinking about doing up a flier advertising a free bus ride that leaves from there at 9am Monday, posting it, and having an awesome walk with my dog tomorrow.

Please do this

[Gil Bang 25,997]

3 hours ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

He looks like he'd enjoy facts about cats. No information about said bus trip on their website.

I wonder if he'd enjoy pics of hairy assholes.

2 hours ago, C-Man said:

Bill Barr "weighs" in: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-indictment-documents-06-11-23/index.html

 

The video clips:

 

[Gatorubet 30,286]

8 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I wonder if he'd enjoy pics of hairy assholes.

The video clips:

 

if Barr thinks we will forget his treasonous derailment of the results of the Mueller probe and how he falsely presented the findings to the country, and that this will redeem him in the eyes of everyone, that piece of shit is entirely wrong

[jimmyjazz 46,087]

I find it enraging that Bill Barr now seems to have a clear viewpoint on Trump's behavior, as if he wasn't pulling equally sinister shit all the time while Barr kissed his ass.

Fuck Bill Barr.  He should swing with Trump.

EDIT:  basically what @Gatorubet said in so many words, one second earlier

Edited June 11, 2023 by jimmyjazz

[Brisketexan 105,266]

if Barr thinks we will forget his treasonous derailment of the results of the Mueller probe and how he falsely presented the findings to the country, and that this will redeem him in the eyes of everyone, that piece of shit is entirely wrong

I find it enraging that Bill Barr now seems to have a clear viewpoint on Trump's behavior, as if he wasn't pulling equally sinister shit all the time while Barr kissed his ass.
Fuck Bill Barr.  He should swing with Trump.
EDIT:  basically what [mention=700]Gatorubet[/mention] said in so many words, one second earlier

Y’all get it.
If the republic survives, Barr has cemented his spot in the “villains” chapter. He can’t try to scratch out a “hero” slot at this late date. He can burn in hell with the rest of em.
In a truly just nation, he’d swing from a common gallows with them.

[chainsaw 9,873]

32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

These crimes, unlike some other crimes with which he might be charged (namely obstruction of an official proceeding in connection with 1/6), don't require rigorous proof of some nebulous intention.

793(e) provides as follows:

(e)

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 communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

The required mental states are bolded.

1519 provides as follows, as an example of the several obstruction crimes:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Again, bolded, but there's ample evidence elsewhere of knowing concealment and the intention to impede or obstruct.

But yeah, this shows a) he was fully aware of having at least one classified document (Biden and Pence could legitimately argue that they had no such knowledge until brought to their attention) and b) that it was in classified and not for public consumption and c) that maybe he ought not have it at all.

True, but what if they argue something Nixonian like "when the President does it, it's not illegal" and claim that the Executive power supercedes (or "trumps") whatever statute they are trying to enforce.

Obviously before a sane and impartial judge the defendant would have the "you're not the President" problem. But there are people who truly cling to the idea that it's debatable whether Biden won.

Under those circumstances I think Trump's admission that he lacked the power that a President would have had is powerful.

[Js1 85,519]

 

[Gil Bang 25,997]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Y’all get it.
If the republic survives, Barr has cemented his spot in the “villains” chapter. He can’t try to scratch out a “hero” slot at this late date. He can burn in hell with the rest of em.
In a truly just nation, he’d swing from a common gallows with them.

 

Yeah, OK, I get it.

But, on this very day, he went on fucking Fox News and told the Fox News viewers something that they really need to hear.  Fox News isn't inviting James Carville on.  They aren't inviting George Conway.  And even if they did have Carville and Conway on, they have no credibility with Fox News viewers anyway. 

The fact that Barr went on Fox News and explained that Trump's behavior is clearly criminal is a good thing, and I will celebrate it.  Will I piss on the fat fuck if I ever see him burning on the sidewalk?  Probably not.  And speaking of "pissing on",  that's exactly what he did to the arguments that many Fox News hosts, including Judge Boxwine, have been making.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Gil Bang

[Gil Bang 25,997]

to buttress my point above; here's the bullshit that "Fox News Sunday" viewers were spoon-fed immediately before Barr came on:

 

[tx 3 putt 77,327]

Why aren’t his ex lawyers notes covered by attorney / client privilege ?

when he discusses not responding / getting rid of / hiding the document 

Edited June 11, 2023 by tx 3 putt

[RomaVicta 29,967]

40 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The indictment, you mean?  

There really aren't usually depositions in criminal cases, where you get to talk to a witness on the record before they testify, known as a "discovery deposition."  That's why grand juries are so important:  they are, for the most part, the only chance the government has to put a witness under oath and get their testimony on the record before calling them as witnesses at a trial.

Sure, they can do "witness interviews" that are mostly off the record and not under oath, but under penalty of perjury before the FBI.  It's not quite the same thing.  For the longest time, incomprehensibly, the FBI categorically refused to record or video any such interviews and instead 'recorded them" by a form known as a FD-302.

Indictment. Hey, I'm a layman! Cut me some slack, bro.

[Biff Tannen 45,710]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

 

So less than half the respondents said he should be charged?  That...is not great.

[Pato del Muerto 52,566]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So less than half the respondents said he should be charged?  That...is not great.

I think that’s 48 indy and 35 R which is pretty damn good. 

[henrygandorf 29,194]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So less than half the respondents said he should be charged?  That...is not great.

well over half said yes if you only count the yes and no responses (i'm assuming).

i also assume 17% said some version of "i have no idea what i'm doing dog sitting at computer" response.

[Gil Bang 25,997]

9 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Why aren’t his ex lawyers notes covered by attorney / client privilege ?

when he discusses not responding / getting rid of / hiding the document 

crime-fraud exception.   It was litigated a while back.

[Brisketexan 105,266]

I think that’s 48 indy and 35 R which is pretty damn good. 

Another way to read that is that half of independents and two thirds of Republicans are just fine with Republic-betraying crimes so long as it’s DJT doing them. That…is problematic.

[Pods 7,586]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

So less than half the respondents said he should be charged?  That...is not great.

13% think the documents charges are serious, but that Trump should not be charged for them. 

 

[Red Five 40,881]

38% of republicans called the charges "serious". If convicted he could go to jail for decades, but 62% of republicans are like 

[Pods 7,586]

7 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I think that’s 48 indy and 35 R which is pretty damn good. 

Nope. It's overall and even worse, 47% view this as politically motivated vs 37% who say it's not politically motivated. 

Quote

2. While perceptions have shifted on the severity of this indictment compared to the last, attitudes are stable on whether Trump should be charged for a crime, whether the charges are politically motivated, and whether or not he should suspend his campaign.

More believe that the former president should be charged in this case (48%) and suspend his campaign (46%) than believe he should not (35%, 38%, respectively).

Overall, roughly half believe Trump should be charged, and should suspend his campaign (48% and 46%, respectively). These views are unchanged from April, where 50% said Trump should be charged and 48% agreed he should suspend his campaign.

On the other hand, 47% view the latest charges as being politically motivated, also unchanged from April (50%). These views are mainly driven by Republicans, while Democrats want to see Trump charged and to suspend his campaign. Interestingly, independents are split, with roughly half agreeing with all three sentiments.

Still, the share of Americans who believe these charges are politically motivated (47%) outnumber those who do not (37%).

 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I do not disagree with anything you say. But the question I was responding to was, how can a judge rule on a matter associated with a president after being appointed by that president?  Having a particular judge be completely wrong about legal issues and being vigorously bench-slapped in a rather public manner by the 11th circuit seems, to me, to still be insufficient grounds under existing jurisprudence to recuse the judge.  

Anyone trying to assert fraud claims in federal court under the enhanced pleading requirements knows that just alleging - or even proving that someone did something wrong, or even egregiously wrong - is insufficient to plead fraud in the way many want here.   Using that fraud analogy to the judge, there needs to be more before she will be yanked off the case. That is just my opinion. That is not what I want to see happen, or the result that I would prefer.    So, while I hate Trump more than even Trump haters, that does not extend to me saying that it is easy or doable to forcibly remove her from the case. Even with her dumb Fuckery in her previous handling of the case.

I very much look forward to being wrong.

I’m fully aware there are insufficient grounds for the judge to recuse herself. I’m also fully aware no fraud exists, furthermore there is no evidence of fraud. I was merely pointing out in a world, not of common law, but of common sense, that allowing a judge, that owes her position of power to one private citizen, to oversee the same private citizen’s case in her courtroom is fucking absurd and makes a mockery of the entire justice system. 

[Js1 85,519]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Another way to read that is that half of independents and two thirds of Republicans are just fine with Republic-betraying crimes so long as it’s DJT doing them. That…is problematic.

There’s no such thing as independents. They’re just too embarrassed to call themselves Republicans. But that’s what they are 

[Gatorubet 30,286]

3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m fully aware there are insufficient grounds for the judge to recuse herself. I’m also fully aware no fraud exists, furthermore there is no evidence of fraud. I was merely pointing out in a world, not of common law, but of common sense, that allowing a judge, that owes her position of power to one private citizen, to oversee the same private citizen’s case in her courtroom is fucking absurd and makes a mockery of the entire justice system. 

I know you know Neon.  But others might have read it differently. So my verbose ass replied. 

[nbmishoid 962]

21 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Indictment. Hey, I'm a layman! Cut me some slack, bro.

For about 25 years now I assumed you were an attorney.  Apologies as I can’t explain how I came to that.

[Gil Bang 25,997]

1 minute ago, nbmishoid said:

For about 25 years now I assumed you were an attorney.  Apologies as I can’t explain how I came to that.

It's because he's full of shit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

j/k

Edited June 11, 2023 by Gil Bang

[Biff Tannen 45,710]

Aaaaaand nothing to see here

 

 

[Gatorubet 30,286]

 

honestly, you need a little more time to let these facts bake in. A young lawyer I work with was unaware of the ethical problems of Justice Thomas, and as of Friday unaware with any details of the Trump indictment. There are a lot of people like that. Some of the poll results were gathered the ninth. If some of those responses are before Jack Smith gave his press - and before anyone had a real chance to read the indictment and figure out what that was about, the numbers will be skewed.
While the GQP cult numbers might not change, I will bet you that the numbers will change among independents if you give it a few weeks.

edit: damn voice software changes it as i save

[tchookem 3,905]

bussing them in from Orlando??

Isn't this what they accuse Soros of doing? Weird.

[Degenerate Gardner 4,085]

Barr’s statements are an attempt to ingratiate himself to sane people. Trumpkins already hate him because…well, Trump hates him and and that’s enough. In other words, at no personal cost but with perceived upside. That his statements are mostly true is beside the point with vermin like Bill Barr. It’s a dog and pony show trotted out for consumption. His words mean nothing.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Degenerate Gardner

[Sawbonz 27,583]

3 hours ago, C-Man said:

Bill Barr "weighs" in: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-indictment-documents-06-11-23/index.html

 

Well I don’t think he’s going to be asked back on fox any time soon

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

if Barr thinks we will forget his treasonous derailment of the results of the Mueller probe and how he falsely presented the findings to the country, and that this will redeem him in the eyes of everyone, that piece of shit is entirely wrong

I hope you are right, but there are quite a few people that have already forgotten the Iran Contra cover-up work he did for Reagan and Bush 1.

[RomaVicta 29,967]

Whatever happen, the problem for years has been the electorate. A large plurality are hate cultists (deplorables if you will), another plurality oppose the cult but really don't get what's going on. The last plurality can't name the vice president, their own senators, or the significance of the date, Jan. 6.

The hate cultists form the hate engine that existed before Trump was even a republican. He was just cunning enough to up the volume on the hate, appear more fun than the stuffed shirts he was running against, and seize the reins of the hate engine. 

If Trump gets shot out of the saddle (or a cannon for all I care) the hate engine does not disintegrate. Hate will be magnified by resentment and some other cunning fuckwad far smarter than Trump will be the cult leader. Like Trump, I think that person may very well be another government outsider. Pillow guy? Kare Lake? Tucker Carlson?

I don't see the mob getting behind someone like DeSantis or (vom) Ted Cruz. They want someone that they errantly believe is just like them.

It's Idiot World, Jake. Emotional storms sweeping over the crumbling foundations of a pretty good idea for a country.

[RomaVicta 29,967]

1 minute ago, Grade of D as in David said:

I hope you are right, but there are quite a few people that have already forgotten the Iran Contra cover-up work he did for Reagan and Bush 1.

And his family connection to Jeff Epstein. 

This one good act doesn't clear him of his past, but it was a good thing he did. He staked out a place where others might be able to follow. 

[Red Five 40,881]

36 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Aaaaaand nothing to see here

 

 

So 80% think he should be president from prison? 

Really can't wait for this lovely little moment in our history to be over. You could show these people video of Trump murdering their families and they'd be like "oh well I don't necessarily support Trump murdering my family, but I do like his policies...."

[WhatTheBuck 28,797]

7 hours ago, Texas Jeff said:

Ain't nothing gonna happen....

I was around for the OJ trial.  This will play out the same way.

That’s a ridiculous comparison. The Trump stolen docs case is like if they found the bloody knife in OJ’s house and we had him giving a national interview saying, “Of course I would kill my wife. As her husband I have a right to do that.”

[tchookem 3,905]

That’s a ridiculous comparison. The Trump stolen docs case is like if they found the bloody knife in OJ’s house and we had him giving a national interview saying, “Of course I would kill my wife. As her husband I have a right to do that.”

It also ignores the fact that OJ did actually go to jail... eventually.

[Biff Tannen 45,710]

10 minutes ago, Red Five said:

So 80% think he should be president from prison? 

Really can't wait for this lovely little moment in our history to be over. You could show these people video of Trump murdering their families and they'd be like "oh well I don't necessarily support Trump murdering my family, but I do like his policies...."

This is our concern dude. 

[Red Five 40,881]

I also think it reflects a clear lack of understanding of what's going on here from the deplorables. Like, "Oh sure he can be convicted and get his slap on the wrist for these fake crimes, and then get on with the business of being president".

[TexasEd 8,071]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

Why aren’t his ex lawyers notes covered by attorney / client privilege ?

when he discusses not responding / getting rid of / hiding the document 

 

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

crime-fraud exception.   It was litigated a while back.

Yep. He told his lawyers to commit crimes and that is not covered. 

[TexEx15 17,566]

[Chad Fuck 17,742]

She’s on my freebie list. Mrs. F approves.

[The Dog 44,118]

 

[The Dog 44,118]

(Cannon will still do the trial as of now)

[tx 3 putt 77,327]

Was there a reason given ?

 

 

[The Dog 44,118]

Just now, tx 3 putt said:

Was there a reason given ?

 

 

Dunno I just post the Tweets.

[Red Five 40,881]

"Caught in espionage with stolen classified documents, lied to FBI, owns jet, has intimidated witnesses"

Well when you put it like that. 

[Js1 85,519]

Goodman is overseeing the arraignment. Cannon is doing the trial 

[Gil Bang 25,997]

10 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Get the fuck out of there with this shit.

[tx 3 putt 77,327]