But obviously guilty in the court of public opinion is not the same thing as being obviously guilty in a court of law.
For a lot of people, that is not obvious at all.
Trump the dummy has been indicted. The indictment has been unsealed
Posts
Total:
163
-->
@Double_R
No rational person would look at the facts alleged in the indictment and conclude otherwise.
Again, you undermine the process. An indictment is an accusation without fact, or retort. I argue that if one would "conclude" based on an indictment, they are part of the problem. A complete and utter disrespect for the integrity of the legal system.
But what do I know.
-->
@Slainte
An indictment is an accusation without fact,
That’s not true at all. Indictments are the product of evaluating evidence, facts and testimony under oath.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
That’s not true at all. Indictments are the product of evaluating evidence, facts and testimony under oath.
Incorrect my friend.
Testimony under oath is not fact. It is an accusation. The arbiter of fact is a judge or jury depending on the circumstance in a trial.
-->
@Slainte
Again, you undermine the process.
This isn't the legal process, it's a debate site.
Innocent until proven guilty and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt are principals injected into the system not to govern what qualifies as rational thought, but to ensure prioritization of the protection of the innocent over consequences for the guilty. If and/or when any individual becomes part of the legal process those principals will need to be understood, respected and followed. The rest of us are free to use our rational minds to make valid logical inferences.
Or if you prefer it more simply; Nothing about the legal process says the rest of us are not allowed to think for ourselves.
An indictment is an accusation without fact, or retort.
Without retort? Yes. Without fact? Absolutely not.
The indictment contains statements from first hand witnesses who gave their testimonies under oath, photographic evidence, video evidence, etc. It's not an accusation without fact, it's a trove of evidence resulting from a months long investigation woven together to form a coherent narrative. And in this case, it's a very clear and damming one.
I argue that if one would "conclude" based on an indictment, they are part of the problem.
The suspension of rational thinking is not a virtue, but you are free to your own viewpoint.
No one is arguing the case is over. If and/or when we learn something new that undermines the current allegations we'll adjust properly.
-->
@Double_R
Planted evidence is a fact.
In a court, it is rarely, if ever a damning fact.
photographic evidence, video evidence,
You do know most of the FBI photos released to MSNBC are probably not admissible "facts"....right?
In most legitimate FBI cases, a jury sees the evidence when they show up in court to see it for the 1st time.
when we learn something new that undermines the current allegations we'll adjust properly.
Highly unlikely Trump haters will adjust their hatred when they "learn something new"
What a weird and strange claim to make.
-->
@Greyparrot
Planted evidence is a fact.
Do you have any evidence that theFBI planted anything? No, of course you don't. Because why worry about being reasonable when you can just spout whatever nonsense makes you feel good?
You do know most of the FBI photos released to MSNBC
They were released in the indictment genius. That's not "releasing them to MSNBC". You know this bit you spout this bullshit anyway because you're not a serious person to talk to.
In most legitimate FBI cases, a jury sees the evidence when they show up in court to see it for the 1st time.
Most FBI cases do not involve a former president of the United States.
There is nothing illigitimate about their decision to release the photos. Classic No True Scottsman fallacy.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Judge Jackson said it herself in the Clinton sock drawer case, it is the POTUS’ sole discretion what is or isn’t presidential records and/or personal records. So yeah, POTUS is the final say, UNLESS Congress changes the PSA. It’s that simple.
She did not rule that Clinton had unchecked power to do whatever he wanted. In fact in her ruling she even referenced a 1993 ruling which stated the following;
“We did not hold in that the President could designate any material he wishes as presidential records, and thereby exercise ‘virtually complete control’ over it, notwithstanding the fact that the material does not meet the definition of ‘presidential records’ in the PRA.”
As usual, Trump cultists ignore any part of the ruling that inconveniences their narrative.
But regardless of what Amy Berman Jackson says, which you would immediately disregard any time it doesn't suit your narrative, let's just take a step back and look at how absurd this argument is.
The PRA was passed in 1978 in the wake of the Watergate scandal and one year after Nixon's infamous "if the president does it it's not illegal" comment. It's entire purpose is to prevent abuse by the executive by restricting what the president can deem as his own personal property. And in it, it specifically defines what qualifies as personal vs presidential.
So you are literally arguing that a law which was written to restrict Trump's authority gives him unlimited authority, and a law which defines presidential records really just says "whatever the president decides".
And you reached this conclusion how... Because Vivek Ramaswamy, a guy who studied biology and ran a t-shirt company said so?
Let's make this real simple. You claim the PRA gives Trump unlimited authority to deem any government record he wants as his personal property. Show me the provision in the law that does this. Here's the link. Go.
-->
@Double_R
Most FBI cases do not involve a former president of the United States.
You mean most FBI investigations are not political hit jobs with tainted critical evidence that can't be admissible in COURT after they release it to MSNBC?
Welcome to reality.
There is nothing illegitimate about their decision to release the photos.
It's not illegal for the FBI to throw a case. They did it for Hillary after all.
-->
@Greyparrot
Let me know when you have something to offer other than nonsensical and baseless assertions that ignore reality and the points I just made.
-->
@Double_R
I addressed your points. We agree on some of them.
If you are smart shut your mouth and stop snitching on the elites still around and in power.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The key differences are that Hillary illegally obtained classified documents, illegally disseminated them, destroyed the proof, and then tried to cover it up. Trump obtained them through a normal process that all previous Presidents had done. Usually, NARA gives a president months to go through the boxes to siphon out the classified documents and hand them back. With Trump, they changed the process, gave him 15 days for a handFul of boxes, and then alerted the FBI.
Also, fwiw, with Hillary we actually had tangible proof (leaked emails and eyewitness testimonies) that she did what she did.
Thus far, with Trump (and Biden) we have allegations from government officials and "anonymous sources familiar with the matter".
We can't make any conclusions yet because we (as in the average joe that doesn't have access to the evidence in question) don't have any evidence.
This is also true for Biden's current alleged bribery woes and classified documents debacle. We simply don't know because we can't see the evidence for ourselves.
Feel free to believe what you want. That's just how I see it.
-->
@Slainte
Testimony under oath is not fact. It is an accusation.
JC are you stupid? I didn’t say testimony under oath is fact.
And I think it would be accurate to say testimony under oath is evidence rather than accusation.
-->
@Public-Choice
The key differences are that Hillary illegally obtained classified documents,
That’s a lie. Hillary had no classified documents. She had emails that talked about classified information. You dummy
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This is the last time I will engage with you when you are trying to be rude.
I said an indictment is an accusation without fact.
You said:
That’s not true at all. Indictments are the product of evaluating evidence, facts and testimony under oath.
Thereby it would be reasonable to infer that you consider a "testimony under oath" a fact.
There is no reason to be insulting.
Trump/Santos 2024! Make Prison Great Again!
-->
@Slainte
I said an indictment is an accusation without fact.
This is a ridiculous statement. An indictment is an accusation that has been very seriously considered by a jury who evaluated evidence, facts and testimony given under oath.
Can you tell us why testimony under oath is taken more seriously and carries more weight than just talk?
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Yes, an indictment occurs when someone is formally accused of committing a crime after a grand jury has determined there is probable cause for a prosecutor to move forward with pursuing criminal charges.
-->
@Public-Choice
Hillary illegally obtained classified documents
No, she didn't. She had the necessary clearances and they were sent to her through her email server. It's not a crime to receive an email, no matter what's in it.
illegally disseminated them
Citation please
destroyed the proof, and then tried to cover it up.
As the story goes, her aid after sifting through the messages deleted all of the personal ones not realizing they were supposed to be maintained.
Is that believable? Maybe. Either way it certainly stinks. But being that this was her personal email address we have no proof of what was in those emails and thus we have no evidence that anything classified was deleted. It's one of those frustrating cases where we can reasonably suspect something foul but will never know anything more.
You cannot prosecute someone for that. And when you look at the situation in it's totality nothing else about her actions suggest any intent to do something illegal.
Trump obtained them through a normal process that all previous Presidents had done. Usually, NARA gives a president months to go through the boxes to siphon out the classified documents and hand them back. With Trump, they changed the process, gave him 15 days for a handFul of boxes, and then alerted the FBI.
Setting aside the accuracy of this statement, you began by telling us you were about to list the "key differences" between Hillary and Trump. Why then are you not talking about Trump's repeated attempts to lie to federal investigators including moving boxes around from room to room and even from facility to facility in order to keep them from finding them? That's kind of a "key difference" between these two don't you think?
BTW, since you're playing the "but her emails" card... Do you not find it odd that Trump's own DOJ determined that there was nothing there with Hilary to prosecute?
-->
@Double_R
They just keep regurgitating the lies from FOX News and other right wing liars. Because they don’t possess critical thinking skills.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
An indictment is not considered by a jury until after a trial. An indictment is one side to a story. The prosecutors.
-->
@Double_R
No, she didn't.
You're right, actually. I forgot that she was in an intelligence position at the time. Thanks for reminding me. The illegal actions were holding it on a private server.
citation please
James Comey's speech:
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent....For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
So she clearly illegally disseminated classified information.
nothing there with Hilary to prosecute
Not according to Horowitz...
And I'll say again, we have no idea if Trump was lying or not because it is simply Trump's words against theirs. Without evidence or a concluded report or anything else it's difficult to conclude anything.
I'm waiting for the court case to finish (since it was determined that cameras can't be brought in). Then it'll all be out in the open and we can read the evidence from both sides. Until then, it's just two people making claims.
They haven't even released the supposed tape that "proves" anything.
But I will say one thing. Considering Horowitz and others have repeatedly found the FBI flaunted their duties in recent major investigations, I personally have a difficult time believing they got it right this time around. Just saying.
But, the evidence will speak for itself when it finally comes out.
-->
@Slainte
A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald Trump June 8th on charges related to his handling of hundreds of classified documents that were seized from his Florida estate. The indictment is the first time in history a former U.S. president has faced federal charges.
Trump was indicted on seven counts, according to a person who has been briefed on the case. The charges related to the classified documents recovered at Mar-a-Lago come just over two months after Trump's first indictment in New York by a grand jury on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
Trump was indicted on seven counts, according to a person who has been briefed on the case. The charges related to the classified documents recovered at Mar-a-Lago come just over two months after Trump's first indictment in New York by a grand jury on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
So yes, an indictment is considered by a Grand Jury.
-->
@FLRW
US Grant was arrested for fast driving a horse while likely intoxicated.
-->
@Greyparrot
Grant was arrested on State charges, not Federal charges.
-->
@FLRW
I think the FBI would settle for a state charge. More than one way to skin a cat.
-->
@FLRW
Federal charges are much worse actually since Trump vowed to pardon himself.
-->
@Public-Choice
The illegal actions were holding it on a private server.
James Comey's speech:
Not one line in his speech suggests that she illegally disseminated classified information.
They haven't even released the supposed tape that "proves" anything.
They also haven't released the tapes showing fight 77 hitting the Pentagon, that doesn't mean we're being reasonable by claiming it hasn't been proven.
You really seem to be gravitating towards this nuclear method strategy of 'until it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law it's all meaningless'. That's not how reason works. Unless you are a juror on the case, Occam's razor applies.
But what really makes this thinking dangerous is that unlike any other trial, the court of public opinion (which you are refusing to take part in) will likely decide the outcome of this case. The legal case is damning and the Trump team knows it, so they will do everything they can delay delay delay. Most legal experts agree that this trial will not conclude before the election, and if Trump ends up winning, the federal charges will be instantly dropped. So all of our opinions are really going to matter here.