Trump indictment #2: classified documents @ Mar-a-Lago [US / federal]

I haven't got much use for the guy beyond the "bull in a china shop" factor, and I haven't voted at all since Ron Paul 2012.

Nevertheless, I'm sorely tempted to vote for him in 2024 merely for the psychic gratification of spiting the hypocritical $#@!s.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Me too.

It'll be interesting to see Trump's defense if it ever goes to trial. My only question is why didn't he return the documents? It seems like he should've done that. On the other hand what are the chances that something bad happens as a result of those documents? I'd say pretty slim. Compare that to what Biden has done. Forcing private citizens to get an untested, ineffective vaccine. Attempting to start a nuclear war. Taking bribes from foreign countries.

Trump's actions don't harm me, Biden's actions do. It's like comparing jay walking to murder. Still I'd like to hear why he didn't return the docs.
 
It'll be interesting to see Trump's defense if it ever goes to trial. My only question is why didn't he return the documents? It seems like he should've done that. On the other hand what are the chances that something bad happens as a result of those documents? [...]

[...] I'd like to hear why he didn't return the docs.

Speaking for myself, I don't give a damn about any of that.

I couldn't possibly care less - and neither could any of the people prosecuting him (or supporting his prosecution) for alleged violations of whatever rules and regulations he's accused of breaking [1]. Not a single damn one of them. Not really. If they did, they would have been (and still would be) complaining just as loudly about the many and various similar (or worse) indiscretions of Biden, Obama, Clinton (him and her), et al. But they haven't been (and they aren't) - because they're all full of shit, and they all know perfectly well that this is all just a farcically selective and one-sided put-on job. (Anyone who says otherwise is simply not to be taken seriously.)

Whether Trump is (technically or substantively) "guilty" or not is pretty much completely irrelevant to any of this. His ostensible "guilt" is entirely orthogonal to the actual motives and purpose of his indictment and prosecution.

IOW: "rule of law", my right ass cheek - and "no one is above the law", my left ass cheek.



[1] Which is why I am more than happy to leave it to others to squabble with and piss at each other pointlessly about the Presidential Records Act this, and the Constitution that, and the "declassification" other thing, and the blah-blah-blah, and the yada-yada-yada. None of that really has anything to do with the matter - it's all just gingham dressing for the windows in the false-front facade.
 
Last edited:
RazörFist | An Indictment of the Indictment - Razör Rants
It's gonna' be YUUUUUUUUGE
https://odysee.com/@RazorFist:1/an-indictment-of-the-indictment-razör:f

"If that CNN Town Hall were any more of a trap, it would have been shaking it's ass in front of preschoolers on "pride" day!"

73aO.gif
 
Speaking for myself, I don't give a damn about any of that.

I couldn't possibly care less - and neither do any of the people prosecuting him (or supporting his prosecution) for alleged violations of whatever rules and regulations he's accused of breaking [1]. Not a single damn one of them. If they did, they would have been (and still would be) complaining just as loudly about the many and various similar (or worse) indiscretions of Biden, Obama, Clinton (him and her), et al. But they haven't and they aren't - because they're all full of shit, and they all know perfectly well that this is all just a farcically selective and one-sided put-on job. (Anyone who says otherwise is simply not to be taken seriously.)

Whether Trump is (technically or substantively) "guilty" or not is irrelevant to any of this. His ostensible "guilt" is entirely orthogonal to the actual motives and purpose of his prosecution.

IOW: "rule of law", my right ass cheek - and "no one is above the law", my left ass cheek.



[1] Which is why I am more than happy to leave it to others to squabble with and piss at each other pointlessly about the Presidential Records Act this, and the Constitution that, and the "declassification" other thing, and blah-blah-blah, and yada-yada-yada. None of it really has anything to do with the matter - it's all just gingham dressing for the windows in the false-front facade.

What he said.

Plus rep for using orthogonal in that manner.
 
[MENTION=12430]acptulsa[/MENTION] -- We've disagreed a lot on Trump and you seem perpetually mystified on my view of him... ^^^ This rant is my view of Trump, word-for-word...

IMG_2096.jpeg


Milquetoast measures won't beat the devil.

I'm betting on Kennedy Kojones. Trump has never shown the slightest sign of matching them.

And no, I'm not mystified because I can't fathom the narrative that's being spoon-fed to people. I'm mystified that, after all we've seen, people are still silly enough to slurp off those spoons.
 
Last edited:
The difference is what Trump did after it was discovered he had the documents. Unlike the Biden, Clinton, and Bush cases, Trump dragged his heels for over a year after the Archives had requested the return of the documents, resulting in the government's having to get a search warrant. Even after the warrant was executed he is accused of hiding documents and instructing his attorneys to falsely claim that everything had been turned over. In other words, he willfully obstructed the return of the documents and the investigation into their return.

It's notable that the indictment doesn't charge him with the illegal retention of any of the documents he turned over, suggesting that if he had turned over all of the documents he probably wouldn't have been charged with anything. As others have pointed out, Trump is his own worst enemy.

If Trump really thought the documents were his personal records he could have gone to court and had the matter judicially determined. Instead, he concealed, lied, and caused others to lie. Of course, it's much more likely that he viewed the documents, while clearly Presidential Records under the PRA, as his personal trophies that his massive ego had convinced him he was entitled to keep and show others.

Pretty much everything you've said here is factually incorrect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJB
He did not exercise that order, process, or fiat simply by moving them to his private home.
Please point us to the provision in the Constitution that assigns the governance of how classification may or may not occur to some federal bureaucracy.

The indictment doesn't even bother to make a claim regarding classification. That's even more of a loser than this dopey Espionage Act attempt.

The elected President IS the executive branch of government. All authority flows from the President. The federal bureaucracy exists to serve the President. Classification is a tool that exists for the benefit of the President.
 
The elected President IS the executive branch of government. All [executive] authority flows from the President. The federal bureaucracy exists to serve the President. Classification is a tool that exists for the benefit of the President.

EXACTLY. A Federal bureaucracy telling POTUS what he can/can't do is violation of separation-of-powers except insofar as it is attached to some authority that the Constitution grants the Legislature (e.g. the ratification of presidential appointees.) The Federal bureaucracies are literally just gophers for POTUS.
 
Please point us to the provision in the Constitution that assigns the governance of how classification may or may not occur to some federal bureaucracy.

The indictment doesn't even bother to make a claim regarding classification. That's even more of a loser than this dopey Espionage Act attempt.

The elected President IS the executive branch of government. All authority flows from the President. The federal bureaucracy exists to serve the President. Classification is a tool that exists for the benefit of the President.

He's not the president.
 
No worries, Sonny and fcreature are here to set things straight. If only it were a thread about taxation then we'd really get the scoop!
 
Last edited:
Pretty much everything you've said here is factually incorrect.

You are correct on one point. The Archives first asked for the documents on or about May 6, 2021 and the first batch was returned on January 17, 2022. However, 9 months is still heel-dragging territory. Moreover, it's a fact that he's been charged with the acts I mentioned. Of course, whether he actually committed the acts will need to be proved by the government at trial.
 
Whether Trump is (technically or substantively) "guilty" or not is pretty much completely irrelevant to any of this. His ostensible "guilt" is entirely orthogonal to the actual motives and purpose of his indictment and prosecution.

Are you seriously suggesting that if there were evidence that a person who wasn't a political figure had committed the same offenses alleged in the indictment, the DOJ wouldn't have charged him? I think that the only difference would have been that they would have arrested and cuffed him the minute the search warrant was executed, if not even earlier.
 
Are you seriously suggesting that if there were evidence that a person who wasn't a political figure had committed the same offenses alleged in the indictment, the DOJ wouldn't have charged him? I think that the only difference would have been that they would have arrested and cuffed him the minute the search warrant was executed, if not even earlier.

So even as you admit that politically connected people get treated differently than others, you ask if he's inferring that someone not politically connected wouldn't be charged?

What he said was that this cuts at complete right angles to the purpose of the law, or the goal of achieving justice under the law. He said that. Not implicitly. Literally. So, why are you asking a question that was already answered? You know judges won't let you do that, but you figure we're a bunch of idiots?
 
Please point us to the provision in the Constitution that assigns the governance of how classification may or may not occur to some federal bureaucracy.

The indictment doesn't even bother to make a claim regarding classification. That's even more of a loser than this dopey Espionage Act attempt.

The elected President IS the executive branch of government. All authority flows from the President. The federal bureaucracy exists to serve the President. Classification is a tool that exists for the benefit of the President.

The laws he broke are in the indictment. They really are. I saw them but I'm not re-opening it just to answer your question.
My only points here are that he made unnecessary mistakes. I don't want him to lose.
 
Whether Trump is (technically or substantively) "guilty" or not is pretty much completely irrelevant to any of this. His ostensible "guilt" is entirely orthogonal to the actual motives and purpose of his indictment and prosecution.

Are you seriously suggesting that if there were evidence that a person who wasn't a political figure had committed the same offenses alleged in the indictment, the DOJ wouldn't have charged him? I think that the only difference would have been that they would have arrested and cuffed him the minute the search warrant was executed, if not even earlier.

I have no idea what they would or wouldn't do in the case of some supposed "person who wasn't a political figure" (let alone how "a person who wasn't a political figure" might even come to be the subject of such an indictment in the first place). Even granting such a contrived scenario, it would depend entirely on the politics of the situation - so I'm afraid you'll just have to peddle your hypothetical obfuscations elsewhere (or at least come up with some better ones, given that Trump is quite obviously not "a person who wasn't a political figure").

Furthermore, I was not "suggesting" anything. I was quite explicit about what I was saying:
Speaking for myself, I don't give a damn about any of that.

I couldn't possibly care less - and neither could any of the people prosecuting him (or supporting his prosecution) for alleged violations of whatever rules and regulations he's accused of breaking [1]. Not a single damn one of them. Not really. If they did, they would have been (and still would be) complaining just as loudly about the many and various similar (or worse) indiscretions of Biden, Obama, Clinton (him and her), et al. But they haven't been (and they aren't) - because they're all full of shit, and they all know perfectly well that this is all just a farcically selective and one-sided put-on job. (Anyone who says otherwise is simply not to be taken seriously.)

Whether Trump is (technically or substantively) "guilty" or not is pretty much completely irrelevant to any of this. His ostensible "guilt" is entirely orthogonal to the actual motives and purpose of his indictment and prosecution.

IOW: "rule of law", my right ass cheek - and "no one is above the law", my left ass cheek.



[1] Which is why I am more than happy to leave it to others to squabble with and piss at each other pointlessly about the Presidential Records Act this, and the Constitution that, and the "declassification" other thing, and the blah-blah-blah, and the yada-yada-yada. None of that really has anything to do with the matter - it's all just gingham dressing for the windows in the false-front facade.

So even as you admit that politically connected people get treated differently than others, you ask if he's inferring that someone not politically connected wouldn't be charged?

What he said was that this cuts at complete right angles to the purpose of the law, or the goal of achieving justice under the law. He said that. Not implicitly. Literally. So, why are you asking a question that was already answered? You know judges won't let you do that, but you figure we're a bunch of idiots?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.
 
Last edited:
Whether Trump is (technically or substantively) "guilty" or not is pretty much completely irrelevant to any of this. His ostensible "guilt" is entirely orthogonal to the actual motives and purpose of his indictment and prosecution.

If I read this statement correctly (and I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm not), you're saying that it doesn't matter if Trump really did all of the things the indictment charges him with, because the DOJ had purely political motives in getting the indictment.

This assessment, in turn, seems to be based on the following assumptions: (a) the DOJ doesn't have sufficient evidence against Trump to get a conviction, (b) the DOJ did have sufficient evidence against the Clintons, Obama, and Biden but chose not to seek indictments, (c) what Trump is charged with is equally or less serious than what Clintons, Obama, and Biden did, and (d) the DOJ wouldn't go after someone else outside of politics in similar circumstances (and it's not that hard to envision such a scenario).

Suffice it to say I don't agree with these assumption, nor do I think the DOJ was unaware of the political backlash that would result from the indictment, with Trump supporters screaming about "weaponizing the DOJ" and "it's all politics!". It remains to be seen whether the indictment will hurt Trump politically, but it's hard to think the DOJ would have sought it unless it thought it had a strong case. But your views may differ.
 
If I read this statement correctly (and I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm not), you're saying that it doesn't matter if Trump really did all of the things the indictment charges him with, because the DOJ had purely political motives in getting the indictment.

Now, see, right here you are presumptuous. And this is why courtrooms allow for objections. Because everything you say subsequently means nothing at all. It's all built on your very sandy presumption. It's a waste of time.

He did not at any time, if I am reading him correctly, presume to tell you, or me, or anyone else what does or ought to matter.

He only pointed out the thing in which we are all getting our noses rubbed at the moment. Who gets charged with a crime these days has very little to do with egregiousness, circumstance or, yes, even guilt. That's why he says whether that is irrelevant to whether this.

See how the English language works, when you stop parsing it for loopholes and just use it to communicate?
 
Back
Top