Trumps "immunity" defence is punctured by the first question

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If someone actually believes that it would ever happen..I’m right over the point.

I thought you were avoiding the point.

Nope. You just missed it entirely.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I thought you were avoiding the point.

Nope. You just missed it entirely.

Nope, I know the point of the scenario, my comment was to those who would actually believe this could happen

 

[dudmuck]

Judge Florence Pan started off her questioning of Trump lawyer John Sauer by offering a novel scenario.

“Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and was not impeached, could he be subjected to criminal prosecution?” Pan asked.

After some back and forth, Sauer said, “Qualified yes, if he’s impeached and convicted first.”

Trump doubles down after DC hearing: ‘Most people agree that we’re entitled to immunity’ – as it happened

If the judges rule in favor of Trump, it could lead to the dropping of the criminal charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith

www.theguardian.com

This is not how democracies run. It is how imperial dictators run things. The US fought against this but perhaps the founders had not considered a trump when forming the constitution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again, if you can prove a criminal act against Obama, you are welcome to try. I don’t claim Obama is above the law

Meanwhile, it is Trump facing 91 felony charges

Trump can just get elected. Then murder the 67th Senator who would have convicted him.

 

[rightwinger]

Biden just needs to tell them to “peacefully” go and meet Trump

If he resists…well, things happen

 

[Seymour Flops]

Are you really certain you didn't?

This is not implying I'm being intellectually dishonest? If not, what is it?

I can see how a person, particularly sensitive about his reputation for honesty would take it that way, sure. But, if that's the case, why be so blatantly dishonest with the rest of your replies:

If you expect honesty, it might be helpful if you don't beg questions.

Sorry, that phrase "beg the question" has become so bastardized that few people use it in its original meaning. So, I'm not sure which meaning you mean. Therefore I don't know how to respond. Perhaps an example would further the conversation better than an explanation.

As for what you claim I know. Let me tell you, I know no such thing.

So you are willing to state, without reservation, that Jack Smith's (and all the others?) prosecution of Donald Trump actually is a non-partisan exercise in crime fighting, having nothing to do with the election or the politics of the MAGA movement?

Do you really imagine Smith's subordinates saying, "We believe that Trump is trying to delay the trial at least until the primaries are over," and Smith replying "Primaries? What pri . . Oooooh. Those primaries. Sorry, fellas. The election is so far from my mind, that I often forget there is one. Yes, the defendant in this case is running for office, isn't he? Do you really think he's thinking election politics, when he's likely do die on prison for all these crimes that we're going to prove?"

If that's what you are claiming then my estimate of either your intellect or your honesty is way off. I don't think it would be possible for a person to be dumb enought to think that and still appear as smart as you do.

It has probably something to do with me reading the actual indictments, and being aware of what was presented as evidence to the Grand Jury to end up in those indictments. I expect you didn't read it ,or are really aware. (Please note that I said expect, and not know, since I, unlike you don't presume to know what you know.)

Oh, I've read them many times, looking for one thing in particular. I've asked others to show me that one thing in particular, to no avail. What I'm looking for is a criminal statute, an action that Trump took to violate that statute, and an explanation of how that violated the criminal statute. So far no dice.

And since I know what's in the indictments, I will give you some evidence that I've personally seen. And you can give me a reason why this is not "a legitimate charge"

I've seen a subpoena issued to Trump, to deliver to the DOJ, "all documents bearing classification markings." I've seen the document that Trump's lawyers gave, when they provided the DOJ with some such documents. Stating that they did a diligent search, and those documents were all of them. Then I saw transcripts of Cochrane, a current Trump lawyer, who declared before that Grand Jury that Trump said to Cochrane, he gave them all. He described what occurred in great detail.

Do you mean Corcoran? Not nit-picking, just want to make sure we are on the same page. If Cocoran signed sworn documents knowing that they were false, then you might have a good case against Corcoran for falsely swearing. Has he been indicted?

Not to worry, he will not be. He did not sign the letter, another attorney did. She put in a qualifer that makes her innocent in the eyes of the law.

Here is the story of that statement:

Christina Bobb, the attorney who signed a letter certifying that all sensitive records in former President Donald Trump's possession had been returned to the government, spoke to federal investigators Friday and named two other Trump attorneys involved with the case, according to three sources familiar with the matter.

. . .

When Corcoran first testified to the grand jury in January, he was asked about what happened in the lead-up to the August search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.

Corcoran had drafted a statement in June that attested Trump’s team had done a “diligent search” of boxes moved from the White House to Florida and that all classified documents had been returned. Christina Bobb, the attorney who signed the letter, added the caveat, “to the best of my knowledge.”

If that sounds like lawyering, it is. That's what lawyers are paid for. It is not yet a crime to have good lawyers, who consider all possibilities in case of a malicious prosecution. How could you think that Trump's lawyers drafted and signed a document that would lead to their prosecution?

Notice who is not in that story at all? Donald Trump. Whatever Trump may have told the lawyer, that was relayed as hearsay to the jury, is certainly no evidence of a crime by Trump.

I talked about this months ago, it isn't news. I explained it in detail.

But here it is again as your only proof - so far - of a "crime by Trump."

Then I saw the inventory what was seized during the search. It included hundreds of documents bearing classification markings, some located in his personal desk and even photographs of such documents. Mind there's much more equally compelling evidence for obstruction of justice and other crimes, but those basic facts suffice for the purpose.

Did you see the pictures of how sloppily all the documents were stored? For anyone to claim that Trump had gone over them personally with a fine tooth comb and therefore is responsible for knowing every single document is beyond silly.

Lying, so you can escape your obligation to comply with a Federal Subpoena is a textbook example of obstruction of justice. Now tell me by what legal reasoning that isn't criminal? (Again, note I say legal reasoning. Not "if I can come up with some appeal to hypocrisy by using some false equivalency.") I mean an argument you think a lawyer could use in court.

You're claiming (with no direct evidence) that Trump lied to his own lawyer, and that that is obstruction of justice? Show me any case with that precedent.

Oh and it's not some "legal argument" he can make. Any legal argument has a potential to be precedent. This particular legal argument is not just bonkers on its face. It would be a highly dangerous precedent.

If it is just bonkers on its face, how would it ever become a precedent at all, much less a highly dangerous one? You seem concerned, not that it is utterly meritless, but that it might have some merit for a judge to hang their hat on.

If so, you are right to be concerned. While I, as a layman, believe that idea to be weak, in this case because Trump was campaigning more than leading, a president absolutely does have some immunity for some of his actions. How else could they send troops to die and kill, and rain destruction on civilian populations? How could they assasinate American citizens with drone strikes, or send weapons to cartel members, if they could be held criminally liable years later as part of a politially charged prosecution?

The three judge panel could say "rightly or wrongly, then president Trump intended to show leadership by ___________ action, so it was part of his job, and immunity applies." If this panel doesn't, the Supreme Court might. It would be gross malpractice for Trump's lawyers not to even try.

I don't know that this would be such a horrible precedent. I don't like Biden's crooked behavior, but I have no desire to see him prosecuted after leaving office. Even though of course a Republican version of Jack Smith could find bags of evidence with which to do it. I'd rather Sleepy Joe got away with it all, than for every future president to weigh every action against the possibility of someday being hounded by a rogue prosecutors.

You don't think it's a problem that a guy who's running for president is simply stating that achieving that office puts him above the law from anything he does while in office. (By the way, he's also argued before in different context the office makes him immune for actions prior becoming president.)

Not in context, no. In the context of the most nonsensical prosecution in U.S. history, any argument Trump's lawyers make that slows Jack Smith's rush to interfere with the election is fine by me.

Me personally, I find making those arguments disqualifying. For one thing an innocent man wouldn't NEED immunity from criminal prosecution. Nor would I need the power to self-pardon, another claim he has the dubious honor of being the first to include in his view on presidential power. A pardon by definition requires a crime. You can't pardon somebody who's innocent.

Oh, I suppose innocent people never need lawyers, or need to remain silent, either? Nixon was pardoned, what crime was he convicted of?

You have not succeeded in showing that Trump is likely guilty of any crime that he should be prosecuted for, if not for the political context. Maybe you've got some other examples? If you do ever find evidnece of such likely guilt, my question would be 'if it is totally non-partisan, why wasn't Hillary treated this way for refusing to turn over documents, falsely claiming to have already turned them over, and physicallly destroying evidence?

 

[Rawley]

I recall Gym playing on his phone while evidence was being given in one of his impeachments

Not that you're obsessed with the man or anything. LOL

 

[john doe 101]

The defense claims that a president would have to first be impeached and convicted by congress before they could be prosecuted for an "official act"

A judge just asked if a president could order seal team six to assassinate a political rival, a presidential order for the commander in chief being an official act.

The lawyer again responded that the president would have to be impeached and convicted first.

These people are insane.

Judge asks if a president can order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival

Donald Trump attended a federal appeals court hearing Tuesday as his lawyers argue the former president has immunity from prosecution related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Follow here for the latest live news updates.

www.cnn.com

The insane part is trumps lawyer saying the trial is a political witch hunt then saying a political body should determine trumps fate. What an idiot.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Wow! Seriously?

I'm guessing you never watched his lie filled speech?

"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

Wow! You better go slap a citizens arrest on these insurrectionists, then:

 

[Crepitus]

Wow! You better go slap a citizens arrest on these insurrectionists, then:

The FBI is handling the arrests quite nicely thank you.

 

[Crepitus]

 

[MinTrut]

I can see how a person, particularly sensitive about his reputation for honesty would take it that way, sure. But, if that's the case, why be so blatantly dishonest with the rest of your replies:


Sorry, that phrase "beg the question" has become so bastardized that few people use it in its original meaning. So, I'm not sure which meaning you mean. Therefore I don't know how to respond. Perhaps an example would further the conversation better than an explanation.

So you are willing to state, without reservation, that Jack Smith's (and all the others?) prosecution of Donald Trump actually is a non-partisan exercise in crime fighting, having nothing to do with the election or the politics of the MAGA movement?

Do you really imagine Smith's subordinates saying, "We believe that Trump is trying to delay the trial at least until the primaries are over," and Smith replying "Primaries? What pri . . Oooooh. Those primaries. Sorry, fellas. The election is so far from my mind, that I often forget there is one. Yes, the defendant in this case is running for office, isn't he? Do you really think he's thinking election politics, when he's likely do die on prison for all these crimes that we're going to prove?"

If that's what you are claiming then my estimate of either your intellect or your honesty is way off. I don't think it would be possible for a person to be dumb enought to think that and still appear as smart as you do.

Oh, I've read them many times, looking for one thing in particular. I've asked others to show me that one thing in particular, to no avail. What I'm looking for is a criminal statute, an action that Trump took to violate that statute, and an explanation of how that violated the criminal statute. So far no dice.


Do you mean Corcoran? Not nit-picking, just want to make sure we are on the same page. If Cocoran signed sworn documents knowing that they were false, then you might have a good case against Corcoran for falsely swearing. Has he been indicted?

Not to worry, he will not be. He did not sign the letter, another attorney did. She put in a qualifer that makes her innocent in the eyes of the law.

Here is the story of that statement:

Christina Bobb, the attorney who signed a letter certifying that all sensitive records in former President Donald Trump's possession had been returned to the government, spoke to federal investigators Friday and named two other Trump attorneys involved with the case, according to three sources familiar with the matter.

. . .

When Corcoran first testified to the grand jury in January, he was asked about what happened in the lead-up to the August search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.

Corcoran had drafted a statement in June that attested Trump’s team had done a “diligent search” of boxes moved from the White House to Florida and that all classified documents had been returned. Christina Bobb, the attorney who signed the letter, added the caveat, “to the best of my knowledge.”

If that sounds like lawyering, it is. That's what lawyers are paid for. It is not yet a crime to have good lawyers, who consider all possibilities in case of a malicious prosecution. How could you think that Trump's lawyers drafted and signed a document that would lead to their prosecution?

Notice who is not in that story at all? Donald Trump. Whatever Trump may have told the lawyer, that was relayed as hearsay to the jury, is certainly no evidence of a crime by Trump.

I talked about this months ago, it isn't news. I explained it in detail.

But here it is again as your only proof - so far - of a "crime by Trump."

Did you see the pictures of how sloppily all the documents were stored? For anyone to claim that Trump had gone over them personally with a fine tooth comb and therefore is responsible for knowing every single document is beyond silly.


You're claiming (with no direct evidence) that Trump lied to his own lawyer, and that that is obstruction of justice? Show me any case with that precedent.


If it is just bonkers on its face, how would it ever become a precedent at all, much less a highly dangerous one? You seem concerned, not that it is utterly meritless, but that it might have some merit for a judge to hang their hat on.

If so, you are right to be concerned. While I, as a layman, believe that idea to be weak, in this case because Trump was campaigning more than leading, a president absolutely does have some immunity for some of his actions. How else could they send troops to die and kill, and rain destruction on civilian populations? How could they assasinate American citizens with drone strikes, or send weapons to cartel members, if they could be held criminally liable years later as part of a politially charged prosecution?

The three judge panel could say "rightly or wrongly, then president Trump intended to show leadership by ___________ action, so it was part of his job, and immunity applies." If this panel doesn't, the Supreme Court might. It would be gross malpractice for Trump's lawyers not to even try.

I don't know that this would be such a horrible precedent. I don't like Biden's crooked behavior, but I have no desire to see him prosecuted after leaving office. Even though of course a Republican version of Jack Smith could find bags of evidence with which to do it. I'd rather Sleepy Joe got away with it all, than for every future president to weigh every action against the possibility of someday being hounded by a rogue prosecutors.

Not in context, no. In the context of the most nonsensical prosecution in U.S. history, any argument Trump's lawyers make that slows Jack Smith's rush to interfere with the election is fine by me.

Oh, I suppose innocent people never need lawyers, or need to remain silent, either? Nixon was pardoned, what crime was he convicted of?

You have not succeeded in showing that Trump is likely guilty of any crime that he should be prosecuted for, if not for the political context. Maybe you've got some other examples? If you do ever find evidnece of such likely guilt, my question would be 'if it is totally non-partisan, why wasn't Hillary treated this way for refusing to turn over documents, falsely claiming to have already turned them over, and physicallly destroying evidence?

Good reply.

But do keep in mind that this poster is either a foreign troll, or on the spectrum - Asberger's seems likely - or both, so is not going to be replying as one might ideally wish.

 

[MinTrut]

View attachment 886363

The law is an ass, not an elephant; you need to educate yourself about how it functions.

 

[forkup]

I can see how a person, particularly sensitive about his reputation for honesty would take it that way, sure. But, if that's the case, why be so blatantly dishonest with the rest of your replies:


Sorry, that phrase "beg the question" has become so bastardized that few people use it in its original meaning. So, I'm not sure which meaning you mean. Therefore I don't know how to respond. Perhaps an example would further the conversation better than an explanation.

So you are willing to state, without reservation, that Jack Smith's (and all the others?) prosecution of Donald Trump actually is a non-partisan exercise in crime fighting, having nothing to do with the election or the politics of the MAGA movement?

Do you really imagine Smith's subordinates saying, "We believe that Trump is trying to delay the trial at least until the primaries are over," and Smith replying "Primaries? What pri . . Oooooh. Those primaries. Sorry, fellas. The election is so far from my mind, that I often forget there is one. Yes, the defendant in this case is running for office, isn't he? Do you really think he's thinking election politics, when he's likely do die on prison for all these crimes that we're going to prove?"

If that's what you are claiming then my estimate of either your intellect or your honesty is way off. I don't think it would be possible for a person to be dumb enought to think that and still appear as smart as you do.

Oh, I've read them many times, looking for one thing in particular. I've asked others to show me that one thing in particular, to no avail. What I'm looking for is a criminal statute, an action that Trump took to violate that statute, and an explanation of how that violated the criminal statute. So far no dice.


Do you mean Corcoran? Not nit-picking, just want to make sure we are on the same page. If Cocoran signed sworn documents knowing that they were false, then you might have a good case against Corcoran for falsely swearing. Has he been indicted?

Not to worry, he will not be. He did not sign the letter, another attorney did. She put in a qualifer that makes her innocent in the eyes of the law.

Here is the story of that statement:

Christina Bobb, the attorney who signed a letter certifying that all sensitive records in former President Donald Trump's possession had been returned to the government, spoke to federal investigators Friday and named two other Trump attorneys involved with the case, according to three sources familiar with the matter.

. . .

When Corcoran first testified to the grand jury in January, he was asked about what happened in the lead-up to the August search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.

Corcoran had drafted a statement in June that attested Trump’s team had done a “diligent search” of boxes moved from the White House to Florida and that all classified documents had been returned. Christina Bobb, the attorney who signed the letter, added the caveat, “to the best of my knowledge.”

If that sounds like lawyering, it is. That's what lawyers are paid for. It is not yet a crime to have good lawyers, who consider all possibilities in case of a malicious prosecution. How could you think that Trump's lawyers drafted and signed a document that would lead to their prosecution?

Notice who is not in that story at all? Donald Trump. Whatever Trump may have told the lawyer, that was relayed as hearsay to the jury, is certainly no evidence of a crime by Trump.

I talked about this months ago, it isn't news. I explained it in detail.

But here it is again as your only proof - so far - of a "crime by Trump."

Did you see the pictures of how sloppily all the documents were stored? For anyone to claim that Trump had gone over them personally with a fine tooth comb and therefore is responsible for knowing every single document is beyond silly.


You're claiming (with no direct evidence) that Trump lied to his own lawyer, and that that is obstruction of justice? Show me any case with that precedent.


If it is just bonkers on its face, how would it ever become a precedent at all, much less a highly dangerous one? You seem concerned, not that it is utterly meritless, but that it might have some merit for a judge to hang their hat on.

If so, you are right to be concerned. While I, as a layman, believe that idea to be weak, in this case because Trump was campaigning more than leading, a president absolutely does have some immunity for some of his actions. How else could they send troops to die and kill, and rain destruction on civilian populations? How could they assasinate American citizens with drone strikes, or send weapons to cartel members, if they could be held criminally liable years later as part of a politially charged prosecution?

The three judge panel could say "rightly or wrongly, then president Trump intended to show leadership by ___________ action, so it was part of his job, and immunity applies." If this panel doesn't, the Supreme Court might. It would be gross malpractice for Trump's lawyers not to even try.

I don't know that this would be such a horrible precedent. I don't like Biden's crooked behavior, but I have no desire to see him prosecuted after leaving office. Even though of course a Republican version of Jack Smith could find bags of evidence with which to do it. I'd rather Sleepy Joe got away with it all, than for every future president to weigh every action against the possibility of someday being hounded by a rogue prosecutors.

Not in context, no. In the context of the most nonsensical prosecution in U.S. history, any argument Trump's lawyers make that slows Jack Smith's rush to interfere with the election is fine by me.

Oh, I suppose innocent people never need lawyers, or need to remain silent, either? Nixon was pardoned, what crime was he convicted of?

You have not succeeded in showing that Trump is likely guilty of any crime that he should be prosecuted for, if not for the political context. Maybe you've got some other examples? If you do ever find evidnece of such likely guilt, my question would be 'if it is totally non-partisan, why wasn't Hillary treated this way for refusing to turn over documents, falsely claiming to have already turned them over, and physicallly destroying evidence?

I'm going to split this response in several parts. I'm replying on my phone and it would take to much effort to condense it in one post I think.

I can see how a person, particularly sensitive about his reputation for honesty would take it that way, sure.

I didn't ask you why I find being considered being intellectual honest important. I also didn't ask you how I take it.

I'm asking you, how YOU meant it, if not as implying I'm intellectually dishonest? You claimed you didn't say I was dishonest in the post. I'm giving you the chance to explain the meaning of what you intended to say as opposed to how I took it.

Of all the things my ego demands of me. Striving for honesty is not something I'm ashamed off.

Sorry, that phrase "beg the question" has become so bastardized that few people use it in its original meaning. So, I'm not sure which meaning you mean. Therefore I don't know how to respond. Perhaps an example would further the conversation better than an explanation.

Sure. There's this first one. Where you simply asserted what I believe.

I know… that you know

And then there's this one. Where again you stated your premise as true, without providing anything to back it up.

But, if that's the case, why be so blatantly dishonest with the rest of your replies

 

[forkup]

I can see how a person, particularly sensitive about his reputation for honesty would take it that way, sure. But, if that's the case, why be so blatantly dishonest with the rest of your replies:


Sorry, that phrase "beg the question" has become so bastardized that few people use it in its original meaning. So, I'm not sure which meaning you mean. Therefore I don't know how to respond. Perhaps an example would further the conversation better than an explanation.

So you are willing to state, without reservation, that Jack Smith's (and all the others?) prosecution of Donald Trump actually is a non-partisan exercise in crime fighting, having nothing to do with the election or the politics of the MAGA movement?

Do you really imagine Smith's subordinates saying, "We believe that Trump is trying to delay the trial at least until the primaries are over," and Smith replying "Primaries? What pri . . Oooooh. Those primaries. Sorry, fellas. The election is so far from my mind, that I often forget there is one. Yes, the defendant in this case is running for office, isn't he? Do you really think he's thinking election politics, when he's likely do die on prison for all these crimes that we're going to prove?"

If that's what you are claiming then my estimate of either your intellect or your honesty is way off. I don't think it would be possible for a person to be dumb enought to think that and still appear as smart as you do.

Oh, I've read them many times, looking for one thing in particular. I've asked others to show me that one thing in particular, to no avail. What I'm looking for is a criminal statute, an action that Trump took to violate that statute, and an explanation of how that violated the criminal statute. So far no dice.


Do you mean Corcoran? Not nit-picking, just want to make sure we are on the same page. If Cocoran signed sworn documents knowing that they were false, then you might have a good case against Corcoran for falsely swearing. Has he been indicted?

Not to worry, he will not be. He did not sign the letter, another attorney did. She put in a qualifer that makes her innocent in the eyes of the law.

Here is the story of that statement:

Christina Bobb, the attorney who signed a letter certifying that all sensitive records in former President Donald Trump's possession had been returned to the government, spoke to federal investigators Friday and named two other Trump attorneys involved with the case, according to three sources familiar with the matter.

. . .

When Corcoran first testified to the grand jury in January, he was asked about what happened in the lead-up to the August search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.

Corcoran had drafted a statement in June that attested Trump’s team had done a “diligent search” of boxes moved from the White House to Florida and that all classified documents had been returned. Christina Bobb, the attorney who signed the letter, added the caveat, “to the best of my knowledge.”

If that sounds like lawyering, it is. That's what lawyers are paid for. It is not yet a crime to have good lawyers, who consider all possibilities in case of a malicious prosecution. How could you think that Trump's lawyers drafted and signed a document that would lead to their prosecution?

Notice who is not in that story at all? Donald Trump. Whatever Trump may have told the lawyer, that was relayed as hearsay to the jury, is certainly no evidence of a crime by Trump.

I talked about this months ago, it isn't news. I explained it in detail.

But here it is again as your only proof - so far - of a "crime by Trump."

Did you see the pictures of how sloppily all the documents were stored? For anyone to claim that Trump had gone over them personally with a fine tooth comb and therefore is responsible for knowing every single document is beyond silly.


You're claiming (with no direct evidence) that Trump lied to his own lawyer, and that that is obstruction of justice? Show me any case with that precedent.


If it is just bonkers on its face, how would it ever become a precedent at all, much less a highly dangerous one? You seem concerned, not that it is utterly meritless, but that it might have some merit for a judge to hang their hat on.

If so, you are right to be concerned. While I, as a layman, believe that idea to be weak, in this case because Trump was campaigning more than leading, a president absolutely does have some immunity for some of his actions. How else could they send troops to die and kill, and rain destruction on civilian populations? How could they assasinate American citizens with drone strikes, or send weapons to cartel members, if they could be held criminally liable years later as part of a politially charged prosecution?

The three judge panel could say "rightly or wrongly, then president Trump intended to show leadership by ___________ action, so it was part of his job, and immunity applies." If this panel doesn't, the Supreme Court might. It would be gross malpractice for Trump's lawyers not to even try.

I don't know that this would be such a horrible precedent. I don't like Biden's crooked behavior, but I have no desire to see him prosecuted after leaving office. Even though of course a Republican version of Jack Smith could find bags of evidence with which to do it. I'd rather Sleepy Joe got away with it all, than for every future president to weigh every action against the possibility of someday being hounded by a rogue prosecutors.

Not in context, no. In the context of the most nonsensical prosecution in U.S. history, any argument Trump's lawyers make that slows Jack Smith's rush to interfere with the election is fine by me.

Oh, I suppose innocent people never need lawyers, or need to remain silent, either? Nixon was pardoned, what crime was he convicted of?

You have not succeeded in showing that Trump is likely guilty of any crime that he should be prosecuted for, if not for the political context. Maybe you've got some other examples? If you do ever find evidnece of such likely guilt, my question would be 'if it is totally non-partisan, why wasn't Hillary treated this way for refusing to turn over documents, falsely claiming to have already turned them over, and physicallly destroying evidence?

So you are willing to state, without reservation, that Jack Smith's (and all the others?) prosecution of Donald Trump actually is a non-partisan exercise in crime fighting, having nothing to do with the election or the politics of the MAGA movement?

I tend to be very careful about what I state without reservation. An intelligent man should be in my opinion. Among other things not doing so often leads to conflating opinion and facts. This leads to the begging of questions as well as several other fallacies.

What I am willing to state is that I think Jack Smith is prosecuting Donald J. Trump because he believes that Trump violated criminal statutes. Not because of politics.

That is my position. Nothing more nothing less.

Do you really imagine Smith's subordinates saying, "We believe that Trump is trying to delay the trial at least until the primaries are over," and Smith replying "Primaries? What pri . . Oooooh. Those primaries. Sorry, fellas. The election is so far from my mind

Of course not, that would be silly. What I do imagine is that Trump running does not factor in his decision to prosecute Trump.



I will now ask a question of my own. You content that it's alright for Trump to use what you consider as a layman to be "weak arguments" ,in order to delay the trial. Because the prosecution amounts to "election interference." You further state that you know the charges are meritless.

So here's the question. Why want to delay the trial at all? Being found not guilty for crimes would basically guarantee a second Trump term in my opinion. It would actually give some validation to the argument Jack Smith is prosecuting for political reasons.

So, why would an innocent man. With the funds too hire very competent legal representation. Not be willing too ensure political victory by actually having his day in court to disprove what to you are obviously bogus charges? Why not demand the quickest possible trial date.and defeat the charges?

 

[cnm]

McConnell acquitted him on a techincallity, not facts.

He acquitted him for partisan reasons.

 

[forkup]

Do you mean Corcoran?

Do you mean Corcoran? Not nit-picking, just want to make sure we are on the same page. If Cocoran signed sworn documents knowing that they were false, then you might have a good case against Corcoran for falsely swearing. Has he been indicted?

Yes I do mean Corcoran. I did this from memory. My memory didn't include the spelling of the name and I didn't consider it germane to the argument, to the extent I needed to look it up.

The problem is that Corcoran stated in front of the Grand Jury that the reason he asked Bobb to sign the document, was that he asked Trump of he got everything. You have the "story of what was said" I have the summary of what was presented to the Grand Jury.

Notice who is not in that story at all? Donald Trump. Whatever Trump may have told the lawyer, that was relayed as hearsay to the jury, is certainly no evidence of a crime by Trump.

Donald Trump is in the "story". And not as hearsay. A lawyer testifying as to what his client told him, is not hearsay. Hearsay would be when the lawyer heard someone else relaying what Trump said.

Did you see the pictures of how sloppily all the documents were stored? For anyone to claim that Trump had gone over them personally with a fine tooth comb and therefore is responsible for knowing every single document is beyond silly.

First, " sloppily storing" classified material is hardly a ringing endorsement.

More importantly, I don't need to claim he went over every document. I simply need to be able to state that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is aware of what's in his desk. That contained 3 of such documents.

I simply need to be able to state that it's a lie beyond a reasonable doubt to claim you did a diligent search when finding over three hundred clearly marked documents bearing classification markings.

If you think that's impossible to sell. I will simply disagree.

You're claiming (with no direct evidence) that Trump lied to his own lawyer, and that that is obstruction of justice?

Finding documents after your lawyer claimed a diligent search was conducted and testimony from that lawyer that he did so after you confirmed the veracity of the statement IS direct evidence. The affidavit is direct evidence.

You are conflating the term direct evidence. With "evidence you personally are willing to accept" I believe.

In order to prove guilt you can use direct and indirect evidence, both can reinforce themselves to determine guilt.

You have not succeeded in showing that Trump is likely guilty of any crime that he should be prosecuted for

Again begging the question. Just because you don't accept Trump is LIKELY guilty does not mean I haven't shown that it is likely. It simply means I haven't convinced you.

What I'm looking for is a criminal statute, an action that Trump took to violate that statute, and an explanation of how that violated the criminal statute. So far no dice

You don't think so?

Lying, so you can escape your obligation to comply with a Federal Subpoena is a textbook example of obstruction of justice.

18 U.S. Code § 1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations

www.law.cornell.edu

Here again the problem isn't so much that people don't try to explain stuff to you. It's a matter of you rejecting what's being said when people do.

That's a problem that's on you.



By the way I'm currently choosing not to highlight stuff like the fact that Nauta was named in the indictment moving boxes in our the storage area. Right before and right after Cocorane's search. It's not that I forgot or that it's not implicating if taken together with other facts. It's that I don't need those bits to establish the Beyond reasonable doubt standard in a court of law. And highlighting it would require drawing inferences. Reasonable ones, but inferences nonetheless.

 

[forkup]

Oh, I suppose innocent people never need lawyers, or need to remain silent, either? Nixon was pardoned, what crime was he convicted of?

Did I make that claim? I pretty sure I didn't.

I'm claiming that needing immunity implies that you might need immunity. Which then implies you're aware you might have committed a crime. These aren't inferences that reach the threshold that would stand up in criminal court. Just like pleading the fifth doesn't (another thing he's done hundreds of times.) But nothings stopping me from doing so and frankly, I would dare anyone claiming it's an unreasonable inference.

The same goes for self-pardons a concept the aforementioned Nixon never dared suggest.

if it is totally non-partisan, why wasn't Hillary treated this way for refusing to turn over documents, falsely claiming to have already turned them over, and physicallly destroying evidence?

Simple. No reasonable prosecutor figured an indictment would meet the beyond reasonable doubt standard required to convict.

Ot doesn't require political reasons for a political person to be indicted. It requires crimes that stand up to scrutiny in a court. You just assume it does.

Bob Menendez is being indictment. No Democrat is supporting his assertion its political. Hunter Biden is being indicted. I don't see Democrat's rushing to his defense.



Lastly I'm not direct quoting here because it's minor. You agree with the assertion that presidents should have some immunity. I agree. I've said so in this post.

No president should have absolute immunity. Especially from criminal prosecution AFTER he left office. If you can't uphold the laws you've sworn to protect yourself. You should be liable....PERIOD.

 

[forkup]

Thanks. I did try to be responsive after giving the interesting subject considerable thought.

Thanks. We can agree to disagree.

I agree. A president needs to be able to carry out his duties without fear of prosecution hanging over his head, and like I said, the DOJ reports to the president - in other words, as the memo states, “[indictment] would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch”

Maybe of I give you the scope of the argument the lawyers are making it'll be clearer.

He isn't just saying that a president is immune from criminal prosecution if the order was done to further American interest.

He's saying that even IF you can prove that it isn't. It is the fact that order itself falls in the outer reaches of presidential responsibility.

So you understand what the implications are when as president you can order anything like that?

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm going to split this response in several parts. I'm replying on my phone and it would take to much effort to condense it in one post I think.


I didn't ask you why I find being considered being intellectual honest important. I also didn't ask you how I take it.

I'm asking you, how YOU meant it, if not as implying I'm intellectually dishonest? You claimed you didn't say I was dishonest in the post. I'm giving you the chance to explain the meaning of what you intended to say as opposed to how I took it.

Well, I gave you what I gave you. Take it as you decide.

Of all the things my ego demands of me. Striving for honesty is not something I'm ashamed off.

Then, I wonder why so dishonest about this whole Trump thing? I think I know, and will answer downthread.

Sure. There's this first one. Where you simply asserted what I believe.

And then there's this one. Where again you stated your premise as true, without providing anything to back it up.

"Begs the question," is supposed to mean "avoids the question." It has come to be used to mean "begs that the question be asked," or some such. When you said I was "begging questions," I just wanted to know which of those seemingly opposite meanings you had in mind.